VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 8/12/14

[OakRidgeStars]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This update was compiled by Chuck Young and reviewed by Brandy Polanowski

1. ACTION ITEM: Belk department stores considering a gun ban, let’s contact them
2. VCDL pot-luck picnic in Salem on Saturday, September 6
3. Roanoke removes illegal “no guns” signs after pressure from VCDL to do so
4. VCDL member discusses a close call with a gang near his home [VIDEO]
5. Another gross miscarriage of justice in New Jersey against a CHP holder
6. New research: college-age permit holders do not pose any additional risk
7. VCDL President to be on panel at upcoming Gun Rights Policy Conference Panel in Chicago
8. A look at the progressive guide to gun-control, #3
9. Member suggests strong anti-gun philosophy could be mental-health indicator
10. DC government considering ways to make carry permits as restrictive as possible
11. Guest columnist hits the nail on the head about DC gun ban
12. [FL] Excuse me - do you have a gun?
13. Somebody else explains why open carrying is good
14. Behold the Federal law: A primer on guns and "school zones"
15. FBI: More people killed with fists and hammers than with rifles and shotguns
16. The 2nd Amendment is your gun permit? I think not!
17. [NC] Thieves and vehicles with gun sticker
18. [FL] Story of Florida Permits
19. [FL] Another mayor against illegal guns in legal trouble
20. [FL] Concealed handgn brings quick end to road rage fight
21. [IN] More fearsome than the sound of a 12-guage being racked
22. [CA] Why I carry: armed robber executes 1 hiker and shoots another after they complied during robbery

**************************************************
1. ACTION ITEM: Belk department stores considering a gun ban, let’s contact them
**************************************************

I have information from an inside source that Belk is considering changing their policy on guns in their stores.

Let’s contact Belk and let them know that we do not patronize stores that have gun bans. Most stores do not ban the lawful carry of firearms into their stores and Belk should not have such a ban either. The best policy is to leave state and local law determine if a person can legally carry into a Belk store.

To contact Belk, you can send an email to:

belk_customer_care@belk.com

Or you can call them at: 1-866-235-5443

Other contacts:

Facebook: facebook.com/Belk

Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/belk


**************************************************
2. VCDL pot-luck picnic in Salem on Saturday, September 6
**************************************************

VCDL in Southwest Virginia will have a "POT LUCK" PICNIC on Saturday, September 6, 2014 at:

Shelter # 5
Longwood Park
633 E Main St
Salem VA 24153

Early birds will start arriving at 10:30 AM--food will be served at 11 AM.

We will have a speaker for a short talk--hopefully of interest to all.

We request all that can bring a dish to share with others--VCDL will furnish soft drinks; plates; cups; ice; eating utensils and such. There will be a small door prize and you MUST BE PRESENT TO WIN.

This event is open to the public.

SHELTER #5 is down the hill from our normal shelter--on the right--as you turn into the park. We ask for a RSVP with numbers attending, so the proper items will be on hand for all to enjoy.

RSVP to al@vcdl.org please.


**************************************************
3. Roanoke removes illegal “no guns” signs after pressure from VCDL to do so
**************************************************

VCDL EM John Wilburn worked with the Roanoke City Attorney, Dan Callahan, to have a couple of illegal “no guns” signs removed in the City of Roanoke. VCDL thanks Mr. Callahan for his professionalism on getting the problem resolved. Thanks also to John Wilburn for a job well done.

John Wilburn sent the following email to Mr. Callahan:

On a Tuesday evening drive down Orange Avenue, I noticed two unlawful signs. They are at the intersections of Orange and 14th and Orange and 18th and are also affixed to utility poles, which is an unrelated problem with the utility providers in and of itself.

The signs read “DRUG FREE GUN FREE ZONE VIOLATORS WILL FACE SEVERE FEDERAL STATE AND LOCAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES.” Pictures are attached.

While I doubt the city posted these (please correct me if I’m wrong), these signs, and any others like them, run afoul of the law and must be removed.

As you know, full statewide preemption of all local firearm laws was passed in 2004. As a result, localities, i.e. counties, towns, and cities, do not have the authority to prohibit the lawful possession of firearms.

I have attached the pertinent parts of the statute below and also a link to the text in its entirety. Thanks in advance for your cooperation and attention to this matter.

…


**************************************************
4. VCDL member discusses a close call with a gang near his home [VIDEO]
**************************************************

VCDL member Brandon Fukagawa spoke at a recent VCDL membership meeting about his close brush with a gang near his home in Reston about a year ago. Having a gun likely saved his life. His story was video taped and can be viewed here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n5zZc2if_0


**************************************************
5. Another gross miscarriage of justice in New Jersey against a CHP holder
**************************************************

There have been two recent miscarriages of justice in New Jersey with out-of-state CHP holders. The previous one was Guy Ackerman who is a Virginia CHP holder, who is still awaiting trial (covered in the 4/20/14 VCDL Update). This time it was a young single mother of two children from Pennsylvania.

Shaneen Allen was pulled over because she allegedly was swerving within her lane. She did what her CHP instructor told her to do - tell the police officer she was armed, but had her CHP.

Unfortunately, New Jersey doesn’t honor ANY out-of-state permits and they love to prosecute otherwise good people who made a simple mistake on thinking their permit is good in New Jersey.

I think this time, New Jersey might have bitten off more than it can chew. She is a very sympathetic victim that they are trying to put in jail for at least THREE YEARS.

If convicted, she would also lose her Second Amendment rights for LIFE. So, be sure to know the firearm laws of any state in which you are traveling.

