----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shenandoah Gun Show Coordinator stepping down - replacement needed
2. Parker blames pro-gun politicians instead of a maniacal ex-journalist for daughter’s death
3. Virginia Democrats predictable call for gun control, VCDL quoted in article
4. IMPORTANT: IMR has recall on some of its gun powder
5. Survey: criminals don’t get their guns from dealers or gun shows
6. Reminder: Goodyear is anti-gun
7. Reminder: Lobby Day on January 18, 8:30 AM Richmond!
8. Purchasing a firearm after your gun rights have been restored
9. Kaine: Cease gun sales until background check is complete
10. Chris Christie on guns again
11. Pentagon chief has legal ability to arm stateside troops
12. Do you have a duty to inform when carrying concealed?
13. [NC] Ex stalks, then slays female after her gun jammed
14. [CA] Police 'likely' to destory 6.5 tons of ammo
15. [FL] Take 2 losses and call me in the morning
16. [FL] Courts hand down another pro-gun victory
17. The second amendment must go
18. 10 things you should never do as a concealed carrier
19. There's a drone flying over my house. Can I shoot it?
20. Impulsively angry gun owners
21. Gun silencer sales are soaring
**************************************************
1. Shenandoah Gun Show Coordinator stepping down - replacement needed
**************************************************
John Norton, the VCDL Shenandoah Gun Show Co-Coordinator is stepping down after serving in that position for the last three years. We would like to fill that position so that David Sayen has some help with gun shows in that part of the state.
If you are interested in helping, contact David Sayen at gunshows.shenandoah@vcdl.org
Our many many thanks to John Norton for his help in the all-imortant role as a gun show coordinator!
**************************************************
2. Parker blames pro-gun politicians instead of a maniacal ex-journalist for daughter’s death
**************************************************
"Parker: We need to do whatever it takes to end this insanity” I agree wholeheartedly! Let’s start by getting rid of gun-free zones, removing all the gun-control roadblocks that only make it harder for the good people of Virginia to be able to carry a gun for self-defense, and move away from background check requirements that don’t really do what they claim.
But, sadly, no. Parker’s take is just the opposite. And he blames pro-gun politicians for the act of an evil ex-journalist. Congressman Bob Goodlatte, and Virginia State Senators Bill Stanley and John Edwards are NOT to blame for the tragedy. Their past pro-gun votes helped make Virginia a safer place to live.
Let’s not forget that Andy Parker is a politician, having served on a Board of Supervisors and having had an unsuccessful run for the Virginia House of Delegates. I’m suspicious that he is really singling out Goodlatte, Stanley, and Edwards for a future Parker candidacy for higher office.
http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commenta ... 4ec74.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/p5x4bzz
Parker: We need to do whatever it takes to end this insanity
By Andy Parker
Last Wednesday, my daughter Alison was brutally struck down in the prime of her life by a deranged gunman. Since that time I have stated in numerous interviews I have done with local, national and international media that I plan to make my life’s work trying to implement effective and reasonable safeguards against this happening again.
In recent years we have all witnessed similar tragedies unfold on TV – the shooting of a congresswoman in Arizona, the massacre of schoolchildren in Connecticut and churchgoers in South Carolina. We have to ask ourselves: “What do we need to do to stop this insanity?”
In my case, the answer is, “Whatever it takes.”
I plan to devote all of my strength and resources to seeing that some good comes from this evil. I am entering this arena with open eyes. I realize the magnitude of the force that opposes any sensible and reasonable safeguards on the purchase of devices that have a single purpose: To kill. [PVC: Not true. Target shooting and plinking do not kill anything, but some time.]
That means we must focus our attention on the legislators who are responsible for America’s criminally weak gun laws – laws that facilitate the access dangerous individuals have to firearms on a daily basis.
Legislators like Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-Roanoke County), who represents Roanoke, where this atrocity took place on live television. He’s in the House of Representatives and serves as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Congressman Goodlatte has had more than two years to bring up universal background check legislation and other gun violence prevention bills in his committee. He has refused to lead on this issue, and has done absolutely nothing to help contain the carnage we are seeing. On the other hand, Congressman Goodlatte had no problem cashing his check from the NRA during the 2014 election cycle. Shame on him.
But the issue of controlling gun violence is also being hampered by our elected officials on the state level. For example, Virginia state Senators John Edwards (D-Roanoke), who represents Roanoke where Alison and Adam lived, and Bill Stanley (R-Franklin County), who represents the district where Wednesday’s shooting took place. Senator Edwards’ district also contains the Virginia Tech campus, so he is fully aware of how easy it is for dangerously mentally ill individuals to acquire guns in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet he has been a constant opponent of sensible gun reforms like expanded background checks during his 15+ years in the Virginia Senate, breaking ranks constantly with his colleagues in Virginia’s Democratic Party.
In 2015, Senators Edwards and Stanley had the opportunity to cast a vote for SB 1429, a bill sponsored by Senator George Barker (D-Fairfax County) that would have instituted a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) policy in Virginia. The GVRO is a life-saving reform that allows family members and/or law enforcement to petition a judge to temporarily remove firearms from a loved one in crisis. The policy was first enacted in California following the tragic 2014 mass shooting in Isla Vista. The parents of the gunman in that case, Elliot Rodger, had requested a welfare check on their son because they believed he was a potential threat. Law enforcement officers did the check, but had no authority to remove Rodger’s firearms from his home. The results were disastrous. Lives were taken for no good reason at all – certainly no reason our founders would have supported. [PVC: Firearms Restraining Orders are done ex-parte (without the gun owner being present or having any representation). One of our most important civil rights cannot just be snapped up without the gun owner at least being able to have representation in his or her defense. The gun owner could be arrested for a violation he didn’t even know, and had no way to know, he was committing by possessing guns under the order! And for a vindictive spouse, the disarmed gun owner is now a much easier target for a violent crime. VCDL will continue to strongly oppose any such attempts against our right to self-defense and proper adjudication.]
