VA-ALERT: Correction to $2 fee on CHPs / Update

[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
----------------------------------------------------------------------

*** Because of some health issues with one of our editors, some of the article below go back a couple of months. We'll be catching up over time ***

1. Correction on $2 fee on CHPs
2. Fake gun store: another actor who is a big-time hypocrite!
3. Editorial: The gift of guns
4. Two opposite images of a mother
5. A note regarding CDC statistics
6. Why I carry? CSGV seems like a good reason
7. Murdered trucker stirs push for federal concealed carry permit
8. PBS Poll: Opposition to gun control stands at 95 percent
9. PBS uses deception to defend gun control movement
10. The gun-control movement, two years after Newtown
11. Should students carry guns on campus?
12. Appeals Court finds gun ban for committed man unconstitutional
13. 2A and people who were committed to mental institution 28 years ago
14. [NC] Boy, 14, fatally shoots intruder at grandmother's NC home
15. This is what a currency collapse looks like
16. Mother arrested for murder after 8 children stabbed to death in Cairns

**************************************************
1. Correction on $2 fee on CHPs
**************************************************

I was contacted by Chaz Evans-Haywood, the Rockingham and Harrisonburg City Circuit Court Clerk, to clarify a mistake in yesterday's Update (item #3. "Circuit Court Clerks should not charge $2 fee for credit card use with CHP application").

It turns out the $2 fee in question was NOT a credit card fee, but an electronic filing fee instead. The credit card fee, which is viewed as a "convenience" fee, CAN be legally assessed up to an additional $2, since the applicant has other options to pay the clerk.

Sorry for the mixup and thanks to Chaz for letting me know right away.

The point still stands - do not let a clerk charge you for an electronic filing fee when you apply for your CHP.


**************************************************
2. Fake gun store: another actor who is a big-time hypocrite!
**************************************************

Another actor who makes money selling extreme violence using guns and other weapons ("Grand Theft Auto"), wants to tell US that we shouldn't have guns. I have no interest in being lectured in a video or anywhere else by this hypocrite:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/ ... ft-auto-v/

or

http://tinyurl.com/pdko2x2


**************************************************
3. Editorial: The gift of guns
**************************************************

From fredericksburg.com: http://tinyurl.com/nyj2nke
http://www.fredericksburg.com/opinion/e ... a33b4.html


The gift of guns
by the Editorial Board of the Free Lance Star
December 18, 2014

According to the National Rifle Association, there is approximately one privately owned gun per citizen in the United States. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action reported in early 2013 that there were “upwards of 300 million” such guns, with the number rising by about 10 million a year.

That seems like more than enough.

Thus, we applaud Fredericksburg Councilman Chuck Frye Jr. for initiating a program to encourage residents to give back any guns that aren’t wanted or needed. Last Saturday, the Fredericksburg Police Department and Sheriff’s Office held its first gun give-back at the police department. Between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m., 60 guns had been collected from residents voluntarily giving them up. They came with everything from rusty rifles to a cellphone-size handgun. City police spokesman Natatia Bledsoe called it an “unqualified success.”

As with anything involving guns, the event was not without its detractors. The Virginia Citizens Defense League and gun dealer and collector Patricia Webb tried to block the give-away, saying it could deny business opportunities to dealers and collectors, even though the purpose of the give-away was to, yes, give the weapons away, not sell them. Fortunately, Circuit Judge Gordon F. Willis said their claims were without merit.

The police couldn’t buy them back, because state law requires that any guns bought by a locality have to be offered for sale to the public.

Those getting rid of unwanted guns also were giving a gift, with someone else’s money, to a local charity. Local philanthropist Doris Buffett had offered to make a $100 donation to one of four local charities for every gun that was given back, with the donor choosing the charity. Micah Ecumenical Ministries was the big winner here, receiving $2,600 toward its efforts to combat homelessness in the Fredericksburg area.

No questions were asked of the donors. After 90 days, the weapons will be destroyed, after ensuring that they haven’t been stolen or used in a crime.

No one seems interested in taking guns away from private citizens. Seeking to block the right of those private citizens to willingly turn in unwanted weaponry seems like an overreach by gun advocates. Are we only free to do what a particular interest group wants us to do?


**************************************************
4. Two opposite images of a mother
**************************************************

EM Leyla Myers emailed me this:

Here is my little article on the Second Amendment Sisters website.


From 2asisters.org: http://tinyurl.com/knq5pu5
http://www.2asisters.org/index.php?opti ... f-a-mother


Two Opposite Images of a Mother
by Leyla Myers, SAS Life Member
December 17, 2014

This past Mother's Day, I was alone most of the weekend with my two boys, 2 months old and almost 3 years old. Oh, what a fun weekend that was! If you have kids, you know there is a bit of sarcasm in my saying this. But I love them dearly, and every time I look at them, I think of two mothers. One is my mother, and the other is an unknown person that I saw years ago at a random Northern Virginia restaurant. These are two opposite images of two mothers - one helpless in the face of imminent danger; another confident in her ability to protect the child at any time, in any place. I want to be the image of that second mother - to be the first person to defend myself and my children. That is something my mother would never be able to do.