First a video by the NRA on the situation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6SIH5Z ... e=youtu.be

If you would like to help, here is more information from our counterparts in New Jersey, the New Jersey Second Amendment Society:

http://nj2as.com/event-1732855


**************************************************
6. New research: college-age permit holders do not pose any additional risk
**************************************************

From crimepreventionresearchcenter.org: http://tinyurl.com/l7l5j4t


**************************************************
7. VCDL President to be on panel at upcoming Gun Rights Policy Conference Panel in Chicago
**************************************************

I have been invited to be on the State Legislative Affairs Panel at the upcoming Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) in Chicago on Saturday, September 27.

The GRPC, a first-class conference, is put on by the Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) every year (in different locations) and is free to attend for gun activists. The Who’s Who of the gun rights community is there and it is a great opportunity to interact with them.

You can find out more about the conference and sign up by visiting the saf.org web site.

BTW, recent changes to the law in Illinois allow a person with a CHP from another state to have a loaded, concealed handgun IN THEIR VEHICLE with them. I did so in a recent trip into Illinois. To transfer my gun to/from the vehicle and my hotel room, I had to unload the gun and put it in a closed case. I used a fanny pack for that operation. There is no open carry in Illinois and concealed carry of a loaded handgun outside of a vehicle can only be done with an Illinois CHP.


**************************************************
8. A look at the progressive guide to gun-control, #3
**************************************************

This is part 3 in a series looking at a document created by the antis referred to as a progressive guide to gun-control.

In arguing that we need universal background checks, they tell their followers to say something like, “No guns can be sold by a dealer without a background check to keep guns out of the hands of felons or dangerously mentally ill. But millions of guns are sold by unlicensed sellers at gun shows or on the internet without a background check. The few minutes it takes for a background check will save lives.”

Of course most of the guns used in mass shootings for the last 20 years were purchased after running a background check and that check did nothing to prevent the massacres. ALL background checks can be gotten around easily by a criminal using another person with a clean background to do a “straw purchase.” In 2010 there were 72,000 people stopped from purchasing guns in the United States by a background check. BUT of those 72,000, only 44 were prosecuted! And of those 44, only 13 were found guilty! In the WHOLE U.S.! Background checks on gun purchases are a waste of time.


**************************************************
9. Member suggests strong anti-gun philosophy could be mental-health indicator
**************************************************

Member Mark Anderson sent me an email expounding my description of the behavior of antis at the recent Steppin’ Out festival in Blacksburg:

Regarding the anti antics you describe, I must say I've generally found the anti-gun crowd to be close-minded, rude, obnoxious, foul-mouthed, short-tempered, irrational and sometimes on the edge of violence. Not name calling, just making an honest observation. They seem to have a deep seated, inherent anger and animosity towards others, especially gun owners and anybody who doesn't share their distorted view of the world (so much for "tolerance"). I have a theory that they are just self aware enough to know how dangerous they are, barely able to contain their rage, and wrongly believe everybody else is the same way. They know, correctly, that *they* can't be trusted with guns and wrongly think everybody else is as angry and dangerous as they are.

The mental health community might have far more success identifying those who are mentally deranged and dangerous, not by asking gun owners about their guns, but by asking the gun control crowd how strongly they support onerous gun control. Support of the gun control agenda seems to be a far better indicator of mental illness and a threat to the safety of the community.


**************************************************
10. DC government considering ways to make carry permits as restrictive as possible
**************************************************

Tyrants looking at their options. All we can hope is that they have a change of heart and decide to not make getting a DC permit a nightmare.

From blogs.rollcall.com: http://tinyurl.com/lcgj8bj

D.C. Officials Plotting New Course to Keep Gun Control Intact (Updated)
By Hannah Hess Posted at 4:20 p.m. on July 30

Updated 7:30 p.m. | Though they won’t yet say how far they are willing to
take their fight, District of Columbia officials plan to do everything in
their power to limit the carrying of handguns in the nation’s capital,
arguing that despite a court’s ruling that paves the way for more permissive
laws, Washington is a unique place with heightened security concerns.

“An absolute ban on [carrying handguns] may not pass constitutional muster
regardless of the judge, so we’re going to prepare by working on legislation
that will pass muster” said Tommy Wells, a Democrat who represents Capitol
Hill on the D.C. Council.

As chairman of the Council’s Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety,
Wells will play a key role in D.C.’s response to the July 26 ruling by Judge
Frederick Scullin Jr. that declared the complete ban on carrying handguns in
public unconstitutional. The court granted a stay of the ruling Tuesday,
giving District officials 90 days to figure out how they will protect public
safety while complying with the Constitution.

“We have to have a smart bill ready to go, and we can’t be in denial about
this,” Wells said in a Wednesday interview. He offered Maryland’s permit law
as an example. Last year, a federal appeals court ruled that the state can
require people applying for concealed-carry handgun permits to provide a
“good and substantial reason” reason for wanting to carry.

SNIP


**************************************************
11. Guest columnist hits the nail on the head about DC gun ban
**************************************************

While DC is planning to make carry permits as restrictive as possible, Gabby Hoffman, a guest columnist, makes the case that DC will be safer with law-abiding gun owners carrying there. A photo in the article shows a young woman’s purse with a VCDL GSL sticker on it:

From timesdispatch.com: http://tinyurl.com/pbrn9te

Repealing handgun-ban will make a safer D.C.
Gabriella Hoffman

Posted: Saturday, August 9, 2014 10:30 pm

The “murder capital of the U.S.” may not be for much longer.

On July 26, a federal judge overturned a ban on carrying concealed handguns in the nation’s capital. Judge Frederick Scullin of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York issued the decision in Palmer v. D.C. that read, “the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.”

