VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 8/18/13

[Taggure]

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 8/18/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. McAuliffe: 'Gun violence going down' is 'not the issue'
2. Under fire from Bloomberg on guns, Virgina Gov. Bob McDonnell's 'factual' response misfires
3. Support for new gun laws drops since Newtown, most just want laws enforced
4. In Newtown, gun permits surge after shooting
5. Media fail: Majority support 'Stand your Ground' laws
6. Colorado apartment tenants told they must get rid of their guns [Video]
7. Pendley: A Second Amendment victory in Colorado
8. Texas husband shoots 2 bank robbers who abducted him, his wife, police say
9. Director of MAIG says 'don't shoot' if someone comes at you with a deadly weapon [Video]
10. Mayors Against Illegal Guns - Coalition members
11. RTD Editorial: Stubborn facts
12. The current 'gun control' push: A cop's eye view
13. Who needs a gun while working in a shed?
14. Gun-hating postal worker refuses to process FFL shipment
15. Alabama sheriffs offer 'No Open Carry' signs to businesses
16. Who needs a gun at the post office?
17. Loaded means loaded
18. Police: Man points assault weapon at officer on same block where youth is shot
19. NYT OpEd: The iron pipeline thrives
20. Defensive firearm use site


**************************************************
1. McAuliffe: 'Gun violence going down' is 'not the issue'
**************************************************

There is no such thing as "reasonable" gun control.

Member Tom Pike sent me this:

--

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/ll7e2u9

By Kerry Picket
August 6, 2013

Virgnia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe did not want to tell reporters if he supports the passage of an "assault weapons" ban (AWB) in the commonwealth of Virginia. When asked by Breitbart News, he replied, "What I said in Virginia, what we ought to do--and I'm a strong supporter of the second amendment--I'm a gun owner. I take two of my sons hunting and skeet shooting. I think there are reasonable things we can do."

When asked what those things would be, McAuliffe only mentioned background checks.

"I think that anyone that purchases a gun should have a background check. I've gone through it myself. It's a very simple process. It only takes a couple of minutes to do it. There are certain people that should not own guns and with all the issues we've had, and the comparison of Newtown and Aurora, and gun violence going down--that's not the issue. I think I speak for every Virginia parent, when you drive your child off to school, you want to know that your child is going to be safe. And I think a practical, mainstream idea is that anyone who purchases a gun should go through a background check. I think that's reasonable. That's my opinion."

The National Rifle Association has given McAuliffe an "F" rating and endorsed his Republican opponent Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, to whom it gave an "A" rating. McAuliffe did not answer the NRA's state candidate questionnaire. The NRA called McAuliffe's refusal to do so a "sign of indifference if not outright hostility to the rights of gun owners and sportsmen."

In January of 2013, the Washington Examiner reported that McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee Chair, bought his first firearm. McAuliffe reiterated his support for the Assault Weapons Ban and his commitment to roll back pro-gun legislation that would reinstate Virgnia's one gun a month law.

After the shootings, McAuliffe issued a statement calling for a new assault-weapons ban, a rule to curb gun purchases by Virginians to one gun a month and a closer look at the mental health of gun buyers. "First, we must prioritize the diagnosis, treatment, and awareness of mental health issues by recognizing that individuals with psychological and emotional disorders need our help instead of stigmatization. Second, I've said in the past and I continue to believe that there are mainstream restrictions on dangerous weapons that we can agree on including: renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban, passage of bipartisan legislation to strengthen background checks, and re-implementation of Virginia's one-gun-a-month rule," he said.

The NRA notes that McAuliffe also supports a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard capacity magazines. The NRA says McAuliffe wants to criminalize private firearms transfers. The transfer ban McAuliffe wants, according to the NRA, would include between friends and family members.

When asked again if he would support AWB legislation in Virginia McAuliffe said, "What I have always said is as governor, what I would like to get done is to have background checks. That would be my first important step in that process."


**************************************************
2. Under fire from Bloomberg on guns, Virgina Gov. Bob McDonnell's 'factual' response misfires
**************************************************

Mayor Bloomberg and the New York press crybabies are wailing away.

The VAST majority of guns used in crime in New York come from … wait for it… wait for it… NEW YORK!

We in Virginia enjoy safer streets than our counterparts in New York City, the home of gun and people control.

Member Walter Jackson sent me this:

--

From NY Daily News: http://tinyurl.com/ldo44mg

By Dan Friedman
August 2, 2013

ARLINGTON, Va. - This state is good at peddling guns. Now it's peddling lies about New York.

A war between the states erupted Friday, after Mayor Bloomberg blasted Virginia for its weak gun laws.

Bloomberg railed that 90% of all guns used in city crimes in 2011 came from other states - and that more of them came from Virginia than anywhere else, including the weapon that killed NYPD officer Peter Figoski in December of that year.

"We're getting killed, and we're getting killed with guns ... from elsewhere," Bloomberg charged.

The office of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell tried to turn the tables, arguing that Virginia's "homicide and robbery (rates) are significantly lower than New York City's."

McDonnell spokeswoman Taylor Keeney then took a patronizing swipe at the Big Apple.

"We wish the mayor well as he attempts to address these issues within his home state and we hope he won't hesitate to call on us if our law enforcement agencies can be of assistance in ensuring public safety in New York City," she sniffed.

But the Daily News checked the numbers - and McDonnell isn't facing facts.

New York State, with 3.5 murders per 100,000 people, had a lower murder rate than Virginia, which had 3.9 killings for every 100,000 people.

And, McDonnell, who is busy with a scandal over accepting loans and gifts from a businessman, overlooked the mayhem in his own backyard. Virginia's capital, Richmond, where McDonnell lives, had 20.2 murders per 100,000 residents last year - four times the murder rate of New York City.

But Keeney on Friday stood by the governor's claims, and made a city-to-state comparison, noting that New York City's murder rate (5.1 per 100,000) was higher than the state of Virginia's (3.9 per 100,000).

Bloomberg spokesman Kamran Mumtaz said that strong gun laws have helped to make New York "the safest big city in the country," adding, "We'll stop worrying about Virginia's laws when their guns stop being used to hurt and kill New Yorkers."

"New York City has a population comparable to the entire state of Virginia, and New York City has resources comparable to or greater than most states of the city's size," she said.

"If Mayor Bloomberg is uncomfortable with the result of a comparison of Virginia vs. New York City when it comes to crime rates, perhaps he should refrain from comments and statements that lead to such a conversation."

Criminologists trashed Virginia's argument.

"You don't compare cities with states. They are different entities," said criminologist James Fox of Northeastern University.

"Urban areas have higher crimes rates. States have lots of rural areas and small towns that have lower crime rates. It's like comparing apples to fruit salad," he said.

And Bloomberg spokesman Kamran Mumtaz noted that strong gun laws in the city have helped to make New York "the safest big city in the country."