You see, I was born and raised in the greatest Soviet Union. When it's reign was over, my family remained living in what is now an independent Azerbaijan Republic. Most aspects of our lives continued to be the same - shortage of food, grey life style, and a trust that the government knows best what is best for us and one more - that the government and the police will always protect us. My parents were average people, and never owned a gun. They did not have a ‘good cause’ to own one. Thus, gun ownership as a right or an aspect of daily life did not exist in my mind, my life, my vocabulary. Not ever. No one I knew personally owed a gun. No one I knew ever mentioned a desire to have a gun. Yet I can think of at least three specific moments in my life back home when my safety and even my life was in imminent danger, and all of them happened near or within the walls of my home. Neither of my parents would have been able to defend me nor would I have been able to defend myself. I once asked a police officer if I should carry a folded knife to protect myself from a possible assault and he told me not to even consider that because even if someone attacked me, if I used the knife I would be prosecuted, and there would be no excuse for self-defense.

With the collapse of USSR came civil unrest and ethnic wars. My family was in the midst of one such war. One night, when I was 13, there were men walking from door to door looking for people like my father who had the misfortune to be born with the 'wrong ethnicity'. Now I know that this is called ethnic cleansing. By luck, my father had left the country a week before. If he was home that night, there would have been no chance of our survival. Since he was gone, my mother and grandmother stood at the door, and used their bodies as a shield between the men and my brother and I. They plead with the men to spare our lives. The only thing my mother could use was her words and her body to protect us. The men had the weapons, the power and the right to decide what to do. We were lucky that night. Many other families were not so lucky.

I came to U.S. in 2001 as an adult, alone. I had to learn basic things about life in America - how to buy groceries, choose an apartment, and decide where to go for shopping and eating. I did not ask my friends or acquaintances, "Do you have a gun?" or, "what is your view on gun ownership?" Then, two years after coming to U.S. and living in Virginia, I met my husband, the gun owner. But even after months of talking to him and others, I was not sure if gun ownership, or even more doubtful, that gun carrying is for me. I kept finding excuses of why I should not carry. I would tell myself and others that I don't know why I should trouble myself with this liability. My husband is American-born and raised, so he gets to enjoy this right, not me. That was my thought and my excuse. I was not a mother then, not even thinking about starting a family. Then, one evening in Northern Virginia I saw the mother with a child in her hands and a gun in a holster enjoying a meal with friends at a restaurant. It was like pieces of a puzzle finally falling in all the right places. Suddenly all the pro-carry arguments made sense and there was no turning back. No propaganda genius would ever change my mind, my thoughts on gun ownership. I still don't know who that woman was, but it is every woman who carries a firearm in Virginia whom I am thankful to.

So, today I am proud to be a U.S. citizen, a woman, a wife, a mother, and a gun owner who is ready to defend the lives of my dearest sons. With all due respect to my mother, I am not my mother's defenseless image.


**************************************************
5. A note regarding CDC statistics
**************************************************

Phillip,

It should be noted that when the CDC does firearms death statistics on "children", they go up to the age of 21. One of those annoying details that they like to omit.

Andrew Friedman


**************************************************
6. Why I carry? CSGV seems like a good reason
**************************************************

Member Paul Henick emailed me this:

The love and understanding are just overwhelming. [/sarcasm]

But, sadly, we knew all this before this time that CSGV asked their supporters.

Not a single comment from CSGV about the inappropriateness of any of the remarks, let alone the possibility that several of them might be prosecutable. Had this been a gun board asking the question about Josh Sugarman and similar comments been posted you can be sure that at the very least the commenters would have been banned.

stay safe.


From gunfreezone.net: http://tinyurl.com/p9k3x85
http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/index. ... od-reason/


**************************************************
7. Murdered trucker stirs push for federal concealed carry permit
**************************************************

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:


From guns.com: http://tinyurl.com/m9wbad5
http://www.guns.com/2014/12/19/murdered ... ry-permit/


Murdered trucker stirs push for federal concealed carry permit
by Chris Eger
December 19, 2014

The brutal killing earlier this year of a 30-year-old commercial truck driver has an industry group pushing for a nationwide federal firearms business carry permit.

The move, termed “Mike’s Law” with the blessing of the wife of murdered driver Mike Boeglin, is backed by the Small Business in Transportation Coalition. It would establish a federal program so truckers can carry firearms for personal and load protection nationwide regardless of state and local regulation.

“Once an American citizen leaves his home state and engages in ‘interstate commerce,’ his ability to carry a firearm and guard the shipment is at the mercy of other states that may or may not choose to grant reciprocity to their home state,” explains SBTC Chairman James Lamb in a Change.org petition backing the proposed new law.

The petition has more than 8,500 supporters.

Lamb argues that commercial drivers do not have the same protections others in the workforce, as they often cannot return to their homes every night. This, the group contends, should warrant an exception under the Interstate Commerce clause and in the spirit of the Second Amendment for truckers to be able carry across state lines while on the job. The solution to this would be a proposed Federal Business Concealed Carry Firearms Permit Program in which commercial drivers could apply to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for a license to allow carry anywhere in the country.

Currently the U.S. Department of Transportation defaults to local laws regarding possession of firearms in commercial motor vehicles, which is open to much interpretation.

The proposed law is named for an over the road trucker, Mike Boeglin, from a small town in Indiana, whose burned out rig was found at an abandoned sports complex on Detroit’s West Side in June. Inside the cab, authorities found Boeglin’s remains and ruled his death an apparent armed robbery. Police speculate that the driver was shot to death then was set on fire to destroy evidence.

Since his death, the SBTC has run a social media campaign in conjunction with the online petition in a drive to increase awareness for their proposed change.

In the past, the organization has had success in addressing other issues to benefit interstate truckers such as a 2009 campaign known as “Jason’s Law.” That effort, which highlighted the murder of long haul driver Jason Rivenburg after he parked to sleep at a disused gas station parking lot, as no rest areas were available. It ultimately led to more funding from Congress to increase the number of safe roadside rest areas.