Two days after the ban was overturned, the same judge issued a 90-day stay on Palmer v. D.C. This gives authorities 90 days — until Oct. 22 — to rewrite the law to accommodate concealed carry or appeal the decision. It allows the city council time to clarify statutes as a result of the decision and set permit-issuing protocols for law-abiding citizens. Despite reluctance to embrace the ruling, local politicians expect the city’s strict gun laws to be eased.

Although some aspects of the ban would remain in effect — including the city’s 10-round magazine limit and ban on so-called “assault weapons” — D.C. area residents should applaud this landmark decision, despite the 90-day stay, in favor of Second Amendment rights.

Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, gun laws protecting open-carry and concealed-carry have made our state a safer place. In fact, with increased gun sales, crime has continued to drop here.

According to an August 2013 Times-Dispatch story by reporter Mark Bowes, in 2012 in Virginia 490,199 guns were purchased in 444,844 transactions — up 16 percent from 2011. That same article noted that from 2006 to 2012, gun sales in Virginia rose 101 percent, but gun-related crime dropped 28 percent during that same period.

Despite Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s apparent desire to impose restrictions on gun ownership — he campaigned on a gun-control platform by touting universal background checks — the General Assembly defeated such proposals in January. These included more background checks on private gun sales, along with limiting the sale and transfer of high-capacity magazines. Thankfully, the now Republican-controlled General Assembly will block any attempt by Gov. McAuliffe to undermine gun rights in the commonwealth.

If D.C. adopts gun laws similar to those of Virginia, the nation’s capital will witness a reduction in crime when law-abiding residents are permitted to conceal-carry.

Federal and local politicians in the nation’s capital — including many who want to undermine or even repeal the Second Amendment — enjoy protection from body guards or personal firearms. Why can’t law-abiding D.C. residents enjoy the same luxury afforded to them under the Second Amendment?

Prior to the Palmer v. D.C. ruling, many Washington residents expressed a desire to publicly carry handguns to deter crime. One man who was subjected to a possible hate crime in June 2013 — Dario Hammer — told NBC Washington that he didn’t want to become a victim again: “I’m going to get a license and get a 9mm.”

D.C. residents are capable of not becoming victims of crimes. Why should local and federal resources be exhausted if law-abiding citizens can take matters into their own hands? Why should people continue to feel unsafe in the nation’s capital?

It’s time to stop relying on government for safety. Good guys with guns in D.C. can stop bad guys with guns.


**************************************************
12. [FL] Excuse me - do you have a gun?
**************************************************

Victim-to-be is approached by a youth on a beach. Youth asks victim-to-be if he has a gun. Victim-to-be says, “no.”

Bad answer.

Victim-to-be then becomes the victim of a “knockout game” contestant.

Some thoughts:

1. Situational awareness. You should be aware that you are being approached well before the person is up close and personal.

2. Keep as much distance between you and the other person. Do not in any way, direct or indirect, invite them to come close. Keep in mind that a criminal 21 feet away with a knife or impact weapon is of mortal danger to you. If they come close anyway, then try to open up more space by moving away from them and tell them firmly not to come any closer. If they won’t let you put distance between you and them, you need to be in the highest level of alert and prepare for trouble.

3. Don’t answer personal questions about whether you have any change, a lighter, or a gun. A firm, but calm, response of “leave me alone” should be sufficient.

The idea is that by remaining calm, but firm with them, you telegraph that they need to move on to another victim as you are a very bad choice. Remember, a person approaching you and asking (really, demanding) to know if you have money, a lighter, or a gun are being rude to you. Therefore there is nothing wrong about being equally rude back to them by telling them to leave you alone.

Be aware that there is a fine line between being firm and being “part of the problem,” when it comes to having to defend yourself. Being firm, but not argumentative or aggressive, helps to keep you away
from crossing that line. If they attack you, then being aggressive in protection of your life is fine, of course.

From news.yahoo.com: http://tinyurl.com/lkzqcds


**************************************************
13. Somebody else explains why open carrying is good
**************************************************

Member PM Henick emailed me this:

--

From thetruthaboutguns.com: http://tinyurl.com/l5saoqg


P320 Entry: Why We Should Open Carry All the Time
by Paul Brown
May 18,2014

I can still remember the first time I saw a non-law-enforcement, non-military open carrier. It was at a Five Guys Burgers and Fries, and the guy was carrying a, full-size .357 magnum in a brown, leather holster on his right hip. I have always been a supporter of the right to keep and bear arms and though I had just recently moved to Virginia, I was also familiar with the laws surrounding firearms so I wasn’t that surprised (or shocked). Still there was an impact, a positive one, and this is why . . .

I would not have personally been weirded out by a guy carrying a gun. Not only had I been exposed to firearms by my parents since before I could walk, but I also served for five years in the United States Marine Corps, where I grew incredibly used to the presence of firearms virtually all the time.

But despite my own level of comfort I had always wondered about how others would feel about carrying a gun in public…gasp! After all, I didn’t want to scare anyone, or get the police called on me.

Everyone appeared to be fine though. It was a fairly crowded restaurant and people didn’t even seem to notice. If they had noticed they certainly didn’t seem to care. It opened my eyes. It would be several months from that point before I would ever open carry, but the seed was planted. This is something I can do safely, without scaring the masses, and without going to prison. And it’s something you can do too (some restrictions apply, please check on your local laws).

But more than that, it’s something you should do. And this is why.

With the recent changes in the law in Georgia along with an all-time high in national attention to all things gun-related, the antis are throwing everything they’ve got at us, most recently targeting open carry. Maybe it’s just something that is so absolutely scary and absurd to them that they feel like they must go after it, or maybe they realize what a powerful tool it is in our favor. If it’s the latter they may be right. Let me explain.