"We'll stop worrying about Virginia's laws when their guns stop being used to hurt and kill New Yorkers," Mumtaz said.


**************************************************
3. Support for new gun laws drops since Newtown, most just want laws enforced
**************************************************

To the "just enforce current laws" crowd, be careful what you wish for. Best to get tons of bad gun laws off the books first.

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:

--

From Examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/kzh7p6b

By Paul Bedard
August 7, 2013

Support for tougher new gun control laws has dropped since the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings last December, with most Americans instead backing enforcement of current regulations, according to a new poll from Rasmussen Reports.

The poll found that the nation is evenly split on the issue of new laws: 46 percent want stricter new gun control, and 46 percent believe the country does not need stricter gun laws.

Support for new laws reached 52 percent after the Sandy Hook shooting deaths in Newtown, Conn.

Rasmussen found that the public's focus is more on enforcing current laws than adding new ones to enforce. Sixty-two percent of Americans continue to believe the United States needs stricter enforcement of existing gun laws.

Twenty-five percent disagree, while 13 percent are undecided.

"When given a choice, 57 percent of Americans feel it is more important for the government to enforce existing gun control laws than to create new ones," the pollster added.

The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95 percent level of confidence.


**************************************************
4. In Newtown, gun permits surge after shooting
**************************************************

Member Jay Minsky emailed me this:

--

This story runs counter to the anti-gun mob's narrative, so I guess that is why we do not near about this from the major networks.. This story is pretty telling coming from the city that had a massacre of children 9 months ago


From The Wall Street Journal: http://tinyurl.com/le9yddy

By Joseph De Avila & Alison Fox
July 31, 2013

NEWTOWN, Conn.˘The number of people seeking permits to buy guns has surged in this town following the December massacre of schoolchildren by a local man, even as the parents of some victims had urged stricter weapons laws nationwide.

Through July 24, more than 200 people in Newtown have received new local pistol permits, according to a review of local records, surpassing the 171 new permits issued for all of last year. Such permits are prerequisites for Connecticut permits that allow people to purchase and carry pistols as well as rifles or shotguns.

The rise in Newtown comes in tandem with a general upswing in gun sales nationwide and in Connecticut, which passed tough firearm restrictions after Adam Lanza shot and killed 26 people, including 20 children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14. It was the nation's worst shooting of young children.

The local surge is especially sensitive in Newtown. The town of about 28,000, approximately 75 miles northeast of New York City, has a sizable population of hunters and sportsmen as well as a base of politically active gun-control advocates that has organized since the Sandy Hook shooting.

"I think people realize that you can't call the police all the time and expect them to save you," said Newtown resident Bill Stevens, 48 years old, an avid hunter who owns more than a dozen firearms. "It's sinking in to some folks that 'I need to take responsibility for keeping my family safe.' "

Others say the surge in guns˘in Newtown and statewide˘is troubling. "If you look at how many guns the Lanza family had in their home and what that led to, it's a recipe for disaster," said Dave Ackert, a Newtown resident and founder of gun-control advocacy group Newtown Action Alliance. Mr. Lanza used a rifle that his mother kept in their home to fatally shoot her before he went to the school. After the rampage, he shot and killed himself.

Connecticut has seen a steady increase in gun transactions over the past decade. The state Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection processed authorizations for the sale of 127,000 guns˘including pistols, rifles and shotguns˘in 2012, more than double the number authorized in 2000.

So far this year, through July 24, more than 91,000 guns were authorized for sale statewide. At that pace, the state will surpass last year's total by October.

Nationwide, gun makers had sales of $4.15 billion in 2012, up 48% from $2.8 billion in 2011, according to estimates from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry trade association that is based in Newtown.

The uptick in gun sales comes even as some surveys show an overall drop in the number of gun owners. In 2012, about 34% of a sample of U.S. residents reported having a firearm in their home, down from 45% in 1990, according to a survey conducted by the NORC research center at the University of Chicago. Gallup polls shows a smaller decline, with 43% of Americans saying they had a gun at home in December 2012, down from 47% in 1990.

"What seems like inconsistent data [between gun sales and gun ownership] may make a little more sense if you realize the bulk of guns that are purchased are purchased by people that already own guns," said Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. Presidential elections˘which can spur fears of a change in policy˘and mass shootings typically result in surges in gun sales, he added.

E. Patricia Llodra, Newtown's chief administrator, attributes the increase in local pistol permits primarily to concerns over gun control rather than a reaction to the school shooting. "Whenever there is a discussion of increased regulation in any aspect in gun control, it sparks an increase," Ms. Llodra said.

Some Newtown gun owners, however, say the shooting has played a role.

"Unfortunately, I think fear after the Sandy Hook shooting has driven some of it," said Ryan Delp, 40, who has lived in Newtown since 1996 and owns several handguns and rifles. He said a 2007 home invasion in Cheshire, Conn., where a woman and her two daughters were killed, also struck a chord. "Obviously both situations are places where you expect to be safe," he said.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut expanded its ban on guns that it defines as assault weapons by adding more than 100 models to the list, including the AR-15 rifle, the model used in the attack˘a move pushed by some victims' parents.

Residents rushed to buy guns before the ban, which took effect April 5. "We were just swamped from January all the way through April 4," said Victor Benson, 55, who owns a gun shop in New Milford. "I've seen a couple guys come to my shop, and the permits were still warm from the laminator."

Newtown resident Donald Casey, 51, said he understands why some might want to own a firearm, but supports stricter gun laws and background checks. "Ever since this incident, people are afraid and want to protect themselves," Mr. Casey said.

The aftermath of the Sandy Hook shooting has also forced some firearm-owning residents to rethink their positions.

"I have mixed views as a gun owner," said Stacey Zimmerman, 39, who owns an antique handgun and a modern pistol, and supports strict gun regulations. "Driving by the school every day makes me question the need or desire to own a firearm."

Others in the town are hoping the debate over guns doesn't obscure the pain of families who lost loved ones on Dec. 14. "I understand the importance of the dialogues to address the issues," said Dianne Orlando, who has lived in Newtown for 14 years, "but get frustrated when an event is made global when, in fact, it is personal."


**************************************************
5. Media fail: Majority support 'Stand your Ground' laws
**************************************************

Member Mark Colleluori emailed me this:

--

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/lk93q8h

By John Nolte
August 2, 2013

Seventy-six percent not only tuned out the Zimmerman story, they didn't even come close to buying the media's phony racial narrative. A new poll now proves the media have lost the battle to smear "Stand Your Ground Laws." By a ratio of 53% to 40%, voters still favor the law, despite weeks of attacks by Obama, Democrats, and their allies in the mainstream media:

A majority of Americans back so-called "stand your ground" laws, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Friday, though their views differ sharply by race.