While universal reciprocity of state permits which would treat concealed carry permits like driver’s licenses, allowing current permit holders to carry in any other state that issues permits, has been proposed in recent years in both the House and the Senate, this legislation has not proved successful.

Second Amendment scholars likewise are not convinced the trucker proposal has much likelihood of success in the current political climate.

“This proposal to allow interstate truckers to carry across state lines is not likely to be adopted,” Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, told Guns.com Friday. “Even with a Republican Congress, it’s hard to imagine the current president, who believes guns make you less safe not more, signing this legislation.”

The problem, explains Winkler, is that the move could be seen as the foot in the door of a larger nationwide carry campaign to follow, which lawmakers may be unready to tackle.

“If it is adopted, it wouldn’t necessarily have much effect on national reciprocity for ordinary carry. But there would be one less brick in the wall that prevents gun owners from taking their personal protection firearms with them when they travel,” Winkler said.


**************************************************
8. PBS Poll: Opposition to gun control stands at 95 percent
**************************************************

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/oxxu8pf
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... 5-percent/


PBS Poll: Opposition To Gun Control Stands at 95 Percent
by AWR HAWKINS
December 16, 2014

PBS Newshour ran a gun control poll on their homepage and the found that over “95 percent” of respondents opposed “more restrictive gun laws” on Sunday.

They introduced the question about gun control by pointing out that “it has been two years since the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary school, and the state of Connecticut now has some of the most restrictive gun policies in the country.” They indicated that Senator Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) gun control failed to pass at the federal level in April 2013 and asked if PBS listeners would like to see their states follow the same path as Connecticut and pass more gun control.

The exact wording of the question was: “Would you support more restrictions on guns in your state?”

The response: 95.16 percent said no while 3.75 percent said yes. One percent of respondents said they weren’t sure.


**************************************************
9. PBS uses deception to defend gun control movement
**************************************************

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/lf9hxjl
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -movement/


PBS USES DECEPTION TO DEFEND GUN CONTROL MOVEMENT
by AWR HAWKINS
December 19, 2014

On December 19, PBS used deception to defend the gun control movement by claiming that although “the gun-rights lobby … holds an edge” two years after Sandy Hook, the gun control lobby is gaining ground because of Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and financial supporters like Bloomberg.

PBS did not mention that Moms Demand Action’s last gun ban campaigns–conducted against Kroger, Fred Meyer, and Harris Teeter–failed. Nor did they mention that Everytown’s contributions to the gun effort–their research and reports on school shootings–include non-school shootings, shootings that didn’t happen, and accidental discharges of legally possessed firearms. They also left out the myriad of losses Bloomberg has been handed during the course of 2013 and 2014–from the Colorado recalls in September 2013 to the pro-gun Virginia delegate landslide in November 2013 to the reelection of Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke in August 2014, among others.

What PBS did mention is that gun control advocates are “starting to gain some momentum.” This is evident from the fact that “they’re spending more money than they have in the last decade,” and “they’ve expanded their grassroots game.” They cited gun control proponents’ attempts to “[change] the way they talk about [gun control]” and recent “legislative victories in several states.”

Meanwhile, Breitbart News previously reported that Texas is getting closer to overturning a 140-year ban on the open carry of handguns. And in the two years since Sandy Hook, Oklahoma has added open carry, as have Mississippi and Missouri. Other states, like Georgia and Idaho, have greatly expanded the locations in which guns can be carried for self-defense. Illinois became the 50th state to allow concealed carry; they even have concealed carry in Chicago. Florida expanded its Stand Your Ground law to allow the firing of warning shots, and numerous college and university campuses in Florida changed their policies to allow guns in cars on campus for self-defense.

At the federal level, pro-gun candidates ran roughshod over gun control challengers on November 4; this included a victory by pro-gun Republican Martha McSally, who won gun control proponent Gabby Giffords’ former seat in Arizona.

And the resounding defeat of Senator Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) 2013 gun control push still resonates.

But PBS said the gun control movement is getting ready to make its move. And part of that move includes abandoning the word “gun control” for a less-loaded term.

They quoted Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence, saying, “This framing of pro-gun versus anti-gun, or pro-restriction versus Second Amendment rights, is not a healthy way of looking at this issue if the goal is to save lives.” He asserted that they need to find a new way to frame their agenda so it does not look like an outright attack on the right to keep and bear arms.


**************************************************
10. The gun-control movement, two years after Newtown
**************************************************

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


From pbs.org: http://tinyurl.com/odkao47
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... r-newtown/


The Gun-Control Movement, Two Years After Newtown
by Sarah Childress
December 19, 2014

Two years after the Newtown shooting, the gun-rights lobby still holds the edge when it comes to gun policy in America.

On the federal level, gun-rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), spent roughly twice what gun-control groups spent on national political campaigns and nine times what they paid to lobby Congress, according to data from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics.

And at the state level, lawmakers continue to favor gun supporters, passing more laws to expand gun rights than to restrict them.

There’s also been a shift in public support. Last week, the Pew Research Center released a new study showing that a majority of people in the U.S. — 52 percent — now believe it’s more important to “protect the rights of Americans to own guns” than to control gun ownership. The results mark the first time Americans have significantly prioritized gun rights since Pew began asking this question in 1993.

Even so, gun-control advocates say they’re starting to gain some momentum. They’re spending more than they have in the last decade. They’ve expanded their grassroots game, and managed to rack up legislative victories in several states. And they’re changing the way they talk about the issue.