To California legislators’ credit, they wasted no time in taking decisive action to prevent the next tragedy. Yet when Senators Edwards and Stanley had a game-changing opportunity to vote on a similar GVRO policy in Virginia, they elected to serve their gun lobby masters and voted “no.” Shame on them. [PVC: No. God bless them for that.]
Of course we have no way of knowing whether a bill like this would have made a difference in Alison and Adam’s case. We don’t know if the family was aware of a problem. Nor do we know whether removing firearms would have just prompted him to use something else. [PVC: So, while gun control wouldn’t have helped save his daughter’s life, Parker wants to pass some gun control anyway. You know, just for the hell of it. That would be a travesty and we cannot let such a thing happen.]
The weekend before she died, Alison was rafting on the Nantahala River in North Carolina with her mother, her boyfriend Chris, her close friend Katy and me. It was her favorite place on earth. She was a brilliant kayaker and it was a family tradition she relished. We told each other often of the mantra all paddlers must keep in mind while fighting the force of the rapid water:
“Never stop paddling. You just have to paddle through the rapids. You just have to paddle through.”
Whatever it takes. [PVC: “Whatever it takes” implies the ends justifies the means. VCDL does not believe in that philosophy, but we do believe in reversing gun-control laws that serve no purpose but to hinder the law abiding, and in that endeavor we, too, will keep paddling through.]
**************************************************
3. Virginia Democrats predictable call for gun control, VCDL quoted in article
**************************************************
Delegate Patrick Hope, practicing the art of political ambulance chasing - rushing to introduce gun control as soon as he had an excuse to do so. Never mind that the gun control wouldn’t have made one iota of difference in the WDBJ murders. Never mind that he can’t show that the gun control he wants to pass would do anything about future crime. No, none of that matters to those with pure political motivation.
http://hamptonroads.com/2015/09/virgini ... k-petition
or
http://tinyurl.com/nbqrxm4
Virginia Democrats unveil gun background check petition
By Larry O’Dell, AP
Eight days after two journalists were fatally shot during a live broadcast at a Virginia resort, several Democratic legislators produced a petition with nearly 28,000 signatures supporting expanded background checks for gun buyers.
The northern Virginia lawmakers unveiled the petition Thursday at a news conference in Arlington. Del. Patrick Hope, who organized the petition drive, said he will submit legislation in the 2016 General Assembly to require universal background checks for gun purchasers — a proposal that has been rejected in previous sessions. Currently, private sales — including those conducted at gun shows — are not subject to background checks.
"We can no longer just stick our heads in the sand," Hope said in a telephone interview. "I know universal background checks won't prevent every tragedy. But we also know that people are dying every day."
Hope and like-minded lawmakers face an uphill struggle in the General Assembly. Since the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, legislators have actually worked to loosen gun regulations — allowing concealed weapons permit holders to carry guns in bars and repealing the state's one-handgun-a-month purchase limit, for example.
"Sooner or later, we reach a point where it's our fault," Hope said.
Gun control legislation historically is killed on an unrecorded vote in a House of Delegates subcommittee. Hope said the November election, when all 140 legislative seats are on the ballot, combined with growing public support for "common-sense gun violence prevention legislation" provides a glimmer of hope that the trend can be reversed.
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League gun-rights group, said universal background checks would be ineffective in combatting gun violence.
"Just about every mass shooter in the last 10 years has passed a background check," he said.
Vester Flanagan legally purchased the Glock handgun he used to kill his former WDBJ-TV colleagues, Alison Parker and Adam Ward, on Aug. 29 at Smith Mountain Lake.
Van Cleave said that even if someone who is not legally allowed to possess a gun wants one, it's easy enough to arrange a straw purchase or buy one on the black market.
Del. Eileen Filler-Corn said no legislation can stop all gun crimes, but lawmakers should do as much as they can. She said she will reintroduce her previously unsuccessful measure to prohibit anyone subject to a protective order from possessing a gun. A person who is deemed a threat to another should not be allowed to carry a firearm, she said.
Van Cleave said he opposes the bill because protection orders are issued without prior notice to the person who is subject to the order.
"It's the word of one side," Van Cleave said. "So you're going about your day, and now you're a criminal because you have a gun."
Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe and Alison Parker's father, Andy Parker, have vowed to press for tighter gun restrictions.
**************************************************
4. IMPORTANT: IMR has recall on some of its gun powder
**************************************************
From firearmscoalition.org:
PRODUCT SAFETY WARNING AND RECALL NOTICE FOR IMR®4007SSC POWDER
Shawnee KS, September 2, 2015 IMR Legendary Powders is officially announcing a product safety warning and recall notice for IMR 4007SSC on the six lot numbers listed below. IMR has received reports that this particular powder in 1lb and 8lb containers may have become unstable due to possible rapid deterioration. Use of this product from these lot numbers shown on the enclosed label may result in spontaneous combustion, fire damage or possible serious injury.