Sweeping, radical changes in society are pushed by effective, powerful information campaigns and propaganda. When ideas are offensive to large swaths of society, sometimes the best way to change people’s perceptions is to normalize the subject through constant exposure to it. The civil rights movement did not move forward because proponents for equal rights stayed in the shadows. It moved forward because people refused not to be seen. They refused to be ignored. They sat at the front of busses, they sat in restaurants, they attended universities, and they were seen. Look at the gay rights movement over the last several decades. Being gay has gone from being something that could likely get you fired from your job to something that will likely get you fired from your job for expressing your own opposition.

Fun fact: These movements were not driven by legislation. They drove legislation. These movements were driven by familiarization and normalization through exposure.

And that is what we need in the gun-rights movement, more exposure. Certainly people see guns in the news every day, but that’s not the exposure I am talking about. I’m talking about in person, close enough to see that guns are just inanimate objects, that when carried by every-day people like you and me don’t just go off and hurt people, or make everyone feel scared. We do not carry to intimidate, or to show off, or to feel important. We carry to protect our families, friends, ourselves, even strangers.

But maybe it still doesn’t feel right. Maybe you agree with the idea that open carrying normalizes and familiarizes through exposure, but you still just don’t feel comfortable doing it. Let me encourage you some. These three things might take the edge off and make you feel a bit less self-conscious about open carrying.

When I have open carried I have realized that most people don’t seem to notice. It’s hard to tell since people don’t walk around with thought bubbles over their heads, but when looking around I do not see looks of shock, surprise, fear, aw, or even curiosity. You know what I mostly see? People burying their faces in their iPhones. They certainly don’t seem to be eyeing my hip. (Maybe as a rule people just don’t spend a lot of time looking at men’s hips?)

When I do open carry I make a little bit of extra effort to appear presentable. My normal “uniform” for open carry tends to be khaki slacks, some kind of sensible shoes such as my Salomons, and a black polo shirt. I typically carry my black Glock 19 in a black, kydex holster. Basically I look like a cop. I’m not trying to look like a cop, but I can totally see how one might think that. It’s very natural when you see someone carrying a gun to think, “I wonder if they’re a cop.” Sadly, most people do not know firearms laws very well. When they see someone carrying a gun their first thought is often that the carrier is law enforcement, because why else would they have a gun? They quickly go back to whatever game they were playing on their cell phones, because cop with a gun = situation normal.

And finally, those people that do notice and don’t think you’re a cop (few as they may be) are most likely other freedom-minded individuals who own and carry guns too. Why else would they know the law well enough to not immediately assume that someone carrying a gun isn’t a cop?

Do I have proof that this is how people think? Not really, but I do have an anecdote which is almost the same thing.

A few days ago I was walking to our local burger place with my wife. I was open carrying my Glock 19, wearing my standard get-up. On our way we got stopped by a neighbor who just wanted to chat for a bit. We had a nice talk, though my stomach was grumbling the entire time. After about twenty minutes my wife mentioned something about furniture and our neighbor mentioned she was looking to sell her dining room table. We went inside to take a look and on our way out of the house she said with surprise in her voice, “You have a gun?”

After 20 minutes of talking and going into her house she had not noticed I was carrying a firearm on my hip. This is not to blame her or denigrate her level of awareness in any way, but it seems to confirm what I said earlier – people just don’t seem to notice. And you’ll never guess what her next question was.

“Are you in law enforcement?”

And then we had a pleasant conversation about firearms, and she got to see firsthand how a regular, every-day civilian can safely, legally carry a gun and the sky did not fall. No one got hurt. SWAT teams did not rope down from helicopters. It was just another normal day.

I do not want to pressure anyone into open carrying anymore than I want to pressure anyone into owning, using, or carrying a gun in any way. If you do not feel comfortable with a firearm in one way or another then I would urge you to study and train until you do. Ignorance and carelessness are the leading causes of firearms incidents – don’t jump into the world of firearms without learning about them first.

But for those of us who are knowledgeable and safe with firearms, I say let’s do this. We cannot rely on the Supreme Court, Congress, or the President to secure our rights for us. Appropriate legislation will follow when it is the popular position, not when it is the right one. If you are looking to affect the political process in a positive way look no further than your OWB holster and favorite, reliable handgun. It might be the most powerful political tool you have.


**************************************************
14. Behold the Federal law: A primer on guns and "school zones"
**************************************************

James Durso emailed me this:

--

From modernserviceweapons.com: http://tinyurl.com/nruutta


BEHOLD THE FEDERAL LAW: A PRIMER ON GUNS AND “SCHOOL ZONES”
BY Steven Harris
May 19, 2014

I write this post as a result of reading a recent news story about a parent in New Hampshire carrying a concealed handgun while waiting near a school to pick up his child. From that story: “A federal law, Gun-Free Schools Zone Act, prohibits people from carrying a loaded gun, even if that person is properly licensed, within 1,000 feet of a public or parochial school.” Nope, not the law.

As more states and local governments allow school carry, the provisions of the GFSZA will once again become an issue. I was thus prompted to take a “refresher” look at the law (often ignored because it was (in an earlier version) held unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court). Here’s the current GFSZA statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2):

(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—

(i) on private property not part of school grounds;

(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;

(iii) that is —

(I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;

(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;

(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the individual or an employer of the individual;

(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or

(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.

Federal law [18 U.S.C. § 921(a)] provides the following definitions:

(25) The term “school zone” means — (A) in, or on the grounds of, a public, parochial or private school; or (B) within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of a public, parochial or private school.