Nancy Watzman, who tracks political expenditures for the Sunlight Foundation, said she’s seen the groups shift tactics since Newtown. “We’re seeing a bit of maturing of how they’re doing it,” she said. “The gun groups like the NRA have been doing this for ages, and they have it down. The gun-control groups with this kind of money are newer, and they’re just starting to figure it out.”

She added, “How that will play out remains to be seen.”

A Grassroots Game

Gun-control advocates have started to model themselves after their biggest rival, the NRA, by closely tracking — and weighing in — on gun laws at the state level. That’s where the NRA has quietly exercised a lot of power and helped create engaged members. And they still do: Like last year, states passed more laws to expand gun rights (60) than to restrict them (46).

Despite the imbalance, reform advocates made some significant gains this year, said Laura Cutilletta, a senior attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, who analyzed the laws. She pointed to a major reform bill that passed in Massachusetts that would, among other things, establish an online portal that gun buyers and sellers would use to verify each other’s licenses.

“This was a new approach,” she said. “There’s been a lot of new ideas and new ways to approach this problem, so we expect to see an increase [in new reform legislation] next year.”

The change is due in part to new grassroots pressure from gun-control groups. In the past two years, they have strengthened and expanded local chapters of volunteers who lobby state lawmakers, march and sign petitions calling for reform. In the months after Newtown, gun-control advocates in Connecticut — many of them suburban moms — started turning up at legislative hearings and pressuring lawmakers in support of the state’s reform bill, which ultimately passed.

This year, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America — now a part of Everytown for Gun Safety — successfully lobbied seven major companies, including Target, Chipotle, Chili’s and Starbucks, to discourage gun owners from bringing their firearms into their stores and restaurants. They signed petitions, made phone calls and staged rallies to make it happen. The group is focusing on Kroger next.

Advocates also pushed for laws in six states that would prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms. California’s law included a provision that allows relatives to petition a court to remove a person’s firearm if they can show that they pose a threat to themselves or others.

By far, the gun control movement’s biggest victory this year was in Washington state, where reform supporters helped to put a measure to expand background checks for gun owners on the November ballot. Everytown said it spent more than $12 million and dispatched six full-time staff members to help get the measure passed. The measure won nearly 60 percent of the vote.

Everytown says it has signatures to put a similar measure to a vote in Nevada in 2016. Advocates are eyeing the same idea in 17 other states, including Maine and Arizona.

Money Matters

Gun-rights groups still hold a major edge when it comes to spending. And they get results.

The NRA’s PAC, the Political Victory Fund, spent nearly $14 million attacking Democratic candidates during the 2014 campaign, according to an analysis of independent expenditures — money spent expressly in support or against a federal candidate — by the Sunlight Foundation. The foundation calculated that the NRA’s “return on investment,” based on how many winning candidates it backed, was 95 percent.

The top gun-control group PAC, Americans for Responsible Solutions, founded by former Rep. Gabby Giffords, spent $8.8 million attacking Republican candidates who advocated expanding gun rights — but had only a 34 percent return on investment.

But the gun-control cause also had major backing from Independence USA, a PAC set up by former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, which spent nearly $20 million on state-level contests, including the Washington ballot initiative to tighten background checks. It also supported two Democratic gubernatorial candidates up for re-election — John Hickenlooper in Colorado and Dan Malloy in Connecticut — who had signed controversial gun control legislation after Newtown. Both men kept their posts.

Don’t Call It “Gun Control”

Advocates have also started to rethink the way they talk about their goals. Today, none of them actually use the term “gun control.” “That’s a phrase that was pointed to as divisive, or didn’t have the right tone or implications,” said Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action.

They talk instead about “gun safety,” “common-sense gun laws,” or more simply, “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” They underscore that even as Americans support firearm ownership, 91 percent also want mandatory background checks.

“This framing of pro-gun versus anti-gun, or pro-restriction versus Second Amendment rights, is not a healthy way of looking at this issue if our goal is to save lives,” said Dan Gross, head of the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence. “We need to look at the opportunities that clearly exist to prevent gun deaths and crime while being consistent with the Second Amendment and the desire of law-abiding citizens to own guns.”


**************************************************
11. Should students carry guns on campus?
**************************************************

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:


From bbc.com: http://tinyurl.com/pcs59g7
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30438570


Should students carry guns on campus?
By Rajini Vaidyanathan
December 18, 2014

A former beauty pageant contestant from California, 20-year-old Taylor Woolrich is the first to admit she's not your usual guns rights campaigner.

She's fighting for the right to carry a weapon on campus, for a very personal reason.

For years she's been stalked by a man she first came into contact with while waitressing at a cafe.

He would turn up to see her every day and began to track her down outside work. An emergency restraining order failed to deter him.

Things became even more terrifying when she moved across the country to study at Dartmouth college in New Hampshire.

"It wasn't even on my mind, and then he contacted me via LinkedIn and used social media to continue to contact me - sent me various very frightening messages, making it very specific he knew where I was," she says.

One summer, when she went home to California, he turned up at her parents' doorstep. She says police found what they call a "rape kit" - rope tied as a slip-noose, gloves, duct-tape, flash light, and a sweatshirt - inside his car.

Taylor's stalker is currently in jail. His sentence will soon be up.

He's due to face trial soon on further charges relating to her case. Still, Taylor is desperately frightened that he could be released, or allowed out on bail. She's certain that if that happened, he would be able to find her.

For that reason, she wants the right to carry a gun on her university premises, arguing it's the only way she could overpower him if the pair came face to face.