LOCATION
Stamped on right hand edge of Caution label.
LOT NUMBERS
10130139
10131139
10429139
10430139
80425139
80426139
What to do:
1. Stop using this product immediately! Fill the powder container with water which will render the product inert and safe for disposal.
2. Mail, email or fax a copy of the powder label showing the lot number to the contact information below to include your name, address, phone and email.
3. Replacement choice of any other IMR smokeless powder product will be shipped to you for no charge.
4. If you have loaded the powder subject to this recall into ammunition, we recommend that you pull the bullets, remove the powder and wet the powder with water for safe disposal.
IMR deeply regrets any inconvenience this may cause, but we believe in safety first. Contact information: IMR Powder Company, 6430 Vista Drive, Shawnee, KS 66218, email help@imrpowder.com, imrpowder.com, call 1-800-622-4366 or 913-362-9455 and fax 913-362-1307
**************************************************
5. Survey: criminals don’t get their guns from dealers or gun shows
**************************************************
So, Universal Background Checks will stop criminals from getting their hands on a gun?
Think again. Illinois already has Universal Background Checks, but this survey of criminals shows that they don’t get their guns at gun shows, but from friends, family, acquaintances, and fellow gang members.
Another gun control fail.
> http://freebeacon.com/issues/study-find ... ds-family/
or
http://tinyurl.com/qeytehc
Study Finds That Chicago Criminals Get Guns From Friends, Family
Stephen Gutowski
A survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the University of Chicago found that Chicago criminals obtained their firearms almost exclusively from friends and family.
The survey, funded by the Joyce Foundation and set to be published in the October edition of Preventive Medicine, consisted of interviews with 99 inmates at Chicago’s Cook County Jail who had illegally possessed a gun within six months of their incarceration. It found that most criminals only acquired guns from people they knew and trusted.
“It is rare for offenders to buy from licensed dealers, and also rare for them to steal their guns,” the study says. “Rather, the predominant sources of guns to offenders are family, acquaintances, fellow gang members—which is to say, members of their social network.”
The study found that due to fears of encountering undercover police officers attempting sting operations, a large majority of the criminals surveyed would only make illegal gun purchases from people they knew. “In discussing the underground gun market in their neighborhoods, most respondents emphasized the importance of connections—prior relationships that could create sufficient trust to reassure the seller that the transaction would not create an unacceptable legal risk,” the survey says. “A majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns.”
“Only 2 of the 70 primary guns (3%) and no secondary guns were reported as purchased directly from a gun store.”
The survey also found that criminals preferred handguns by a wide margin. Rifles, shotguns, and firearms that would be classified as “assault weapons” under Illinois law made up a small percentage of the guns criminals reported they had owned. Additionally, the survey found that criminals kept their firearms for only a short period of time and had little knowledge of firearms.
The researchers noted that the findings may challenge what many believe about how criminals obtain firearms.
“Some of the pathways people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant,” Harold Pollack, co-director of the University of Chicago’s Crime Lab and co-author of the survey, told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Gun rights groups such as the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation said that the survey is evidence that new gun control legislation aimed at gun shows or online sales is misguided.
“The University of Chicago Crime Lab survey said the same thing as the U.S. Bureau of Justice: Criminals get their guns from friends and family—not gun shows,” said Lars Dalseide, a spokesman for the NRA.
“This proves what we have said all along,” Alan Gottlieb, the founder of Second Amendment, told the Free Beacon. “Criminals don’t go through background checks to acquire a gun. They don’t buy them at gun stores, gun shows, or on the Internet. They get them from family, friends, and fellow gang members. Gun control laws only affect lawful gun owners.”
“Criminals don’t obey laws,” he said. “That’s why we call them criminals.”
**************************************************
6. Reminder: Goodyear is anti-gun
**************************************************
Funny how disarming us is supposed to be for our own "safety and security.” What a bunch of baloney.
Only exception is ON DUTY police officers.
Member Jim Corrin received this email from Goodyear:
From: "goodyear_cr@goodyear.com" <goodyear_cr@goodyear.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2015 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: Contact Us request from www.goodyear.com
Thank you for contacting our web site and for voicing your concerns. In an
effort to ensure the safety and security of our associates and customers,
we have had a clear company policy regarding weapons in the workplace,
since 2004. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. prohibits all persons who
enter Company property from carrying a handgun, firearm, or prohibited
weapon of any kind onto the property regardless of whether the person is
licensed to carry the weapon or not. Exceptions apply to on-duty law
enforcement personnel. This policy applies to all Company employees,
visitors, customers, and contractors on Company property -- including our
Company owned stores. All Company properties have received a decal or sign
referencing this policy, and have been instructed to post it.
Jennifer - Consumer Relations
**************************************************
7. Reminder: Lobby Day on January 18, 8:30 AM Richmond!
**************************************************
The push for Universal Background Checks and every other kind of gun control is going to be on at the General Assembly in January. We need our members and supporters to show up on Lobby Day to send a message loud and clear: “No gun control!”
The date is Monday, January 18, at 8:30 AM at the General Assembly Building on the corner of 9th and Broad streets in Richmond.
Numbers count, so please plan on attending. Ask for the day off, now, while you can provided plenty of notice to your employer.