Voters support "stand your ground," which allows individuals to act in self-defense during a conflict without attempting to retreat, by 53 percent to 40 percent.

But the results break down over racial divides: White voters back "stand your ground" by 57 percent to 37 percent while black voters are opposed 57 percent to 37 percent.

It is unfortunate that everyone who benefits from "Stand Your Ground" doesn't support it:

The fact is that black defendants benefit from "Stand Your Ground" laws--especially because black people are more likely to be victims of crime. In 2009, for example, a black man, Demarro Battle, shot and killed Omar Bonilla (described as "white" by the Fort Myers police department), but charges were dropped because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. Numerous similar cases have occurred across the nation.

In her NPR story, Johnson cites statistics showing that white defendants benefit more often from Stand Your Ground laws. However, that is a misleading approach, because blacks still benefit disproportionately from "Stand Your Ground," at least in Florida. The Daily Caller notes today that blacks make up a third of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" cases, twice their proportion in the population of the state as a whole.

Hispanic support is split evenly, 44% support, 43% against.

The media are having a pretty terrible run after successfully helping to get President Obama reelected. They lost the gun control battle, probably the comprehensive immigration reform battle, and have most definitely lost every single battle surrounding George Zimmerman.


**************************************************
6. Colorado apartment tenants told they must get rid of their guns [Video]
**************************************************

Sounds like something you would expect from public housing in the old Soviet Union. Very uncool action by apartment management.

From 9news.com: http://tinyurl.com/k5f2gkq

August 7, 2013

CASTLE ROCK - Retired Marine Art Dorsch says his Second Amendment rights are in danger.

His apartment complex, the Oakwood Apartments in Castle Rock, sent out a notice telling all residents to get rid of their guns.

UPDATE: Castle Rock apartment's controversial policy banning firearms is thrown out. http://tinyurl.com/l7zgzpv

The 77-year-old retired US Marine Corps veteran sent a newstip to 9Wants to Know saying he's afraid he'll be homeless if he doesn't comply.

The letter went out to residents on August 1 and says they have until October 1 to comply with updated "community policies."

On page 2 is a brand new provision saying "firearms and weapons are prohibited."

"It upsets me very much," Dorsch said.

As of October 1, residents cannot display, use, or possess any firearms or weapons of any kind, anywhere on the property.

"I'm a hunter. I'm a licensed conceal and carry person," Dorsch said.

Dorsch says the guns, which he keeps securely locked in a safe, make him feel secure in his home.

"They want to take them all away from me. They say I can't live here," he said.

Dorsh says apartment managers told him to give up the guns and stay, give notice and move out voluntarily, or be forced to move out if he doesn't comply with the new policy.

Nobody answered the door at the apartment office on Tuesday afternoon.

When reached by phone, Brooke Young, Ross Management Group regional manager, said "It's our policy not to comment to the news media," before hanging up.

"The best thing this tenant can do is either move out or get rid of the guns," 9NEWS legal analyst Scott Robinson said.

Robinson says, in most cases, courts have supported the rights of landlords to impose "reasonable regulations" on tenants.

"The question is: is an outright ban of firearms reasonable in light of the US Constitution?" Robinson said.

Dorsch says the issue goes beyond the Second Amendment.

"I'm vulnerable. I'm not safe," Dorsch said.

If he loses his guns, Dorsch says he loses so much more.

"My freedom," Dorsch said. "Yeah it's emotional. Because I don't think it's fair."

Dorsch says he barely has enough money to live, never mind hire a lawyer.

So, if he's not able to fight the new rules, he says he'll have no choice but to leave his guns with a friend who lives 30 miles away.

He hopes he'll still be able to go hunting, as he has every year since 1953.


**************************************************
7. Pendley: A Second Amendment victory in Colorado
**************************************************

Note that this ruling doesn't necessarily apply here in Virginia. HOWEVER, we have also not had any issues here. The truth is that the Post Office's public parking lot gun-ban won't stick here or anywhere else, even under the D.C. vs Heller decision. Parking lots are simply not a "sensitive place."

Member Chuck Nesby sent me this:

--

From The Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/kfa6dkk

By William Perry Pendley
August 5, 2013

In July, a Colorado federal district court struck down a U.S. Postal Service regulation barring a rural man from possessing a firearm in his car when he parks in the post office parking lot to retrieve and send his mail. The news made headlines across the country as one of the first favorable federal court rulings after President Obama declared war on the Second Amendment in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shootings tragedy.

Tab Bonidy drives miles from his home to collect his mail in Avon, but because he regularly carries a concealed handgun pursuant to Colorado law, he is barred by a Postal Service regulation, adopted in 1972, from parking in the post office parking lot and entering the building itself. In 2010, after landmark rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Mr. Bonidy asked the Postal Service whether he would be prosecuted if he carried his firearm into the post office or locked it in his vehicle in the post office parking lot. The Postal Service's top lawyer wrote back that "carrying firearms, openly or concealed, onto any real property under the charge and control of the Postal Service" is still barred by Postal Service regulation.

On two separate occasions, the district court denied attempts by the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss Mr. Bonidy's lawsuit, and during oral arguments, sharply challenged the federal lawyer's assertion that the Avon Post Office parking lot is a "sensitive" place that allows the Postal Service to curtail Second Amendment rights. Then, last month during oral arguments on cross motions for summary judgment, the judge upbraided the federal lawyer, saying, "There's a difference between all of this broad, general restriction and an individual situation. You know, this is more of what we are seeing … regulatory authority prevails, period. It isn't going to happen [here]."

Days later, the district court issued its ruling. Because it was bound by recent precedent from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit regarding the right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home, the district court addressed whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry openly outside the home. The district court concluded that the Supreme Court in Heller upheld a constitutional right to carry firearms openly outside the home for self-defense, subject only to reasonable public safety-related restrictions. Just what are those restrictions?

As to the interior of the Avon Post Office, the district court found it a "sensitive" place and. therefore, the Postal Service's regulation is presumptively valid there. The matter of the public parking lot, however, is another story. Government ownership alone is not sufficient to restrict constitutional liberties, the district court held. The lot is not a government building, it's not a place where government business is conducted, nor is there meaningful limitation on those who enter it. In fact, the Postal Service lot is little different from other nearby public lots.

The Postal Service justifies its regulation with "a history of firearm violence on postal property based on a study of workplace violence [on the basis of which it] makes broad, conclusory statements." That rationale, which involves "administrative convenience and saving expenses," might be sufficient, said the district court, except that the case involves Mr. Bonidy's right to protect himself, "the core concern of the Second Amendment."

"In sum," ended the district court, "openly carrying a firearm outside the home is a liberty protected by the Second Amendment. The parking lot adjacent to the building is not a sensitive place and the [Postal Service] failed to show that an absolute ban on firearms is substantially related to [its] important public safety objective." Thus, it is "unconstitutional."