"I carry mace, I've considered a Taser, I've considered many options," she says. "Whatever he's going to do, it's going to be worse than the possibility of him grabbing my gun and turning it on me."

Dartmouth College has refused to comment on this specific case due to privacy laws, but says the safety and security of all students is a top priority for them. Any student who reports being stalked is given personalised and heightened protection. On top of this, safety improvements are made, as and when they are needed, says a spokesman.

Like the vast number of colleges and universities across the country, Dartmouth has a policy which prohibits handguns on campus.

The laws on guns on campuses vary from state to state. In more than half of the country, it's up to the universities themselves to decide weapons policy. In New Hampshire, where Dartmouth is located, the decision is left to the college, which chose to keep its campus gun free.

Many institutions believe that allowing weapons on campus has the potential to inflame tense situations, rather than defuse them.

The American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU) has stated, "Even with the best of intentions, armed students or employees could escalate an already explosive situation further, accidentally cause harm or use a gun in a situation that is not warranted."

This month however, a Florida legislator brought forth a bill calling to allow students to carry guns on campus. He cited a recent campus shooting at Florida State University as a reason students need firearms.

A national group, Students For Concealed Carry, is also calling for the right for students to have a concealed weapon. It would mean they could have a gun in their bag at university, but wouldn't be able display it on a holster.

Crayle Vanest is Midwest regional director for the group. A student at Indiana University, she got her first rifle at the age of 14 for sport, before getting her concealed carry permit.

"As soon as you walk into the doors of a university you should still be able to carry your gun if you have a licence," she says.

"Your rights shouldn't change once you step inside the campus."

Vanest says her organisation has attracted many women.

"We want to protect ourselves on campus which is an area where women are very frequently victimised."

But just as there are groups advocating for students to carry guns, there are many who call for the opposite, arguing that the presence of weapons exacerbates violence on campus.

"Having access to guns only increases the chances of an innocent person being hit, versus actually hitting a target or a person who's trying to stalk you," argues Jamira Burley, a member of the Generation Progress, Gun Violence Network.

Burley also cites the high levels of suicide among college students as another reason for guns to be banned from places of education. She says 85% of suicide attempts using guns are fatal, compared with only 2% who attempt a drug overdose.

For Taylor, the right to bear arms isn't about exercising a constitutional right, it's about staying safe.

"What else am I supposed to do? What other option is there? I've tried everything, I've obeyed all the laws," she says. ,"I've never responded to a single message, I've stayed away, I've gone to school 3,500 miles away from my home town, my parents have sold their home and moved," she says.

"There's no other option."


**************************************************
12. Appeals Court finds gun ban for committed man unconstitutional
**************************************************

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:


From blogs.wsj.com: http://tinyurl.com/o5f9mn4
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/12/18/app ... od=WSJBlog


Appeals Court Finds Gun Ban for Committed Man Unconstitutional
by Ashby Jones
December 18, 2014

In the first legal ruling of its type, a federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Thursday deemed unconstitutional a federal law that kept a Michigan man who was briefly committed to a mental institution decades ago from owning a gun.

A three-judge panel of the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that the federal ban on gun ownership for anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” violated the Second Amendment rights of Clifford Charles Tyler, a 73-year-old Hillsdale County man.

“The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights,” wrote Judge Danny Boggs, an appointee of President Reagan, for the panel.

Luke McCarthy, Mr. Tyler’s lawyer, called the ruling “a forceful decision to protect Second Amendment rights,” and said he hoped it had “a significant impact on the jurisprudence in the area of gun-rights.”

A request for comment to the Justice Department was not immediately returned.

The ruling is the first by a federal appeals court to deem unconstitutional a federal gun law since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 ruling, called D.C. v. Heller. The Heller ruling, in which the court struck down Washington, D.C.’s ban on firearm ownership, represented the Supreme Court’s first foray in decades into the scope of the Second Amendment.

According to Thursday’s opinion, Mr. Tyler had recently attempted to buy a gun but was denied on grounds that he had been committed by a court to a mental institution in 1986 following emotional problems associated with a divorce. His commitment lasted less than a month.

Federal law bans gun ownership for a variety of types of people, including convicted felons, people under 18, illegal aliens, drug addicts, and those ordered by a court to a mental institution.

However, federal law also says that people must have opportunities to prove that their disqualifying “disabilities” have ended and that they should be able to own a gun.

According to the opinion, the federal government defunded its so-called “relief from disabilities” program in 1992. Since 2008, states have been able to get federal grants to set up their own programs. But such programs are voluntary on the part of the states, and Michigan has yet to set one up, leaving Mr. Tyler without a venue by which to prove that his “disability” no longer should apply.

In other words, wrote Judge Boggs: “[W]hether Tyler may exercise his right to bear arms depends on whether his state of residence has chosen to accept the carrot of federal grant money and has implemented a relief program. . . . An individual’s ability to exercise a fundamental right necessary to our system of ordered liberty cannot turn on such a distinction.”

According to Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, the ruling could give momentum to the gun-rights movement. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see legal challenges to other parts of the [federal gun] law now,” he said.

Mr. Winkler also said the ruling could prompt Republicans in Congress to move to set up a new “relief from disabilities” program that would allow people to prove they’re fit to own guns.