**************************************************
8. Purchasing a firearm after your gun rights have been restored
**************************************************
From johnpierceesq.com
http://johnpierceesq.com/?p=1360
Purchasing a firearm after your gun rights have been restored
by John Pierce
July 31, 2015
In Virginia, anyone convicted of a state-level felony who has had his or her political rights restored by the Governor or other appropriate authority may petition the circuit court where they reside for restoration of their gun rights.
If you have had your gun rights restored then you are able to once again purchase firearms from a licensed dealer.
However, there are a few questions on the paperwork which you must answer correctly or your purchase may be denied.
Let’s start with the ATF form 4473. When completing this form, question 11c asks “Have you ever been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?”
Your initial inclination would be to answer ‘Yes’ since this is truthful answer to the question presented. But that is not what you should do.
The question goes on to suggest that you see the attached instructions. There we find that there are exceptions for those who have been convicted of such a crime and later had both their political and firearms rights restored. This is the exception that applies to you. The instructions go on to say that you should answer ‘No’ to question 11c if you meet this exception. So, to summarize, if you have had your gun rights restored then you should answer ‘No’ to question 11c on the ATF form 4473 when applying to purchase a firearm.
In Virginia, there is also a state form which you will have to complete in addition to the ATF form 4473. Question 7 on the state form asks a similar question and also notes that there are exceptions printed on the back of the form. These exceptions mirror those from the 4473 and instruct the applicant to answer ‘No’ to question 7 if the exception applies to you. Therefore, you should answer ‘No’ to question 7 on the state form.
When I assist a client in getting their rights restored, I always send a copy of the court order to the Virginia State Police Firearms Transaction Center. However, even if they have a copy of your restoration order, you may be delayed when attempting to make a purchase.
In case there is ever any question, I would suggest carrying a copy of the restoration order with you both when you apply for, and when picking up, the firearm.
Disclaimer: This information is presented for educational purposes only and does not give rise to an attorney-client relationship. Additionally, I am licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia and this answer may not be appropriate for other states.
**************************************************
9. Kaine: Cease gun sales until background check is complete
**************************************************
From wric.com: http://tinyurl.com/o658we8
http://wric.com/2015/07/28/tim-kaine-ca ... -complete/
Tim Kaine calls on firearm dealers to cease gun sales until background check is complete
by WRIC Newsroom
July 28, 2015
WASHINGTON, D.C. (WRIC) – On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine and 12 of his Senate colleagues urged gun dealers to stop selling firearms to people who do not first pass a background check.
Currently, when a criminal background check indicates that a firearm purchaser may have a criminal record, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) tries to determine whether the purchaser can legally buy a gun. If this process takes longer than 72 hours, gun dealers can complete the sale even though there is a heightened risk that the purchaser is a criminal or otherwise dangerous.
A growing number of firearms dealers—including WalMart, the country’s largest—do not allow these “default sales.” In the letter sent to Cabela’s, EZ Pawn, and Bass Pro Shops – three large firearms dealers that currently allow default sales – and the National Shooting and Sports Foundation, the Senators pointed out the serious, and potentially deadly, consequences, and urged the retailers to cease the practice of default sales.
“The FBI acknowledges that a fully completed background check would have uncovered the alleged perpetrator’s prior arrest on a drug charge and his drug addiction, thereby barring him from purchasing the .45-caliber handgun with which he took nine lives,” the Senators wrote. “In the last five years, the ‘default to proceed’ loophole has led gun retailers to proceed with 15,729 firearm sales to ‘prohibited people’ – individuals who were deemed ineligible to purchase a firearm once their background checks were completed.”
“Based on FBI data, the Brady Campaign estimates that on average more than ten prohibited people a day are sold guns by gun dealers who do not use their discretion to wait for a final determination from FBI.”
“You have a duty to ensure that your products do not get into the hands of dangerous individuals like the Emanuel AME Church shooter…After the horror inflicted upon the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, no responsible gun retailer should transfer a gun without first conducting a complete background check.”
Joining Kaine as co-signers are U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mazie Hirono, Edward Markey, Robert Menendez, Chris Murphy, Jack Reed, Chuck Schumer and Sheldon Whitehouse.
**************************************************
10. Chris Christie on guns again
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From captainsjournal.com: http://tinyurl.com/ogtch5q
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2015/07/ ... uns-again/
Chris Christie On Guns Again
by Herschel Smith
July 26, 2015
More Chris Christie (as if anyone can really stand that):
ANKENY, Iowa — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) got into a heated exchange with a skeptical voter who accused the presidential candidate of being “anti-gun” during a town hall on Saturday, citing New Jersey’s tough gun control laws.
Responding to the man, who did not identify himself but mentioned he was part of the Iowa Gun Owners organization, Christie defended his record, refuting every claim the voter mentioned, and, at times, even raising his voice.
“Come up with one fact that shows one thing I’ve done as governor in New Jersey that’s done anything, anything not to support the rights of legal gun owners,” Christie said as the crowd gathered inside a local community college auto body shop erupted in applause. “Don’t come in front of this group of people and lie about my record, which is what you did.”
The voter accused Christie of proposing to ban .50-caliber rifles, requiring a government-issued ID for every firearms purchase and setting up a statewide firearms registry of guns and gun owners. Christie responded harshly, holding true to the theme of his campaign, “Telling it like it is.”
“I don’t know where you’re getting your information from, but your information is wrong,” Christie told the man.
Christie noted that he vetoed the .50-caliber ban, the statewide ID system and the law that was passed to reduce magazine sizes from 15 to 10.