The expected appeal by federal lawyers is due in early September at the 10th Circuit, the next stop in a case likely to reach the Supreme Court.


**************************************************
8. Texas husband shoots 2 bank robbers who abducted him, his wife, police say
**************************************************

Having a gun within reach can save your life.

Fred Tippett emailed me this:

--

From Fox News: http://tinyurl.com/l8qb48q

August 4, 2013

COLUMBUS, Texas Authorities say a Houston-area man turned the tables on two bank robbery suspects who had abducted him and his wife by pulling a gun on the unsuspecting duo and shooting them both, killing one of them.

The suspects apparently knew that the woman worked at the First National Bank of Eagle Lake in Columbus, and they abducted her and her husband at gunpoint at their residence north of the city on Thursday and drove them back to the bank, Columbus County Sheriff's Sgt. Andrew Weido told Houston television station KHOU.

The suspects forced the woman to taken an undisclosed amount of money from the bank, then forced the husband to drive them in his truck down Highway 71, Weido said. It was then that the husband grabbed a gun that was in the truck and fired at the suspects, he said.

Officers who responded to a 911 call found both suspects lying on the ground near the truck suffering from gunshot wounds. They were taken to different hospitals, where one of them was pronounced dead. The other suspect remained hospitalized in critical condition Friday. Columbus County authorities didn't respond to calls for comment Saturday.

Investigators didn't disclose the couple's names or say how much money the woman was forced to take from the bank. Investigators have not released the name of the couple or how much money they were forced to take out.

Those who know the couple said that the community has their back.

"I'm sure that they're both going to be upset for a while," resident Brenda Buehler said. "It's a frightening thing to have happen, but I think everybody's going to tell them good job."


**************************************************
9. Director of MAIG says 'don't shoot' if someone comes at you with a deadly weapon [Video]
**************************************************

More crazy advice from people who don't know what end a bullet comes out of a gun. If Bloomberg gets attacked, I expect his security team to either talk, fight with their fists, or run. According to MAIG, they would have no need to carry guns when they have fists and feet (to run).

EM Bob Schmidt emailed me this:

--

Their "advice" could get a good person killed.

If there is time - I WILL try and talk them out of it. I will aim my handgun at them, and in a commanding voice say "Drop the weapon! Drop the weapon NOW!".


From freebeacon.com: http://tinyurl.com/k9vjeoj

August 2, 2013

'You fight them, you run away, you deescalate the situation'

Executive Director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Mark Glaze gave some ambiguous and potentially dangerous self defense advice Friday on "Hardball."

Glaze, speaking in opposition to "Stand Your Ground" laws, said in a circumstance where someone "comes at you" with an axe handle one should attempt to either "talk," "fight with your fists," "run away," or "deescalate the situation," but not shoot the attacker:

MARK GLAZE: Very often somebody will come at you. They might want to have a fistfight. They might come at you with an axe handle.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Would you consider the guy with the axe handle armed or not?

MARK GLAZE: Not with a gun.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I would consider him armed [laughter].

MARK GLAZE: I have a word for him. I grew up in Colorado where my dad was a gun dealer, and a guy who shoots somebody who has anything other than a gun when they could have done something else like talk or fight with their fists

CHRIS MATTHEWS: How do you talk to a guy with an axe handle?

MARK GLAZE: Well, you fight him. You run away. You deescalate the situation.
An axe handle, depending on the state and manner of use, can legally constitute a deadly weapon.

Matthews went on to ask Glaze to cite another case outside of the Zimmerman trial where "Stand Your Ground" laws have had deleterious consequences, despite Zimmerman's defense having little to do with "Stand Your Ground."
Glaze dodged the question, replying he did not want to provide a specific instance.


**************************************************
10. Mayors Against Illegal Guns - Coalition members
**************************************************

These Virginia mayors don't seem to have any qualms about belonging to an organization populated with a bunch of crooks.

Mark Colleluori sent me this:

--

Here are our Virginia "Anti-Bill-Of-Rights" Mayors


From mayorsagainstillegalguns.org: http://tinyurl.com/yc3zkz8

Virginia:

Mayor William Euille
Alexandria, VA

Mayor Faye Prichard
Ashland, VA

Mayor Ron Rordam
Blacksburg, VA

Mayor Satyendra Singh Huja
Charlottesville, VA

Mayor McKinley Price
Newport News, VA

Mayor Paul D. Fraim
Norfolk, VA

Mayor Brian A. Moore
Petersburg, VA

Mayor Robert W. Lazaro Jr
Purcellville, VA

Mayor Dwight C. Jones
Richmond, VA

Mayor David A.Bowers
Roanoke, VA

Mayor William Sessoms Jr.
Virginia Beach, VA

Mayor Walter J. Mason
Waverly, VA


**************************************************
11. RTD Editorial: Stubborn facts
**************************************************

Roy Scherer emailed me this:

--

From Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/kafnsbt

August 6, 2013

These are trying times for advocates of gun control. Facts stubbornly refuse to go their way.

Climate-change denialists are wrong, but at least they can take comfort in a statistical anomaly. Despite increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the world has seen a 15-year pause in global warming.

That is more consistent with their view than with the anthropogenic thesis.
Advocates of gun control are not so lucky. In recent years sales of guns and ammo have gone through the roof. According to standard liberal doctrine, this should have led to an orgy of bloodshed.

It hasn't. In fact, precisely the opposite has occurred. More guns have been followed by less gun crime. As a Sunday Times-Dispatch news article reported, "total firearm sales in Virginia have risen a staggering 101 percent from 2006 to 2012, while gun-related crime has dropped 28 percent during that period."

This does not mean the added guns caused the reduction in crime. It does mean, however, that the liberal claim that more guns leads to more crime is wrong.

That is not exactly new information, either. Time after time, progressives have greeted expansion of gun rights with dire warnings that the expansion would turn society into the Wild West, and the streets would run red with blood. They said so after the Supreme Court's two major gun-rights rulings in Heller and McDonald. They said so after the expansion of concealed-carry laws across the country. They said so after Virginia eased restrictions on guns in bars and restaurants.

In every case, gun-related crimes fell.

Foes of gun rights might point out, correctly, that the percentage of Americans who own firearms is declining - therefore, the increase in gun sales is owing to existing owners who are buying more guns, not more people buying a gun for the first time. But this merely underscores the point advocates of gun rights have been making all along: It's the person that presents the threat - not the gun.


**************************************************
12. The current 'gun control' push: A cop's eye view
**************************************************

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:

--

From jpfo.org: http://tinyurl.com/n7tmzne

By Massad Ayoob

First, a word of explanation. The reason "gun control" is in quotes in the title and in this sentence is because, for a very long time, the prohibitionists have made it more about control of the general public than about controlling criminal misuse of lethal weapons. Of late, the prohibitionists have played their word-spin again, changing the name of their product to "firearms safety" and "firearms responsibility."