**************************************************
13. 2A and people who were committed to mental institution 28 years ago
**************************************************

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:


From washingtonpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/moaj4tq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... years-ago/


Second Amendment and people who had been committed to a mental institution 28 years ago
By Eugene Volokh
December 18, 2014

Under federal law, people who have been involuntarily “committed to a mental institution” — however long ago — are barred from possessing guns. Congress agreed that people with long-past mental problems might now be sane, and thus not especially dangerous, and provided for a means to apply for restoration of gun rights. But then in 1992 Congress ordered ATF not to spend any money applying the restoration program. And while it provided, in 2007, that people could get their rights restored by applying to a state that has a qualifying program for evaluating applicants’ mental fitness, many states have no such program.

This case was brought by a resident of one such state that lacks a relief-from-disabilities program, Michigan. From the court’s opinion, Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff’s Dep’t (6th Cir. Dec. 18, 2014):

This case presents an important issue of first impression in the federal courts: whether a prohibition on the possession of firearms by a person “who has been committed to a mental institution,” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-eight years ago, Clifford Charles Tyler was involuntarily committed for less than one month after allegedly undergoing an emotionally devastating divorce. Consequently, he can never possess a firearm. Tyler filed suit in federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment that § 922(g)(4) is unconstitutional as applied to him. The district court dismissed Tyler’s suit for failure to state a claim. Because Tyler’s complaint validly states a violation of the Second Amendment, we reverse and remand….

Tyler is a seventy-three-year-old resident of Hillsdale County, Michigan. On January 2, 1986, a state probate court committed Tyler to a mental institution. Tyler alleges that he underwent an emotionally devastating divorce in 1985 and that he was involuntarily committed because of a risk that he might be suicidal.

Tyler submitted a 2012 substance-abuse evaluation containing additional information about his 1985 depression. In 1985, when Tyler was forty-five years old, Tyler’s wife of twenty-three years served him divorce papers. Prior to filing for divorce, Tyler’s ex-wife allegedly ran away with another man and depleted Tyler’s finances. Tyler felt “overwhelmed” and “sat in the middle of the floor at home pounding his head.” According to a mental-health evaluation submitted by Tyler, Tyler was crying non-stop, not sleeping, depressed, and suicidal at this time. Tyler’s daughters became scared and contacted the police. [Tyler was then involuntarily committed. -EV] …

In 2012, Tyler underwent a psychological evaluation. Tyler informed the psychologist that he had never experienced a “depressive episode” other than his 1985 incident. The psychologist’s report indicated that Tyler has no criminal history. The psychologist contacted Tyler’s physician who also reported that she had not detected evidence of mental illness in Tyler. The psychologist determined that Tyler’s prior involuntary commitment “appeared to be a brief reactive depressive episode in response to his wife divorcing him.” The psychologist determined that there was no evidence of mental illness.

The court concluded — quite rightly, I think — that Heller‘s endorsement of restrictions on gun ownership by the mentally ill doesn’t dispose of the case:

The Court’s “assurance” that Heller does not cast doubt on prohibitions on the possession of firearms by the mentally ill does not resolve this case. For § 922(g)(4) prohibits firearm possession not just by the mentally ill but by anyone “who has been committed to a mental institution.” … Heller’s assurance that the state may prohibit the “mentally ill” from possessing firearms may provide solid constitutional ground for § 922(g)(4)’s restriction as to an individual “adjudicated as a mental defective,” but it is insufficient — by itself — to support the restriction as to individuals who have been involuntarily committed at some time in the past.

The court then concluded that strict scrutiny (not intermediate scrutiny) was generally the proper test to apply to gun restrictions, outside those categories excluded from Second Amendment scrutiny by Heller. The court, however, “predict[ed] that the application of strict scrutiny over intermediate scrutiny will not generally affect how … circuits decide various challenges to federal firearm regulations”; this might seem surprising, but the court’s explanation of this prediction on pp. 26-27 strikes me as quite plausible. And the court then applied strict scrutiny — here are some excerpts from the analysis, which focuses largely on the fact that Congress (1) chose to create a system for people with past mental commitments to regain their Second Amendment rights, but (2) then defunded the federal system and decided to rely on state choices whether to set up their own state systems:

At issue here is only § 922(g)(4)’s prohibition on possession by persons previously committed to a mental institution. Not all previously institutionalized persons are mentally ill at a later time, so the law is, at least somewhat, overbroad. But is it impermissibly so? Congress, in its efforts to keep firearms away from the mentally ill, may cast a wider net than is necessary to perfectly remove the harm. A “prophylactic approach thus obviate[s] the necessity for large numbers of individualized determinations.” But is § 922(g)(4)’s net too wide? Are previously institutionalized persons sufficiently dangerous, as a class, that it is permissible to deprive permanently all such persons of the Second Amendment right to bear arms?

It is a difficult question but one that we need not answer in the first instance. Congress has already determined that the class of individuals previously committed to a mental institution is not so dangerous that all members must be permanently deprived of firearms. Congress created a relief-from-disabilities program in which individuals subject to a § 922 prohibition can regain their firearm rights by showing that they are unlikely to present a threat. Because this program extends eligibility to all persons subject to any § 922 prohibition, it alone might be insufficient evidence of Congress’s determination that the previously institutionalized are not per se dangerous ….

Congress has chosen not to fund the program since 1992…. Congress’s failure to fund the federal program precludes the judicial review under § 925(c) that would otherwise be available if the government denied his application on the merits. Tyler could apply for relief from a federally-certified state program, but he cannot obtain relief from his state program because Michigan has not created one. If Michigan had a program, Tyler could potentially obtain relief and regain his Second Amendment right because he is not dangerous.