The man in the crowd then asked if Christie is planning on pardoning Brian Fletcher, a North Carolina man who is facing prison time after telling a police officer in New Jersey that he had a gun in his vehicle, which is the customary and legal thing to do in his home state. Christie said he hasn’t made a decision yet, but is reviewing the situation.
“I’m not going to make that decision in 15 minutes nor should I. Nor should you want me to,” Christie said. “I see you shrugging your shoulders, why are you shrugging your shoulders about? You have your point of view, but have some facts about it.”
Good Lord! Are we really going to have to listen to this loud mouth for the next year? Chris, you are gun control collectivist from way back, and you made your fame in New Jersey pushing an “assault weapons” ban. As for Mr. Fletcher, I do indeed want you to make your decision quickly rather than be cowardly about it. And it should be to destroy all of the paperwork you ever had on him and tell your LEOs to stop arresting people who come across state lines with weapons, right after you pass a reciprocity law recognizing the permitting system of every other state in the country.
The fact that you won’t do that tells us everything we need to know about you. The fact that you think we don’t want you to make your mind up about it should tell you something about yourself. You have lived in collectivist-land for so long you don’t have even the slightest understanding of what the rest of us believe.
**************************************************
11. Pentagon chief has legal ability to arm stateside troops
**************************************************
From washingtonpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/pl6cwcl
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/che ... udy-finds/
Pentagon chief already has legal ability to arm more Stateside troops, study finds
By Dan Lamothe
July 29, 2015
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter has the ability to arm more members of the U.S. military while they are Stateside if he chooses, according to analysis by congressional researchers conducted in the wake of the deadly attack on military facilities in Chattanooga, Tenn.
A report published by the Congressional Research Service said it appears Carter could rely on his “general authority to prescribe regulations for the DOD to allow servicemembers to carry government-issued firearms for personal protection at his or her discretion.” The report was posted online by the Federation of American Scientists, a non-partisan Washington think tank.
The research was completed after Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, 24, opened fire at both a recruiting station and a naval reserve center in Chattanooga on July 16. The attack on the reserve center killed Gunnery Sgt. Thomas Sullivan, 40; Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, 35; Sgt. Carson A. Holmquist; Lance Cpl. Squire D. “Skip” Wells, 21; and Petty Officer 2nd Class Randall Smith, 26. Abdulazeez was killed by responding police officers.
The Pentagon has grappled with what to do to better protect service members in small, relatively unsecure facilities since. Several members of Congress have called for legislation to better arm Stateside service members, and Carter called for a review in which each of the services is to make recommendations on how to improve security.
A Pentagon official told The Washington Post on Wednesday that it is still too early to speculate on what the Defense Department may change. He spoke on condition of anonymity because no decision has yet been made.
The violence in Chattanooga and the Pentagon’s deliberate response prompted armed civilians to stand guard outside recruiting centers across the country. The Pentagon sought to squash that last week after an armed civilian in Ohio accidentally discharged a round from a rifle into pavement.
“While we greatly appreciate the outpouring of support for our recruiters from the American public, we ask that individuals not stand guard at recruiting offices as it could adversely impact our mission, and potentially create unintended security risks,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook in a statement released Friday. “We continue to partner with and rely on first responders for the safety of the communities where our service members live and work.”
The Army and Marine Corps separately told recruiters in a message released through text messages and e-mails that if armed civilians appeared outside their facilities in an effort to protect them, they should call police. The news was first reported by Stars & Stripes and Marine Corps Times, and confirmed by the services.
“We are concerned for the safety of not only our Marines, but the public as a whole, and while most armed citizens have the best intentions at heart, it is not unrealistic to assume a possible incident like a negligent discharge may occur,” Maj. Garron Garn, a Marine spokesman, citing the incident in Ohio as an example. “Additionally, we are concerned that armed citizens may detract some individuals from entering our offices, which ultimately negatively affects our recruiting mission.”
The presumed next leaders of the Army and Marine Corps, meanwhile, have expressed mixed feelings about arming recruiters in recent confirmation hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Gen. Mark A. Milley, nominated to be the next Army chief of staff, told the committee that he is open to the idea in certain situations, while noting that there are some legal complications to doing so. Gen. Robert B. Neller, selected to be the next Marine commandant, said he wouldn’t rule out the idea, but considered it an extreme measure that has second- and third-order effects that must be considered.
**************************************************
12. Do you have a duty to inform when carrying concealed?
**************************************************
From concealednation.org: http://tinyurl.com/ojqvbsm
http://concealednation.org/2015/07/do-y ... e-answers/
Do You Have A Duty To Inform When Carrying Concealed? We Look At All 50 States For The Answers
by James England
July 26, 2015
If you followed a previous article where we highlighted the plight of Brian Fletcher, there’s a big question looming as to whether or not you have a duty to inform law enforcement (or anyone) as to whether or not you are carrying without first being asked.
We take a state-by-state look at each state’s gun laws to find out who you have a duty to inform and when. This only applies to a person with the state’s designated version of a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm (or weapon, as the term applies) or granted reciprocity therein to do so.
-We are not covering open carry.
-We are not covering what happens if you are in violation of a crime.
-We are covering if you are legally obliged to inform law enforcement as to your legal concealment of a firearm without first being asked.
-If you are in a state where firearms registration is required as a condition to receive a permit, or are required to have a permit to acquire, or any of the other convoluted mechanisms prior to being a legal, concealed carrier in that state – this list assumes you have lawfully completed those conditions. So if you have not completed those processes, this list isn’t for you.