Um ... sorry. You'll have to look long and hard to find, among the ranks of the prohibitionists, anyone who has actually taught a firearms safety class. Since 1871, the leading firearms safety training entity in the United States and probably the world has been the National Rifle Association, an organization which has been venomously demonized by those who would now usurp all they've done to further the disarming of American citizens.

But, enough of partisan semantics. I've been asked by the editorial staff to write this particular article because, even though I'm the Firearms Editor and not the Justice System Editor, I became by default the "resident cop" at Backwoods Home. I recently passed the 39 year mark of carrying a badge and a gun for the protection of the public. (I did it part time, which is why I didn't burn out from it and lasted this long.) Nineteen of those years were spent as chair of the Firearms and Deadly Force Training Committee for ASLET, the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers, and a partially overlapping 10 years as a member of the Advisory Board of ILEETA, the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association. I've also taught for IALEFI, the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, both stateside and abroad. It's safe to say that the decades have given me a pretty good handle on what cops think about guns ... and about "gun control."

More than 700 police instructors attended the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers conference.

The view from the street

In mid-April of 2013, roughly four months after the atrocity at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut that triggered the strongest politico-media push for "gun control" in our nation's history, I was at the annual conference of the above-mentioned ILEETA, attended by more than 700 police trainers from around the nation and the world. I was one of many attending a panel discussion on Active Shooter Response when something interesting happened.

Since the Columbine High School atrocity in 1999, mass murders by gunfire have become known as "active shooter" events. It was pointed out by some of the panelists that this is an unfortunate term; what was really under discussion was immediate response to mass murder. "Active shooter," historically, has meant someone lawfully using firearms, from a hunter sighting in for deer season to a target shooter at a match to a member of a police department pistol team.

Partway through the discussion, a panel member looked down at a text message on his smartphone, and raised his hand to interrupt. He announced that he had just received a message that the Universal Background Check bill had failed to pass in the United States Senate.

And, spontaneously, the packed classroom of police instructors burst into applause.

While I was at ILEETA, I couldn't help but notice that NRA had not one but two booths at the concurrent Law Enforcement Vendors Expo. One represented NRA's Law Enforcement Division, which teaches dozens of police firearms instructors' schools around the country each year. The other showcased NRA's firearms safety programs for the public. (One class at ILEETA revolved around a police department that teaches CCW (Concealed Carry Weapon) courses for private citizens, the tuition fees supplementing the agency's training budget.) By contrast, the anti-gun groups were notable by their absence. No surprise; they had nothing to offer real, working cops, and probably knew that streetwise police officers would see through them, anyway.

NRA had a booth promoting their "civilian" firearms training programs at ILEETA, separate from the NRA Law Enforcement Division booth.

Street reality

The media and the prohibitionists had told the public that America's police had wanted banning of semiautomatic rifles, and of magazines that held more than 10 cartridges; that had already failed in the Senate. Even background checks for transfer of firearms ownership had now failed? Shouldn't the cops have responded with an anguished chorus of "Boo"?

No.

Because these were the real cops, the trainers of the next generation of real street cops, and they knew the reality.

They knew that the sick monster who had slain 20 children and 6 adults in Newtown had murdered his own mother to steal the guns she had lawfully purchased in Connecticut, one of the nation's toughest "gun control" states, and that no background check could have stopped his evil depredation.

Many of the cops in that audience, myself included, had been the first responding officer to situations where innocent victims had saved themselves from deadly danger with defensive firearms ... the only reason they were still alive to talk to us when we got there. Every cop in that audience worked hard to be proactive, to prevent crime. But each also understood that in a nation of more than 300 million people, with only about 800,000 cops, law enforcement is really more reactive than proactive. Cops can't be everywhere. They can't predict where the most evil and violent criminals will strike. They can only respond as fast as they can when they "get the call."

At the time that announcement was made at ILEETA, the panelists had already discussed the timelines police have to deal with. The call has to come in to 9-1-1. The message has to be relayed from the dispatchers to the officers in the field. Those officers have to GET THERE, and none of them can suspend the time/space continuum and freeze the situation until they arrive. Average police response time to emergency calls in this country seems to run around eleven minutes, from the call coming in to the first responding officer arriving at the danger scene.

The horror of Sandy Hook was in the minds of the ILEETA audience more profoundly than it was in the minds of most of the prohibitionists. Every cop in the ILEETA audience had pictured themselves as the first responding officer, or the trainer of that officer, or the supervisor responsible for that officer.

Every cop in that large classroom empathized the horror those first officers faced when they got there, to discover that the killer had already killed himself and that there was absolutely nothing they could do to bring 20 innocent little children and their 6 helplessly slain protectors back to life. And each of them knew something else: it would have been far better to have been the first to find a school resource officer, a private security guard, or even a schoolteacher with a smoking gun in her hand standing over the corpse of a dead would-be murderer, the only casualty of the day.

NRA's Law Enforcement Division booth at the ILEETA seminar.

ILEETA vis-”-vis NRA

Not long after the ILEETA conference in the Chicago suburb of Wheeling, Illinois, I attended the annual members' meeting of the NRA in Houston, Texas. A record 86,000-plus NRA members attended. Among the throngs inside the convention center were many law enforcement officers, some in uniform. They chatted pleasantly with the armed citizens and firearms industry people in the aisles. Across the street were anti-gun protest groups whose numbers ranged from half a dozen to a reported 50 at one point. Police were assigned there. They kept a respectful distance, showing no indication of wishing to interact with the protesters while their brother officers were fraternizing with the gun folks inside. (Of course, the press gave the tiny clutch of protesters as much coverage as the vast crowd of pro-gun people, but that's another story.)

An NRA member pats a mounted police officer's horse outside the Convention Center at the NRA annual meeting.

Understanding a misunderstanding

The media and anti-gun politicians constantly tell the public that cops want more "gun control" and even gun bans. You'll hear the same from high profile police chiefs who, despite the usual rule that police officers can't take political positions while speaking as members of the law enforcement agency, will flank the President or some other politician who makes an anti-gun speech. Why does that happen?

In the great majority of communities, municipal police chiefs are appointed by the mayor, the city manager, or the city council. If those political entities are anti-gun, you may be sure that they will either appoint an anti-gun candidate, or make it clear to the appointee that he will speak the lines he is given or he will no longer be Chief. As a general rule, police rank is only protected by Civil Service up to Captain level. Higher than that, and the high ranking cop "serves at the pleasure" of the appointing authority. If he doesn't toe their line, he can be busted back down to Captain and replaced by someone who responds more obediently to the puppet strings.

Sheriffs are a different matter. The high sheriff of the county is an elected official, and "serves at the pleasure" of ... the voters. This is probably why you see relatively more sheriffs than police chiefs or commissioners standing up for gun owners' civil rights and refusing to be sock puppets for anti-gun politicians.