Under this scheme, whether Tyler may exercise his right to bear arms depends on whether his state of residence has chosen to accept the carrot of federal grant money and has implemented a relief program. His right thus would turn on whether his state has taken Congress’s inducement to cooperate with federal authorities in order to avoid losing anti-crime funding. An individual’s ability to exercise a “fundamental righ[t] necessary to our system of ordered liberty” cannot turn on such a distinction. Thus, § 922(g)(4) lacks narrow tailoring as the law is applied to Tyler….

[T]here is a non-zero chance that a previously institutionalized person will commit gun violence in the future, but that is true of all classes of persons. Although the government presents two examples of persons adjudicated as mentally ill who committed gun violence and cites one study in support of the claim that a prior suicide attempt is a “risk facto[r]” for suicide, it has offered not an iota of evidence that prohibiting the previously institutionalized from possessing guns serves its compelling interests. In addition to recognizing that many previously institutionalized persons now are not dangerous and thus that a total ban was not justified, Congress went further. For an entire class of persons, Congress effectively conditioned the ability to exercise a right “necessary to our system of ordered liberty” on whether they reside in a state that has chosen to participate in a joint federal-state administrative scheme….

Tyler alleges that he will not present a danger, and he presents evidence to support that claim. If he lived in a state with a government-certified program, he could potentially regain his Second Amendment right. Because he resides in Michigan, he can never possess a gun, unless Michigan chooses to join the federal program. What is at stake is more than just “influencing a State’s policy choices.” It is the protection of the Second Amendment. For these reasons, § 922(g)(4)’s mental-commitment prohibition’s application to Tyler does not satisfy narrow tailoring….

Tyler’s complaint validly states a claim for a violation of the Second Amendment. The government’s interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill is not sufficiently related to depriving the mentally healthy, who had a distant episode of commitment, of their constitutional rights.

The government at oral argument stated that it currently has no reason to dispute that Tyler is a non-dangerous individual. On remand, the government may, if it chooses, file an answer to Tyler’s complaint to contest his factual allegations. If it declines to do so, the district court should enter a declaration of unconstitutionality as to § 922(g)(4)’s application to Tyler.

One of the panel members, Judge Gibbons, agreed with most of Judge Boggs’s analysis (which was joined in full by Judge Siler), but concluded that there was no need to decide whether intermediate or strict scrutiny applied.


**************************************************
14. Boy, 14, fatally shoots intruder at grandmother's NC home
**************************************************

Member Clayton Rhoades emailed me this:


From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/o9jjk92
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... thers-nc-/


Boy, 14, fatally shoots intruder at grandmother’s N.C. home
by Jessica Chasmar - The Washington Times
December 18, 2014

A 14-year-old boy whose father was murdered six years ago says he was protecting his grandmother after he fatally shot a man who was trying to break into his grandparents’ home on Tuesday in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Anthony Hernandez was visiting his grandparents, George and Anna Marie Wyant, when he said he heard a loud bang at the back of the house around 5:15 p.m. The suspect, 18-year-old Isai Delcid, was allegedly trying to break into a back window.

“Then I went and I got the gun,” Anthony told a local CBS affiliate. “I told the guy — and I said who is that, and the person hit [the window] again.”

“Then I said I have a gun, and they hit it another time. And they hit it again. I said stop and the guy broke through. And that’s when I shot,” he told WBT Radio in a telephone interview.

A few minutes later, Mrs. Wyant told a 911 operator what had happened.

“The man was breaking into the window,” she said in the call, the Charlotte Observer reported. “He was halfway in the window. My grandson told him to stop and get out of here, and he didn’t so my grandson shot him. … Somebody just broke in the house, and we shot him.”

Police found Delcid shot to death on the Wyants’ back deck. Police said they believe the fatal shooting was justified and have not charged the teen with a crime.

Delcid’s older brother, Carlos Delcid, who was reportedly in charge of operating the getaway car, was later arrested for 1st degree burglary.

The shooting comes six years after Anthony’s father, Gregorio Hernandez, 35, was shot to death while working on a car at the auto shop he owned. Victor Vasquez was later found guilty of first-degree murder in that killing.

“[Hernandez] was a mechanic,” Mr. Wyant told the Observer. “It was his garage. Someone came in and shot him to death.”

Hernandez’s death motivated the Wyants to begin teaching their grandchildren self-defense.

“I took [Anthony] to a shooting range,” Mr. Wyant said. “All the boys, I wanted them to learn gun safety. That’s what all of us should have for protection. These are different ages, and you have to protect yourself.”

Mrs. Wyant said the teen is “his grandmother’s hero.”

“If I was by myself, God knows what they would have done to me,” she told the Observer.


**************************************************
15. Mother arrested for murder after 8 children stabbed to death in Cairns
**************************************************

Another reminder that mass murders don't require guns, just determined evil. We see these kind of stories coming in from China often, but this is from Australia.

Member Bob Greene emailed me this:


From theguardian.com: http://tinyurl.com/qcf2ynn
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne ... -in-cairns


Mother arrested for murder after eight children stabbed to death in Cairns
Victims aged between 18 months and 15 years discovered by adult brother, with mother being treated in hospital for wounds to chest
by Joshua Robertson
December 19, 2014

One of Australia’s worst mass killings, leaving eight children from the same family dead, has left the city of Cairns in shock.

The grim discovery of the bodies of children aged 18 months to 15 years was reportedly made by their adult brother at their home in Manoora, in the north Queensland city’s west.

The mother of seven of the children, 37, was being treated for stab wounds to the chest and was in a stable condition. Police said early on Saturday (local time) that she had been arrested for murder.

Police were called to the house, which is located around a clutch of low cost, publicly owned housing on Murray Street in Manoora, around 11.20 am on Friday.