-This article is written (and researched) from the perspective that if you are:
-Legally allowed to conceal a firearm AND
-…You are stopped by law enforcement THEN
-Are you required to inform them you have a concealed firearm on your person?
-Duty To Inform is taken to mean, in the context of this article, a specific lawful duty to inform a member of law enforcement without being asked first.
-This does not include the provision “if asked”.
-If you are asked, you are legally required to produce your valid concealed carry permit.
This is a longer article – so for ease, we’ve included a hyperlinked list of all 50 states and the District of Columbia so you can zoom to your state of interest.
Disclaimer: WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS. We don’t pretend to be attorneys. We’re just citing laws as they’re written. This guide is current as of July 26, 2015 and links cited all direct to the specific portions of each state’s law as it pertains to their firearms laws. This guide is meant as light reference AND SHOULD NEVER BE CONSTRUED AS BONA FIDE LEGAL ADVICE. You, personally, should review each state’s laws thoroughly to ensure you have the right understanding for the various classifications. Many laws change annually or sooner depending upon legislative sessions and the results of judicial courts.
Are You Required To Inform Law Enforcement Of A Concealed Firearm?
Alabama – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Alaska – Yes (Always)
Arizona – If Asked (If Asked – Yes)
Arkansas – Yes – When Asked For Identification
California – Yes For Some Counties – If Asked Otherwise (No known duty)
Colorado – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Connecticut – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Delaware – If Asked (See *NOTES)
District of Columbia – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement; in flux!)
Florida – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Georgia – No (Police Cannot Detain You To Verify)
Hawaii – Unknown At This Time (Essentially No-Permit State)
Idaho – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Illinois – If Asked (See Notes* — Thank you, Illinois concealed carriers!)
Indiana – If Asked
Iowa – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Kansas – If Asked (Non-Resident, Residents have constitutional carry)
Kentucky – If Asked (LEOs Really Appreciate It If You DO)
Louisiana – If Under The Influence (See Notes)
Maine – No (Permitless Carriers – Yes; See Notes…)
Maryland – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Massachusetts – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Michigan – Yes (Always)
Minnesota – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Mississippi – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Missouri – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Montana – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Nebraska – Yes
Nevada – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
New Hampshire – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
New Jersey – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
New Mexico – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
New York – If Asked (see *Notes)
North Carolina – Yes (see *Notes)
North Dakota – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Ohio – Yes (Always)
Oklahoma – Yes (Must also inform private property owner)
Oregon – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Pennsylvania – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Rhode Island – Please Do! If Asked…
South Carolina – Yes
South Dakota – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Tennessee – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Texas – Yes – When Asked For Identification
Utah – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Vermont – Constitutional Carry
Virginia – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Washington – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
West Virginia – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
Wisconsin – If Asked
Wyoming – If Asked (No known duty to inform law enforcement)
(alert editor note - below, I have only included Virginia and our neighboring states, visit link to view rest of states)
District of Columbia – No Known Duty To Inform
The District of Columbia’s concealed carry laws are presently the subject of a pending Federal Appeals Court. It’s only recently that any resident could even be authorized to have a concealed carry permit. Laws are in flux but at present, so long as you are not violating any law, you have no known duty to inform law enforcement.
Kentucky – No Known Duty To Inform
The State of Kentucky has no known regulation (at present) which stipulates a carrier of a concealed firearm must inform their police. However, Harlan County Sheriff’s Chief Deputy Matt Cope mentioned in a recent article that although it’s not required, it would be helpful if people with a CCDW license let police know they have one if they are pulled over for any reason. He added, for safety’s sake police ask license holders to present their license and let police know if there is a concealed weapon in the car.
Maryland – No Known Duty To Inform
Maryland does not honor any other states’ concealed carry permit. If you are one of the few residents of Maryland who has a concealed carry permit, you are not specifically required to inform law enforcement of your carriage of your concealed firearm. If you are not a resident – keep your firearm locked up and unloaded in your trunk with the ammunition stored in a separate container.
via Washington Times
…Mr. Kramer represented a Pennsylvania security officer who was pulled over in the state for speeding. The Maryland officer asked Mr. Kramer’s client whether he had a gun in the car, and once the man acknowledged he did, the officer arrested him for having the gun and the cartridge in the same locked container — not separated, as per Maryland law.
“You think that Maryland would honor legitimate people with guns rather than charging people who are legitimately carrying but doing it incorrectly,” said Mr. Kramer, who was former deputy U.S. attorney for Maryland. “I would think that the police would want to take the time to go after those people who don’t have a legitimate right to have a gun rather than locking up people who have a valid license.
As a concealed carrier, you won’t need to worry about having to inform a Maryland police officer about being in possession of a gun – he’ll ask you.
North Carolina – Yes
North Carolina’s concealed carry gun laws begin and end with the stipulation that you will inform the police immediately and without reservation when they stop you to communicate.
§ 14-415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.
(a) Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law. The person shall carry the permit together with valid identification whenever the person is carrying a concealed handgun, shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer, and shall display both the permit and the proper identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer. In addition to these requirements, a military permittee whose permit has expired during deployment may carry a concealed handgun during the 90 days following the end of deployment and before the permit is renewed provided the permittee also displays proof of deployment to any law enforcement officer.