Convention center was filled with a record 86,000+ NRA members in Houston this year.

Pro-gun lawmen

In May of 2013, attorney David Kopel ˘ a legendary champion of gun owners' civil rights ˘ filed a suit against Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper. The governor had signed into law Draconian legislation that severely hampered firearms transfers between law-abiding citizens and criminalized, among other things, any magazine that could be made to hold more than 15 cartridges ˘ which, mechanically speaking, is almost every pistol or rifle magazine in existence. Joining as plaintiffs in that suit were (at this writing) 55 of the 64 high sheriffs in the state of Colorado. Does that, perhaps, tell us something?

If the Colorado law was one major victory for the gun prohibitionists, certainly the ironically-named SAFE Act in New York State was another. Among other things this sloppily-cobbled law limited magazines to no more than seven cartridges, and criminalized the mere possession of a magazine even capable of holding more than ten. Violating the New York State Constitution, which requires a certain period of time for reflection, analysis, and debate before it can be passed, this classic example of feel-good legislation was ramrodded through literally in the dark of night. It was so poorly crafted that it initially neglected to exempt law enforcement, an error that would later be repaired. By May of 2013, the first arrest had been made, a motorist who had nine cartridges in the magazine of his otherwise legal pistol, instead of the maximum seven.

The Police Benevolent Association representing New York State Police Troopers took public exception to the law. On April 16, 2013, reporter Teri Weaver wrote:

"Syracuse, N.Y. ˘ The union representing New York State Police say they believe the state's stricter gun laws could put law enforcement officers at risk.

"In an email release on Monday, the New York State Troopers PBA said its 6,000-member group "holds widely shared concerns" about the NY Safe Act. Nonetheless, the union takes exception to some state lawmakers accusing the troopers of failing to enforce the law.

"'The individual members of this union did not write the terms of the bill nor vote on its passage,' the release said. 'We urge the citizens of New York state to remember that troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the state, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.'

"The Safe Act bans certain semi-automatic guns now labeled as assault weapons. Monday was the first day gun owners had to register these assault weapons with the state; a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds also went into effect Monday.

"The troopers are not the first law enforcement group to criticize the Safe Act. The New York State Sheriffs' Association has expressed concern about the likelihood that deputies can enforce certain provisions of the law, including background checks on private gun sales. The sheriffs group also believes many provisions of the law will only increase requirements among those who abide by the law and do little to ward against violent crimes or mass shootings.

"Here's the message, in full: 'The NY SAFE Act has been a controversial and emotional topic since its passage in January of 2013. The NYS Troopers PBA, representing more than 6,000 active and retired members, has reserved public comment as we worked within the legislative process of NYS government with the hope of affecting changes to the law. Our membership holds widely shared concerns of this new law. Additionally, we believe that actual enforcement of these new regulations will significantly increase the hazards of an already dangerous job.

"'Polls have shown that increased firearm regulations are not popular in the more rural and upstate regions of our state, which is where the majority of our members live and patrol. Additionally, some in mainstream media have already irresponsibly increased the anti-police rhetoric, which fosters additional resentment of law enforcement. Even some of our elected officials, like Senator Ranzenhofer and Assemblyman Gabryszak, are calling for a probe of our members and their efforts to meet the standards of this new law.

"'It is the responsibility of this union to defend the reputation and safety of our members. Potential legislative changes as well as pending court decisions may further alter the terms of the SAFE Act. The individual members of this union did not write the terms of the bill nor vote on its passage. We urge the citizens of New York State to remember that Troopers are simply tasked with the lawful mandate to enforce the laws of the State, regardless of their personal opinion of such laws.'"

Thank you, Ms. Weaver!

These laws adversely impact cops

The PoliceOne.Com Poll

A huge police-only Internet site, PoliceOne.Com, polled its members on "gun control" recently. It is important to note that to be on the site and part of the poll, those participating had to reveal their identities and PROVE that they were cops. Some of the results of the survey:

95.7% ˘ did NOT think a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime.

71% ˘ thought a federal ban on manufacture and sale of semiautomatic firearms would have no effect on reducing violent crime.

20.5% ˘ thought banning such firearms would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime.

81.3% ˘ supported the concept of trained, armed school personnel.

A lot of the general public has missed the fact that many of these laws impact police. Let's say that a given state bans AR15s on the theory that they are "evil assault rifles." A great many law enforcement agencies (Florida Highway Patrol comes to mind) can't afford to buy AR15s for every officer, so they authorize their armed personnel to buy their own and take them on duty after appropriate training and qualification. An "assault weapon ban" written to allow these guns to be purchased only by law enforcement agencies takes that option off the table, and police in that situation won't have access to patrol rifles with which to protect the public and themselves. If the law is written to exempt currently sworn individual police officers, that means that as soon as the officer retires and gives up his sworn authority, he's either a criminal if he keeps it, or has to give his personal property over to the police department.

In 2004, then-President George W. Bush signed into law HR 218, the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act. As LEOSA stands now, any sworn (or honorably retired and currently handgun-qualified) police officer can carry a personal handgun nationwide when "on their own time." However, they are required to conform to the laws that would govern a private citizen licensed to carry in the given jurisdiction. This means that if Coloradans can't have more than a 15-round magazine ... if Californians can't have more than 10-rounders ... and if New Yorkers with permits are allowed no more than seven cartridges in a magazine ... then that applies to visiting out-of-state cops as well.

The bottom line is, when you hear someone say "The police want to ban these guns/magazines/transfers between law-abiding private citizens" ... don't believe it. Anyone who actually works with the cops on the street knows that the great majority of them want to enforce existing laws on genuine criminals, not criminalize the law-abiding citizens they've sworn an oath to protect and serve.


**************************************************
13. Who needs a gun while working in a shed?
**************************************************

Member Kevin Dameron emailed me this:

--

"Should you carry a gun while in your own shed"?
Answer: Definitely!


From Fredericksburg.com:http://tinyurl.com/mkzco7y

By Keith Epps
August 2, 2013

Stafford man robbed in his shed

A Stafford man was robbed early Friday while watching television in a shed on his property, police said.

Sheriff's spokesman Bill Kennedy said the incident occurred about 12:30 a.m. in the 500 block of Hartwood Road. The victim, who is in his 60s, told police he was watching television when he heard a knock on the shed door.

He opened the door and saw two males at the corners of the shed, both with firearms. One of them ordered the man to come out of the shed and he complied.

Kennedy said they took an undisclosed amount of cash from the victim, along with a cellphone. They then ordered the victim to look down and away from them, and they ran to a waiting vehicle at the top of the driveway occupied by a third person.

The victim said the robbers appeared to be black men in their early 20s, 5-feet-8 to 6-feet tall weighing between 140 and 150 pounds. The two who confronted the victim were wearing dark sweatshirts with hoods that were pulled over their faces. They were last seen riding on Hartwood Road toward Stony Hill Road.