Lisa Thaiday, who said she was the woman’s cousin, said it was a 20-year-old sibling who raised the alarm after finding his brothers and sister dead.

Friends and relatives of the children made their way to the house, some openly mourning in emotional scenes, others laying flowers, and one a teddy bear, just beyond the police cordon.

One family friend told Guardian Australia that the crime had left three fathers mourning their children. One of those men, who lost four children, was “a mess” and had taken refuge in the emotional support of his -parents and sister, the friend said.

A large crowd gathered for a candlelit vigil on Friday night in a park in the centre of Cairns.

The children’s family originally come from Erub island in the Torres Strait, just north of the Australian mainland.

Their uncle, pastor Michael Gela, said through tears that he had heard rumours of what happened in the Murray Street house but was no closer to the truth, Fairfax media reported.

“I’m trying to put my mind to it, but it’s unbelievable,” he said. “It’s a shocking time for a lot of Indigenous families and friends, but the gathering was good.”

The crime scene remained locked down with detectives, child protection officers and forensic experts working late in Friday night.

The street, normally teeming with neighbours socialising into the evening, was deserted, save a lone TV cameraman and forensic investigators behind forbidding police screens taking evidence.

Police have not publicly detailed the children’s manner of death but one source indicated to Guardian Australia that reports of stabbing were correct.

Asnicar said it was among the most serious incidents he had encountered in his career, saying the scene was “very distressing” for officers but they would be “missing nothing as far as conducting this investigation”.

It was the second high profile tragedy to strike the national psyche in days, with many across the country still reeling from a dramatic siege in Sydney which left three dead.

The Queensland premier, Campbell Newman, said he was “deeply saddened and shocked by the tragic events in Cairns today”.

“Indeed, the whole Cairns community and the people of Queensland will feel the effects of this tragedy, particularly at a time of year when families come together.

“My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of those concerned.”

Newman said he was also concerned about the impact on emergency workers and police at the scene and directed ministers to “make sure those individuals are receiving the support they need”.

Tony Abbott said the incident in Cairns was “heartbreaking” and an “unspeakable crime”.

“All parents would feel a gut-wrenching sadness at what has happened,” he said.

Abbott said these were “trying days for our country”.

“Tonight, there will be tears and prayers across our country for these children. My thoughts are with the Queensland police and all who have to respond to this terrible situation.”

Officers from the Cairns criminal investigation branch, the child protection and investigation unit and scenes of crime have set up a mobile facility at the scene.

A Murray Street resident, Stephen Lillingstone, told Guardian Australia the incident had occurred on a section of the street that was “a bit rowdy”.

“You get your flare-ups and everything,” he said.




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

[SHMIV]

I like that thing about truckers getting to carry in all states. I wonder how that would work with drivers that go to Canada and Mexico?

I also wonder how that would work with off-duty carry?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

I like that thing about truckers getting to carry in all states. I wonder how that would work with drivers that go to Canada and Mexico?

I also wonder how that would work with off-duty carry?

That would be great for owner-operators but company drivers are still going to be limited by their employer's policies.

[SHMIV]

True, ORS. However, if you legally carry on the boss mans truck, and he finds out, you just find another company. I think, though, that some companies will permit it, and other companies will follow suit when drivers start leaving for the gun friendly companies.

Truck companies have a hard time retaining employees; drivers are always looking for the better deal. And many of us would take a pay cut to arm ourselves.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[OakRidgeStars]

In order for any company to permit it, they will have to endorse it. That's not likely in our current litigation-happy society.

I drive a company-owned vehicle everyday, and I've had this conversation with my employer. What was their answer, you ask?

No.

[SHMIV]

But, you don't live in your company vehicle. Things are a little different for truck drivers. Truckers will leave their company, and not even bother to return the truck, over the smallest thing. I've had to pick up abandoned trucks, and some companies have drivers that do nothing but pick up abandoned trucks, all year long.

All it would take is a couple of companies to approve it, and other companies will do the same, just to keep drivers. It won't be a sudden thing; it would be over the course of a few years. They wouldn't want to, because of the fear being sued out of business. But, if they don't have drivers to move the freight, then they go out of business, anyway.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just speculating.

Another thought that occurs to me, is that were this Federal Carry Permit to happen (I'm not holding my breath, by the way), that may open the door to lawsuits against companies that won't approve firearms; the truck IS home, after all, and we have the right to protect ourselves at home.

Maybe I'm just dreaming. Considering that I woke up at 2am, and it's now almost 11pm, dreaming's not that irrational, lol.

[AlanM]

RE: "PBS did not mention that Moms Demand Action’s last gun ban campaigns–conducted against Kroger, Fred Meyer, and Harris Teeter–failed. "

Let's not get caught up in doing the same sort of thing that the gun grabbers do by citing facts that are mis-leading.
Although it is true that MDA failed miserably at trying to get Kroger, Fred Meyer, and Harris Teeter to ban guns from their stores I'd like to point out that all three of three of those names belong to the SAME corporation.
The Kroger Corporation owns, not only the stores that do business under the Kroger name but MANY other chains with well known names such as Fred Meyer, Harris Teeter, Ralphs, and many others.
See: http://www.thekrogerco.com/about-kroger/operations

My point being: the fact that MDA got nowhere with Fred Meyer and Harris Teeter is not surprising given the fact that Kroger Corporate is very gun friendly and Kroger owns them.
Note also that Kroger is number 2, after WalMart, retailer in the US. See: https://nrf.com/2014/top100-table
I find it interesting that both corporations are gun friendly.