(26) The term “school” means a school which provides elementary or secondary education, as determined under State law.

The exceptions are rather straightforward, most notable is that a person with a firearm permit/license is not prohibited, if the law of the state or subdivision complies with the requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii), above. Most, but not all do. Of course, one must still look to state and/or local law for location permissions and restrictions. Compliance with the GFSZA or state/local law is not automatically lawful carry under the other.

My “drive-by” of various materials brought to mind some common questions I have discussed with sworn LEOs about school grounds carry. Surprise: Most are answered “NO,” with the caveat that applies to the non-sworn as well: Unload and lock it up or get a state or local permit/license.

Can I carry while off-duty? No.

Carry under H.R. 218/LEOSA? No, it does not override the GFSZA.

What about if I am on-duty not acting in my “official capacity,” for example, I am picking up my teacher spouse for lunch. No.

I am going to a teacher/parent meeting during school hours or after hours. I am “on-call” 24/7 and required to carry my duty weapon at all times when in public. No.

I am properly state licensed and the state permits me to carry a firearm on school property as a licensed person. Yes, you may carry in a GFSZ even though you are not then acting in your LE “official capacity.”

I am off-duty but responding to a law enforcement scenario at a school within the area of my sworn jurisdiction. Yes, you may do so armed under the GFSZA.

In summary: First check the GFSZA. If you get an exemption under it, check state and local law on rules for school carry. Parents of current students and sworn LEOs may get a special exemption which can be folded into a Federal one. If you are an active or retired LEO, get a state gun carry permit/license. If you are out of the state where you have a license/permit, see 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(B)(ii), above. (Get a nonresident permit/license; many who have opined on the point believe reciprocity is not expanded to the Federal GFSZA provision).

How about carry on a college or university? See state law and the rules of the institution.


**************************************************
15. FBI: More people killed with fists and hammers than with rifles and shotguns
**************************************************

The Bill Clinton “assault weapon ban” was not only a joke on the public that dealt solely with cosmetics, but it also went after guns that are very rarely used in a crime.

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:

--

From www.breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/n933os8


FBI: More People Killed with Fists and Hammers Than with Rifles and Shotguns
by AWR Hawkins
May 21, 2014

On January 3, 2013, Breitbart News reported on the newest FBI crime statistics then available (2011) showing that more people are killed with hammers and clubs each year than are killed with rifles.

With newer crime statistics now out for 2012, Breitbart News can report that more people are killed each year with fists and hammers than are killed with rifles or shotguns.

According to the FBI, there were a total of 625 murders committed with rifles and shotguns in 2012. That breaks down to 322 murders that were rifle related and 303 that were shotgun related.

The total number of deaths committed with fists, hammers, and other blunt objects was 1,196. That breaks down to 518 murders related to hammers and blunt objects and 678 related to fists.

Taken together, the rate of murder by fists and hammers was nearly 100 percent higher than the rate of murder by rifles or shotguns.


**************************************************
16. The 2nd Amendment is your gun permit? I think not!
**************************************************

This is a touchy situation. Yes, our right to keep and bear arms is God given, not bequeathed to us by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights merely is there to protect that right from government infringements, something it has failed to do very well.

It was tough not to cheer when Illinois had to come up with a CHP system, as it opens the door to hundreds of thousands of gun owners to be able to protect themselves as they go about their day-to-day lives. Something that would not be the case for the foreseeable future without that ruling.

But some good points are made.

Billy Huckleberry emailed me this:

--

From blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com: http://tinyurl.com/w9yjwz


The 2nd Amendment is your gun permit? I think not!
by Scott Landreth
May 16, 2014

“I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms!”

“The 2nd amendment is my gun permit!”

“State gun laws violate the 2nd amendment!”

Most of the people who utter these words are well-intended. They are very passionate about their right to keep and bear arms, but I can’t help but wonder if they truly understand where rights come from or what the 2nd amendment means.

Perhaps they’ve never taken the time to think about what these worn out cliches imply: that our right to keep and bear arms is granted to us by the 2nd amendment, that without the 2nd amendment, no such right would exist and that the 2nd amendment is a “universal” prohibition against all gun laws.

These same people likely cheered when a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Illinois’ ban on concealed carry permits and gave lawmakers there a deadline to craft legislation legalizing the concealed carry of firearms. This was said to be a victory for the 2nd amendment, but it was no such thing.

It was yet another blow to federalism intended to further centralize power in Washington DC.

To paraphrase Gerald Ford:

A government powerful enough to force Illinois to issue concealed carry permits is a government powerful enough to prohibit Illinois from issuing concealed carry permits.

The US Constitution as ratified in 1788 made no mention of the right to keep and bear arms whatsoever. The founders viewed the right to keep and bear arms as a natural right that stood as a part of English common-law for nearly a century.

It was a given!

It wasn’t until the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 that the prohibition against federal “infringement” of this important natural right was codified into law via the 2nd amendment.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to further define and clarify the limits of federal authority. The 2nd amendment doesn’t give anyone the right to keep and bear arms, it simply prohibits the federal government from interfering with that preexisting natural right.

Furthermore the men who drafted, and more importantly ratified, the US Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights intended the 2nd amendment to apply to the FEDERAL government only. NOT to the state governments. The preamble to the Bill of Rights makes this fact abundantly clear when it says, in part,

“The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution….”

Dr. Kevin R.C. Gutzman, an American historian, Constitutional scholar, and New York Times bestselling author explains the preamble to the Bill of Rights this way:

The “its” refers to the Constitution’s powers, and “the Government” refers to the Federal Government. In other words, the purpose of the federal Bill of Rights is to clarify the limits of Federal Government power. Its purpose is *not* to limit the state governments’ powers IN ANY WAY.