Anyone with information is asked to call the Sheriff's Office at 540/658-4400 or Crime Solvers at 540/659-2020.


**************************************************
14. Gun-hating postal worker refuses to process FFL shipment
**************************************************

Member Rollin Reisinger emailed me this:

--

From The Blaze: http://tinyurl.com/m5mbkh7

By Mike Opelka
August 6, 2013

A small, family-owned firearms business in Columbus, Ohio, ran afoul of a rogue U.S. Postal Service worker who decided that she was not going to process their legal shipment of a firearm to an out-of-state buyer.

Why did she refuse to even touch the package? The postal worker claimed, "Because of my religious beliefs, I cannot process your package."

The details of the story:

Eric Delbert and his father Philip are part-time police officers and co-owners of LEPD Firearms & Range, a gun store and shooting range in Columbus. Both men hold the Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) required to buy and sell guns locally and around the country. Last week, the Delberts sold a gun to a buyer in Kentucky and were doing what the law requires them to do in order to ship the purchase. The steps involved (according to Eric Delbert) include:

The buyer in the remote location selects a weapon for purchase and it is set to be shipped to a store or FFL dealer in the purchaser's area.
Shipping a weapon requires very specific paperwork be filled out, brought to the post office.
The shipper must attest to the fact that they have an FFL and fill out the appropriate forms before the package can be stamped by the clerk.
The weapon is shipped to the other licensed dealer where a background check will be performed.

The Delberts followed all of the legal requirements, prepared their package and dad Phillip took the box to a Columbus branch of the USPS. It was at the branch that Mr. Delbert encountered a postal clerk identified as "Juide." He showed her the box, and the already completed form. That's when she refused to touch the package and told Phillip, "Because of my religious beliefs, I cannot process your package."

The clerk instructed the elder Delbert to take his package and step aside to an unattended window. He did so, waiting for another clerk to come out from the back and help him.

No one came.

Delbert waited and waited as his son grew concerned and called his father on his cellphone to find out what was going on. Eric Delbert then called the station, managing to reach another person in the back of the branch. That postal worker came out and processed the order.

Following the incident, Eric Delbert reached out to TheBlaze. After verifying the incident happened, we tracked it all the way to the regional offices of the USPS. We spoke with postal representative David Van Allen who also investigated the claims.

A few hours after being contacted by TheBlaze, Van Allen told us that the incident had been confirmed and he admitted that "it never should have happened." We were told that the employee had been "talked to" and that "the situation will not be repeated." David Van Allen also offered a sincere apology to the Delberts, adding, that they should contact the manager of the local station for a personal apology.

Update: TheBlaze's efforts to speak with the "rogue" postal worker named Juide were unsuccessful. USPS personnel who answered the phones at the facility would not confirm or deny that she worked there.


**************************************************
15. Alabama sheriffs offer 'No Open Carry' signs to businesses
**************************************************

These Alabama sheriffs are a disgrace to their badge and perjured themselves when they took an oath to uphold the Constitution.

EM John Wilburn sent me this:

--

Look at this bigoted garbage!


From GOPUSA: http://tinyurl.com/lu42xa5

By Montgomery Advertiser
August 9, 2013

Sheriff's offices in the tri-county area are offering "No Open Carry" signs to local businesses.

The free placards are in response to the state's new gun law, which went into effect last week. The law clarifies that Alabama is an "open carry" state, where people can carry a handgun in plain sight without having a concealed weapons permit. The gun must be secured in a holster.

In Autauga County, Sheriff Herbie Johnson is working with Prattville Police Chief Mark Thompson and District Attorney Randall Houston to provide the signs. The three departments are splitting the $750 expense to have 1,500 signs printed.

"We got together in an effort to support the business owners in Prattville and Autauga County that don't want open carry inside their businesses," Johnson said. "The law says people have a right to carry a gun openly, but it's up to that business owner to decide if open carry is allowed on their property."

The signs can be picked up at the sheriff's and DA's offices in the courthouse or at police headquarters in City Hall. Business owners also can call the sheriff's office or police headquarters to request a sign and a deputy or officer will deliver it, Johnson and Thompson said.

The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office has fielded numerous calls from business owners wanting a sign, Sheriff D.T. Marshall said. The Elmore County Sheriff's Office expects its order of signs to be delivered by Friday. Sheriff's offices in Montgomery and Elmore counties are paying for the signs.

"We will provide the signs to any business in Elmore County," Sheriff Bill Franklin said. "We ask the business owner or their agent to call the office and make arrangements to come by. We would like to talk with them for a few minutes to explain to them the scope of the law."

There still is plenty of confusion in the public about the gun law, Houston said.

"People need to know what the law says, when they can carry and when they can't," he said. "People also need to educate themselves where they can carry. We've received several reports of people becoming aggressive and belligerent if a business owner says they don't want open carry on their property.

"Hopefully, these signs will clear up a lot of that confusion. The bottom line is that the business owner has the final say on if open carry is allowed or not."


**************************************************
16. Who needs a gun at the post office?
**************************************************

The Post Office is a gun-free zone, so this robbery must be a belated April Fool's Day joke.

Member Hugh Conway emailed me this:

--

From Falls Church Patch: http://tinyurl.com/ks3sj8u

By Mary Ann Barton
July 18, 2013

A Falls Church post office was robbed by two suspects Thursday, with one suspect displaying a gun during the robbery.

Fairfax County Police officers responded to the emergency call at the Seven Corners Post Office, 6375 Seven Corners Center, for the report of a robbery shortly after 11 a.m., according to a news release from FCPD.

Two men entered the post office; one jumped the counter and demanded money from a 55-year-old female employee. The second suspect displayed a handgun and stood near an exit inside the building. They fled with an undisclosed amount of cash.

Two adults experienced undisclosed medical issues during the robbery and were transported to Inova Fairfax Hospital in non life-threatening condition.

Both suspects were described as black, 19-25 years old, 5 feet 7 inches to 5 feet 9 inches tall and very thin. Both wore masks over their faces; one light, one dark. The suspect who jumped over the counter was thought to be wearing a dark shirt and blue jeans.

This case is being investigated jointly by the Fairfax County Police Department and the United States Postal Inspection Service. The USPIS can be contacted at 1-877-876-2455.

Anyone with information is asked to call Crime Solvers by phone at 1-866-411-TIPS/8477, e-mail at www.fairfaxcrimesolvers.org or text "TIP187" plus your message to CRIMES/274637 or call Fairfax County Police at 703-691-2131.


**************************************************
17. Loaded means loaded
**************************************************

The Court saves the day in New Hampshire when the State tried to overreach in the definition of a loaded gun.

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:

--

A reminder as to why nitpicking review of laws is needed.