(*Update thanks to a fellow North Carolinian)
The most reliable opinion on the firearm laws in North Carolina comes from the Attorney General, Roy Cooper, in his 2014 revised analysis of firearm laws for the state. In it, while he doesn’t explicitly say a concealed carrier MUST inform – he makes every argument that it would be in the concealed carrier’s best interest.
“D. Transporting Weapons [excerpt]
…While a weapon carried openly in an automobile would not be concealed, there are other problems specific to this method of carrying a weapon. The principal drawback, of course, is in the event of an individual being stopped by a law enforcement official, the officer may not readily know that individual’s purpose and intent for carrying a weapon. As such, it is imperative that an individual immediately notify an officer of the presence of any weapon in the automobile, for the officer’s and the vehicle’s occupants’ safety.”
In a separate section, he acknowledges that local law is given a lot more leeway than in other states. North Carolina, in essence, is a hodge-podge of local county and municipal laws with some very strict oversight at the state level.
“Article 53B of Chapter 14 of our General Statutes provides that with certain exceptions, the field of firearms regulation is preempted from regulation by local governments. A county or municipality may regulate or prohibit the sale of firearms at a location only if there is a lawful, general, similar regulation or prohibition of other commercial activities at that location…”
In conclusion, always inform a North Carolina police officer of the presence of a concealed carry firearm. This goes for passengers, as well.
Tennessee – No Known Duty To Inform
Virginia – No Explicit Duty To Inform
However, you must have your concealed carry permit on your person and available for any law enforcement stopping you in your vehicle or in person.
West Virginia – No Explicit Duty To Inform
**************************************************
13. [NC] Ex stalks, then slays female after her gun jammed
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From concealednation.org: http://tinyurl.com/ouno5f8
http://concealednation.org/2015/07/ex-b ... un-jammed/
Ex-BF Stalks, Then Slays Female Concealed Carrier Who Only Got One Shot Off Because Her Gun Jammed
by James England
July 31, 2015
FRANKLINTON, NORTH CAROLINA — A tragic end to a woman’s life who had obtained a concealed carry permit to thwart a long time stalker and abuser. Tracy Williams was reportedly killed last Sunday following a shoot-out between her and estranged ex-boyfriend Garry Arist Yarborough.
Three weeks before the shootout, Yarborough had been charged with second-degree kidnapping. According to WRAL, he was released on $75,000 bond even though the warrant states he kidnapped Williams with the intent to terrorize her.
According to Williams’ pastor, this jolted her into action. She realized he had to take steps to protect herself because perhaps no one else would be able to.
Williams did everything she could to protect herself, Franklinton Police Chief John Green said, including changing her vehicle, buying a handgun, taking a class to obtain a concealed carry permit, getting a restraining order against Yarborough and notifying police when he contacted her.
Apparently, it still wasn’t enough to stop Yarborough. According to family and her pastor, they were all concerned that Yarborough was stalking her and it was just a matter of time before he struck.
“We were all concerned. Her mother was concerned. The whole family was concerned,” said Rev. Willie Nixon III, the family’s pastor.
Their worst fears came true on Sunday. As she stood at the ATM in a parking lot, Yarborough opened fire on her. She managed to get one shot off before her gun jammed. According to witnesses, he escaped in a black SUV. He then drove to a healthcare clinic where he forced a nurse at gunpoint to treat his leg for a gunshot wound.
The SUV was later found scorched on the side of the road – prompting sheriffs and deputies to initiate a manhunt on Yarborough’s whereabouts. Garry Arist Yarborough was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. He is being held without bond. The driver of the SUV that picked him up is also being held as an accessory to that murder.
**************************************************
14. [CA] Police 'likely' to destory 6.5 tons of ammo
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/q4xcvz6
http://www.breitbart.com/california/201 ... ades-home/
POLICE ‘LIKELY’ TO DESTROY 6.5 TONS OF AMMO FROM PALISADES HOME
by AWR Hawkins
July 31, 2015
An attorney for the fiancée of the mystery man whose body was discovered in an SUV on Palisades drive says the “6.5 tons of ammunition” police found in the man’s home will “likely be destroyed.”
The attorney, Harland Braun, made that statement known while relaying the interest gun dealers have shown in purchasing some of the approximately 1,500 weapons kept in a Pacific Palisades home by the mystery man.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the majority of the guns “are in mint condition,” as the dead man appears to have been a collector rather than a shooter. But Braun said the guns will be tied up for the foreseeable future as the LAPD is “still running background checks on the weapons.”
As for the ammunition, Braun believes police will destroy it rather than allow it to be sold to dealers or private citizens.
In addition to guns, investigators uncovered machetes, bows, arrows, tools, and “$230,000? in cash.
Braun says a search is currently underway to find “storage lockers” around Los Angeles that the mystery man may have used to store items as large as “military-type vehicles, including a possible amphibious vehicle that travels by land and water.”
There is still no confirmation as to what type of work the mystery man did or with whom he may have been associated. Braun identifies the mystery man as Jeffrey Alan Lash, but the Los Angeles County Coroner “has not officially identified him.” The coroner is still in process of finding the mystery man’s relatives.
**************************************************
15. [FL] Take 2 losses and call me in the morning
**************************************************
From nraila.org: http://tinyurl.com/phg86l4
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015073 ... ond-defeat
Take Two Losses and Call Me in the Morning: Florida Court Again Sides With Patient Privacy, Hands Nosy Doctors Second Defeat
July 31, 2015
Anti-gun doctors may need to get their own blood pressure checked after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit again upheld Florida’s Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act.