Even the US Supreme Court led by the ardent nationalist Chief Justice John Marshall admitted in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

The court reaffirmed the Barron ruling more than 40 years later in United States v. Cruikshank in 1876 (yeah, this reaffirmation came nearly eight years AFTER the 14th amendment was ratified). In addition, the Court held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right that exists without the Constitution granting such a right, by stating “Neither is it [the right to keep and bear arms] in any manner dependent upon that instrument [the Constitution] for its existence.”

It wasn’t until 1925 – more than 130 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified – that the Supreme Court decided that select portions of the Bill of Rights also applied to the states. This ridiculous 20th century invention of the Supreme Court known as the “incorporation doctrine” has been used to chip away at the 10th amendment and state sovereignty ever since.

At the end of the day, we need to understand that giving the federal government the power to protect our rights inevitably leads to the federal government defining our rights. Do we really want the federal government – or in many cases as few as five unelected, unaccountable judges – dictating what 310+ million Americans can and can’t do?

If history is any indication, the answer is an emphatic NO! The federal government does not have a good track record and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

State and local lawmakers will undoubtedly make bad decisions too, but those bad decisions are less difficult to combat and affect fewer people. State and local lawmakers are more accessible and typically more likely to respond to the will of their constituents. In short, our odds of affecting positive change are much greater at the state and local level than at the federal level, assuming we focus attention and energy at the state and local level – something that all too often fails to happen.

The founding generation treasured liberty, and it viewed centralized authority as the greatest threat to freedom. They had every opportunity to give the federal government power to enforce “rights” in the states, but declined. They feared placing that kind of power into so few hands. They undoubtedly recognized that states might violate rights, but they believed the people could manage their state governments.

If “We the People” continue to allow the federal government to act outside of its clearly defined jurisdiction, it will undoubtedly make more rulings with which we disagree than agree. The illegal actions of the federal government that render seemingly positive results – such as the aforementioned Illinois concealed carry case – are just as dangerous to liberty as those that render seemingly negative results.

Consistent, unwavering fidelity to the “supreme law of the land” is the key.

The Constitution. Every issue, every time. No exceptions, no excuses.


**************************************************
17. [NC] Thieves and vehicles with gun stickers
**************************************************

It’s well know that criminals take advantage of gun-free zones (which are protected only by a sign) to commit mass murder, but they also use them for other reasons, such as stealing guns from those who obey those “no guns” signs.

Member Bruce Wittmeier emailed me this:

--

From gunssavelives.net: http://tinyurl.com/q7gzhgu


Thieves in NC are Targeting Cars With Gun Related Stickers and Cars Parked near Gun Free Zones
By Dan Cannon
May 19,2014

It looks like gun thieves in North Carolina are getting smart in their search to illegally acquire guns.

According to a local report today, police have managed to bust several thieves they say are targeting cars that have gun related stickers on the bumper or windows.

They are also targeting cars that are parked near gun free zones. These areas force law abiding concealed carriers to leave their firearms in their vehicles where they are the target of thieves.

According to WSOCTV,

Just a few weeks ago, police in the University Division arrested a group of suspects officers say broke into cars specifically looking for firearms. They looked for various gun-related decals and bumper stickers to pick their targets.

Larry Hyatt, owner of Hyatt Guns said, “They’re really advertising to criminal they may have a gun in their car so it may not be the best place to make those statements on the bumper of your car.”
Hyatt said thieves have even lurked in his parking lot.

“We’ve had criminals try to break in cars. They know people coming to gun shop have guns and we have a camera and we’ve caught people breaking in cars.”

Hyatt said. “Fortunately, they’re in prison they didn’t get guns.”

I predicted the theft of guns around gun free zones where people are forced to leave their firearms, usually unsecured, in their vehicles. I’ve also never been a proponent of pro-gun stickers or signs where you keep your guns. If you must display these stickers or signs, make sure you don’t leave your firearms unattended in these vehicles.


**************************************************
18. [FL] Story of permits
**************************************************

Sheriff’s are comfortable with permit holders.


Member Rick Evans emailed me this:

--

From www.news4jax.com: http://tinyurl.com/nvwhm6v


How many people around us carry concealed weapons?
By Jim Piggott
April 25,2014 updated on May 1, 2014

Walking down the street or shopping at a store, you probably have no idea who has a gun with them. According to the state, more than 1.4 million Floridians hold permits to legally carry weapons.

In an informal survey, most people guessed that Miami-Dade County would have the highest rate of people carrying weapons, but according to the latest numbers from the state of Florida, only 5 percent of people in that area have permits to do so.

At the other end of spectrum is Nassau County, where 13 percent of adults hold concealed weapons permits -- the highest rate of carry permits in North Florida.

Nassau County resident Melissa Lewis is not surprised. She says half the people she works with can carry guns.

"It just seems nowadays people want to protect themselves," Lewis said. "We're in Nassau County, and there's a lot of old country boys."

Nassau County Sheriff Bill leper says he actually thought the percentage of people with concealed weapon permits would be higher, and he has no problem with the number that do.

"It's not a worry as long as they are carrying it legally," Leeper said, adding that they could be arrested if they carry without a permit.

He says most people when stopped will let deputies know they have a gun.

Anthony Testa, co-owner of Yulee Pawn and Collectibles, sells lots of guns to people in Nassau County. Testa says the more people who carry guns, the more people can deter crime.

"I believe 13 percent is a pretty good number if we are the highest, but I would like to beat that number," Testa said.

The next highest rate of concealed carry in Northeast Florida is 12 percent in Clay County, Followed by 10 percent in Baker and Flagler counties.