From The Volokh Conspiracy: http://tinyurl.com/k3q69y7

By Eugene Volokh
August 9, 2013

From State v. Dor (N.H. May 7, 2013): http://tinyurl.com/lw87ubr

On May 8, 2012, police searched the defendant's vehicle and found a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol adjacent to a loaded magazine in the vehicle's glove compartment. The pistol did not have a cartridge in the chamber or a magazine in the magazine well.

The State charged the defendant with a class A misdemeanor for "knowingly carry[ing] a loaded pistol as defined in RSA 159:4 in a vehicle without a valid license...." ... RSA 159:4 provides, in pertinent part:

No person shall carry a loaded pistol or revolver in any vehicle or concealed upon his person, except in his dwelling, house or place of business, without a valid license.... A loaded pistol or revolver shall include any pistol or revolver with a magazine, cylinder, chamber or clip in which there are loaded cartridges.

The defendant argues that "with" in the second sentence should be interpreted narrowly as "joined to," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2626 (unabridged ed. 2002), so that a "loaded pistol or revolver" encompasses only a firearm that contains one or more cartridges. The State counters that "with" should be interpreted broadly as "denoting nearness, agreement, or connection," Webster's New Dictionary and Thesaurus 625 (1990), so that a "loaded pistol or revolver" encompasses a firearm that contains no cartridges but is located near a loaded magazine or clip.
The court ruled for the defendant, in my view quite correctly. In the process, it also had a bit of constitutional analysis:

Furthermore, we reject the State's reading of RSA 159:4 because it could render the statute unconstitutionally vague. A criminal statute is void for vagueness when it forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of ordinary intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Under the State's reading, a person of ordinary intelligence would have to guess at how "near" a pistol or revolver must be to a loaded magazine or clip to constitute a violation of RSA 159:4. In contrast, interpreting a "loaded pistol or revolver" as a pistol or revolver containing a cartridge in any position from which it can be fired eliminates the uncertainty: a pistol or revolver either contains a cartridge in such a position or it does not....

n this country, ownership and use of standard pistols and revolvers is not only widespread and generally accepted as lawful, but also implicates constitutional rights, see U.S. CONST. amends. II, XIV; N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 2-a. [Footnote: See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635-36 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010); see also Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir.2012) ("What we know from [Heller and McDonald] is that Second Amendment guarantees are at their zenith within the home. What we do not know is the scope of that right beyond the home and the standards for determining when and how the right can be regulated by a government." (citation omitted)); Hightower v. City of Boston, 693 F.3d 61, 73 (1st Cir. 2012) (concluding that "the government may regulate the carrying of concealed weapons outside of the home"); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 942 (7th Cir. 2012) (stating that "[t]he Supreme Court has decided that the [Second Amendment] confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside").]

For these reasons, we interpret RSA 159:4 narrowly so as to set forth a clear demarcation between that conduct which is allowed and that which is prohibited. Cf. [Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 614 (1994)] ("If we were to accept as a general rule the Government's suggestion that dangerous and regulated items place their owners under an obligation to inquire at their peril into compliance with regulations, we would undoubtedly reach some untoward results."); Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 499 (1982) ("[P]erhaps the most important factor affecting the clarity that the Constitution demands of a law is whether it threatens to inhibit the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.").

I like it.


**************************************************
18. Police: Man points assault weapon at officer on same block where youth is shot
**************************************************

Member Bill Hine emailed me this:

--

From The Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/mhqdm3y

By Peter Herman
August 8, 2013

Police investigating a shooting of a juvenile and an attack on an off-duty officer in the same block in Southeast Washington on Wednesday night say the two incidents appear to be unrelated.

Authorities released additional details Thursday evening clarifying the circumstances of overlapping crime scenes, including one where a man allegedly pointed an AK-47 assault weapon at an officer. Police stressed that both incidents remained under investigation.

It began in the 300 block of 34th Street SE, when an off-duty officer heard gunshots and encountered a youth who had been shot in the arm in an apparent robbery, police said.

The officer put out a description of a gray Chevrolet Suburban that other officers spotted moments later in the 3900 block of Minnesota Avenue NE. Police chased the vehicle as it sped north, with the occupants throwing two guns out of the windows, until it crashed at Eastern and Kenilworth avenues in Prince George's County.

Prince George's County police arrested two of the occupants, and D.C. officers arrested the third after he ran back into the District, police said. Police said they planned to charge the driver with assault with a dangerous weapon; his name has not yet been released.

A short time later, the off-duty officer in the 300 block of 34th Street SE got a complaint of a man with a gun. Police said a man armed with an assault weapon pointed it at the officer, who fired his service weapon. Police said that the officer missed and that the man ran.

Police said the man dropped the gun. Detectives have identified a person of interest in the case.


**************************************************
19. NYT OpEd: The iron pipeline thrives
**************************************************

Executive Member Hal Macklin sent me this:

--

How easy it is to blame others...


From NY Times: http://tinyurl.com/kmfk9b7

August 6, 2013

When somebody pulls a gun and commits a crime in New York City, that weapon almost certainly comes from somewhere else. Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced last week that 90 percent of the guns used to commit crimes were purchased in other states, according to the latest data from 2011, compared with 85 percent in 2009. This "iron pipeline," as this illegal trade is called, is a booming and deadly business.

With Washington's failure to impose needed background checks on gun sales - even after the slaughter of children in Newtown, Conn. - the states will have to lead the change. But, so far, only a few states - including Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland and New York - have acted this year to stanch the flood of illegal guns.

Other states, like Virginia, are making the gun trafficking even worse. More than 320 of the guns recovered in New York City in 2011 came from that state, which requires no background checks for private gun sales. Virginia's lawmakers compounded the problem last year when they revoked their "one-gun-a-month" limit. With no background check and no limits, it is easy for anybody to buy guns in a parking lot, fill up the trunk and sell their wares to criminal clients in New York City - no questions asked. Illegal weapons from the Carolinas, Florida, Georgia, Ohio and Pennsylvania also end up on New York streets.

Mr. Bloomberg has worked hard over the years to organize Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and nearly 1,000 mayors and their police departments are on board to help rid their streets of these firearms.

The big problem for many mayors is their own state governments. In most states, laws pre-empt cities from enacting local gun control measures, which makes it easier for groups like the National Rifle Association to defeat sensible controls since state legislators tend to be terrified of the gun lobby.

Unless Congress cracks down on gun trafficking, guns will continue to be exported from states with weak laws to places with tough laws, like New York City. John Feinblatt, the city's criminal justice coordinator, has been working to get more states to tighten their laws on background checks. Until they do, he said, New Yorkers are "at the mercy of laws beyond our borders."


**************************************************
20. Defensive firearm use site
**************************************************

Member Gil Sanderson emailed me this:

--

Ever wish there was documentation of firearms used for defensive purpose? As the VCDL motto says, 'guns save lives'. Check the web below:

http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu/




-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************