That surprises Baker County Sheriff Joey Dobson, who said, "I'm just shocked that it's 10 percent."

Baker thinks that many may not want to pay the $112 fee to get a concealed weapons permit.

In Putnam and in St. Johns County, 9 percent of the people old enough to have a concealed weapons permit do. St. Johns Sheriff's Office Cmdr. Chuck Mulligan said a large number of people in the area want to carry a gun, but without a permit the weapon must remain at home or locked in their car.

There are 55,822 concealed weapons permits issued in Duval County -- also a rate of 9 percent of the adult population.

Sheriff John Rutherford is glad to see that, saying "I want good people carrying guns because they stop a lot of crime before police can get there."

Concealed carry permits are issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture. The statistics cited in this article were updated March 31.


**************************************************
19. [FL] Another mayor against illegal guns in legal trouble
**************************************************

YAWWNN. Another one? I am so surprised.

From www.examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/ozc7lb5


Another MAIG member in trouble with the law faces wire fraud charges
By Dave Workman
May 22, 2014

An arraignment for North Miami Mayor Lucie Tondreau, a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) now facing federal criminal charges, is scheduled one week from tomorrow in federal court, according to a report by WFOR, the local CBS affiliate in Miami.

Mayor Tondreau, who has been suspended from office by Gov. Rick Scott, faces charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, according to the station and the Miami Herald. She has been released on bond, news agencies report. The charges related to allegations of fraud in getting loans on 20 properties between 2005 and 2008 in South Florida, CBS4 reported.

Tondreau is not the first member of the anti-gun MAIG to land in legal hot water. The Second Amendment Foundation publicized the problems of several other members of billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s group, which has also seen a lot of defections by mayors who discovered the group’s main goal is not to disarm criminals, but law-abiding citizens.

The embattled North Miami mayor, who should be considered innocent until proven guilty, told supporters she would beat the charges, the Miami Herald reported. A smiling Mayor Tondreau maintained her innocence in a brief comment broadcast by WTVJ, the local NBC affiliate, which also provided a copy of the indictment online.

Bloomberg formed MAIG in April 2006 with former Boston Mayor Tom Menino. Among the charter members was former Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who unsuccessfully tried to ban firearms in city park facilities and was sued by SAF, the National Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Washington Arms Collectors and five private citizens in a case that ultimately strengthened Washington’s model state preemption law.

There have been some embarrassing criminal misadventures involving members of the anti-gun organization. Members have been convicted of such crimes as perjury, bribery, fraud, money laundering, extortion, tax fraud, embezzlement, attempted child molestation, child pornography and various lesser crimes.

MAIG was rolled into Bloomberg’s $50 million so-called “grassroots” political effort dubbed “Everytown for Gun Safety,” along with Moms Demand Action, earlier this year. Still, one can see the cities and towns represented in the gun control lobbying group, though the names of mayors no longer appear.

MAIG now claims 1,000 members, while the group does not acknowledge the dozens of city leaders who have left. Earlier this year, Republican Mayor John Tkazyik of Poughkeepsie, N.Y. publicly announced his departure by expressing the belief that MAIG’s “ultimate goal is to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens,” the IJReview reported.

“I’m no longer a member of MAIG,” Mayor Tkazyik said three months ago. “Why? Just as Ronald Reagan said of the Democratic Party, it left me. MAIG became a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda — violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and taking resources away from initiatives that could actually work to protect our neighborhoods and save precious lives.”

Early last month, Danbury, Conn. Mayor Mark Boughton quit the group as well. He was quoted by the CT Mirror noting, “As a member of the Connecticut General Assembly, I was a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen in Connecticut. This remains my position today.”

Boughton is one of three candidates who will vie for a run at the governorship this fall. The primary will be held Aug. 12.


**************************************************
20. [FL] Concealed handgn brings quick end to road rage fight
**************************************************

Given a little distance, a handgun trumps a baseball bat every time. However, that said, the permit holder in this case would have been better served to continue to flee in his vehicle rather than get out of it and confronting his attacker. If you can safely get away from a fight, do so!

It is possible the article isn’t providing key details, such as perhaps the driver was about to be stuck in a traffic jam and didn’t want to be confined in his vehicle when the guy with the bat showed up.

Member Clayton Rhoades emailed me this:

--

From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/pxhd95t


Concealed handgun brings quick end to Fla. road rage fight
By Jessica Chasmar
May 21,2014

A road rage fight quickly came to an end Wednesday morning after a man pulled out his concealed handgun and fired at another man who was coming at him with a baseball bat.

Temple Terrace Police say that Adrian C. Fedrick, Jr., 23, got into a verbal altercation with two men in a red pickup truck in the parking lot of Terrace Walk Plaza about 8 a.m. Wednesday, The Tampa Tribune reported.

The driver of the pickup, apparently angry with Mr. Fedrick’s driving, parked and then exited the vehicle with a baseball bat. He then began chasing Mr. Fedrick’s car down 53rd Street with the bat, police said.

Mr. Fedrick told police that he believed the man was going to take a swing at his vehicle, so he stopped in front of KinderCare, 11501 N. 53rd St., and got out.

Mr. Fedrick said he tripped and fell upon exiting his vehicle, and the man with the bat began charging at him. Fearing for his safety, Mr. Fedrick told police that he pulled a gun from his waistband and fired three shots at the man, The Tribune reported.

The man — a Caucasian about 20 to 30 years old — reportedly fled on foot. Police are looking for him to investigate. They say they don’t believe anyone was injured in the gunfire.

Mr. Fedrick is licensed to carry a concealed weapon in Florida, the newspaper said.


**************************************************
21. [IN] More fearsome than the sound of a 12-guage being racked
**************************************************

Member PM Henick emailed me this:

--

From www.easybakegunclub.com: http://tinyurl.com/q3mptbe


When they yelled 'get the AR', four intruders ran - 1 got trapped in the bathroom (Indiana)
By Jason
May 23,2014

It's the exact scenario gun control advocates say "will never happen" to you - 5 intruders wearing masks, at least two of them armed, forced their way into a Fort Wayne, Indiana residence when the owner answered the door.

One of the intruders, Nathan L. Simmerson ran up the stairs to the second level of the house. And he ran into one of the residents who had armed himself with a handgun after hearing commotion downstairs. Simmerson only had a crowbar so he jumped into a bathroom and barricaded himself away from the resident and his handgun.

At the same time, the other four intruders were searching the lower level of the home and forced three of the residents to the ground.

What could have turned into a very ugly stand off ended when one of the victims being held on the lower level screamed out. The scream? For the man upstairs to grab his AR-15.

Even criminals and thugs can do basic math. While 5 armed intruders against 3 hostages and one armed resident seemed to be to the intruders advantage, Senor AR-15 and his 31 very speedy friends changed the equation. How did they react?

They hauled serious butt out the front door to safety and abandoned Simmerson still trapped in the upstairs bathroom.

Simmerson finally decided to try and run for it. He burst out the bathroom door, sans crowbar, and tried to flee. The four residents had no intention of seeing him get away. They tackled him to the ground and kept him there until police arrived.

So not only does an AR-15 have some advantages for home defense, the mere threat of it changed the balance of power for these five intruders. I guess AR's are even scarier to criminals than to gun grabbers - and that's a good thing.


**************************************************
22. [CA] Why I carry: armed robber executes 1 hiker and shoots another after they complied during robbery
**************************************************

Complying with a criminal’s demands got one person killed and other wounded.

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:

--

From gunssavelives.net: http://tinyurl.com/nvmsqyv


Why I carry: armed robber executes 1 hiker and shoots another after they complied during robbery
By Dan Cannon
May 19,2014

Many times you’ll hear law enforcement spokespeople and other public officials advise that compliance is the best way to get through a violent crime.

Unfortunately, for two California hikers that didn’t work. The two men were hiking a northern California trail when they were robbed at gunpoint.

After complying with all of the robber’s requests, the suspect shot both men. One of the victims died at the scene and the second was left for dead for nearly three hours until other hikers came upon the grisly scene.

According to CBS News,

Francis “Pat” Gregory, 69, of West Tisbury, and a 76-year-old man from Manton, California, were hiking a trail north of Red Bluff on Friday when they were confronted by a gunman, said Tehama County Sheriff’s Lt. Dave Greer.

The robber shot the men after taking their money and belongings, and left the victims for dead on a remote part of the trail until another hiker came upon them about three hours later.

Gregory died at the scene; the surviving victim was hospitalized with critical injuries. A doctor told investigators he was expected to pull through, Greer said.

This is yet another story that illustrates why I carry, everyday.

Interestingly, Adventure Journal ran a reader poll that found that 31.7% of respondents said they don’t carry a firearm in while in the back country and never would.






***************************************************************************
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/]

[MarcSpaz]

**************************************************
16. The 2nd Amendment is your gun permit? I think not!
**************************************************

This is a touchy situation. Yes, our right to keep and bear arms is God given, not bequeathed to us by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights merely is there to protect that right from government infringements, something it has failed to do very well.

It was tough not to cheer when Illinois had to come up with a CHP system, as it opens the door to hundreds of thousands of gun owners to be able to protect themselves as they go about their day-to-day lives. Something that would not be the case for the foreseeable future without that ruling.

But some good points are made.

Billy Huckleberry emailed me this:

--

From blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com: http://tinyurl.com/w9yjwz


The 2nd Amendment is your gun permit? I think not!
by Scott Landreth
May 16, 2014

“I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms!”

“The 2nd amendment is my gun permit!”

“State gun laws violate the 2nd amendment!”

I'd hate to be a Debbie Downer, and I am not a Constitutional Lawyer, but I play one on the Internet... in my opinion, Scott Landreth's blog is completely and totally flawed... though well intentioned.

See, there is this hierarchy were Constitutional law is first, federal law is second, states are third, and so on down through the local municipalities.

Well, at the very top of the list in the Constitution is the 10th Amendment, ratified in 1791. The 10th Amendment very specifically states that powers assigned to the federal government, trumps everything else, and ONLY IF the constitution doesn't give the power to the Federal Government AND if not prohibiting the states from having particular authority delegated to them, then, and only then, do the states have the rights to assert authority.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

See, the Constitution not only limits the powers of the federal government; it limits the power of a state and local governments as well. Thanks to the Second Amendment, which specifically revokes States ability to infringe on our right to keep and bare arms, any state attempting to do so is in violation of Constitutional law.

Remember Ladies and Gentlemen, the first 10 Amendments are there to preserve and protect "Individual rights" from being denied by all government in the United States. The recognition of our natural God given rights is not guarantied and protected by the Constitution, only as long as the state I live in says its okay. Protect rights are just that... Constitutionally protected.

So yes, I have a God given right, protected by the Federal Constitutional, to keep and bear arms, the 2nd amendment is my gun permit, and State gun laws do violate the 2nd amendment.

Don't let someone convince you that they are on you side as they push you down with a Socialist "Boot to the head". Saying "keep the Federal Government out of it, because your rights aren't really protected", is exactly that.

[kelu]

"Are you in law enforcement?"
No, but my gun is.