As we reported last summer, the law was passed after an escalating series of events in which patients were harassed or denied access to services because they refused to be interrogated by their doctors about their ownership of firearms. A group of Florida doctors committed to the idea of haranguing patients for exercising their Second Amendment rights sued, claiming a First Amendment right to grill patients about firearm ownership, even where it isn’t relevant to the patient’s care.
Unsurprisingly, the appellate court upheld the law last July, stating: “The essence of the Act is simple: medical practitioners should not record information or inquire about patients’ firearm-ownership status when doing so is not necessary to providing the patient with good medical care.” Far from a ban on doctors’ expressing their views about firearms or other public policy or medical issues, the court held, the Act merely “protects a patient’s ability to receive effective medical treatment without compromising the patient’s privacy with regard to matters unrelated to healthcare.”
It’s no secret that the medical establishment has long been hostile toward the private ownership of firearms. No less a doctor than President Obama’s pick for U.S. Surgeon General has engaged in anti-gun activism. Even WebMD.com, a common online source for medical information, counsels parents to “to avoid keeping guns and firearms in the home,” and only provides recommendations for “secure” storage when purging the home of firearms altogether “is not possible.” This history, as well as outright discrimination against patients who refused to discuss their gun ownership, formed the backdrop for Florida’s law.
It’s also no surprise that the plaintiffs and other gun control advocates were not happy with the loss the Eleventh Circuit handed to them back in 2014. “Censorship in Your Doctor’s Office,” huffed the New York Times. A Florida physician’s group called the decision “egregious” and “dangerous” and claimed it would silence “life-saving conversations.”
In any case, the panel of judges that issued the original opinion decided on their own initiative to revisit their original analysis. The results of that reconsideration were issued on Tuesday, in a revised 77-page opinion. Spoiler alert: the doctors still lose and patient privacy still wins.
Whereas the original opinion characterized the regulated behavior more as conduct – i.e., medical practice – rather than pure speech, the revised opinion delves more deeply into the First Amendment claims raised by the plaintiffs. Finding that inquiries into gun ownership, entries about gun ownership in medical records, and even verbal “harassment” of gun owners are all forms of “speech” protected by the First Amendment, the court then considers the seriousness of the regulatory intrusion and level of scrutiny to be applied to it.
The court observes, “All regulations of speech are not created equal in the eyes of the First Amendment.” Here, the court characterizes the regulated expression as “professional speech.” It then finds the government has a freer hand to regulate in this context because of “the authority—duty, even—of States to regulate the practice of professions to ‘shield the public against the untrustworthy, the incompetent, or the irresponsible.’” In this case, “The State made the commonsense determination that inquiry about firearm ownership, a topic which many of its citizens find highly private, falls outside the bounds of good medical care to the extent the physician knows such inquiry to be entirely irrelevant to the medical care or safety of a patient or any person.” The court therefore determines that “intermediate scrutiny” is the proper standard for evaluating the law.
The court identifies the state’s interests in enacting the law as “protecting the public by regulating the medical profession so as to safeguard patient privacy,” which it finds “substantial” enough to satisfy intermediate scrutiny. It then goes on to find that the law’s requirements have a “direct and material” relationship to alleviating those harms. Citing the legislative record of complaints against physicians, and the limited nature of the restrictions imposed by the law, the court determines “’simple common sense’ furnishes ample support for the legislature’s decision.” “The State need not point to peer-reviewed studies or conduct extensive surveys,” the opinion states, “to establish that proscribing highly intrusive speech that physicians themselves do not believe to be relevant or necessary directly advances the State’s interest in protecting its citizens from harmful or ineffective professional practices and safeguarding their privacy.”
We certainly agree, and we credit the Court for its thorough, well-reasoned opinion. Whether it’s the final word in the case, however, remains to be seen. One of the three judges hearing the case filed a lengthy dissent, echoing the familiar refrain that doctors’ must be free to address the “public health problem” posed by firearms according to their own beliefs. The plaintiffs still have the options of petitioning the full roster of Eleventh Circuit judges to hear the case en banc or to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
**************************************************
16. [FL] Courts hand down another pro-gun victory
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From guns.com: http://tinyurl.com/oftdjbz
http://www.guns.com/2015/07/29/courts-h ... ocks-case/
Courts hand down another pro-gun victory in ‘Docs vs Glocks’ case
by Chris Eger
July 29, 2015
A federal court Tuesday rejected a request for rehearing over Florida’s law prohibiting health care workers from asking about their patient’s firearms, lifting a long-standing injunction.
A Miami U.S. District Court in what became known popularly as the “Docs vs. Glocks” case blocked the Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act, signed into law by Gov. Rick Scott (R) after passage by the state legislature in 2011.
This sent the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, which last July handed down a 2-1 ruling reversing the lower court after finding, “the Act is a valid regulation of professional conduct that has only incidental effect on physicians’ speech.”
Not satisfied with the decision, a group of physician lobby organizations represented by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence asked for en banc review by the full Circuit of the panel’s finding.
The court on Tuesday told the plaintiffs in the case of Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida, no, and rejected the review in a 152-page ruling.
The court pointed out that Florida’s law does not absolutely prohibit doctors from speaking about firearms – for instance, it allows health care workers to ask questions if they feel they are directly relevant to the patient’s medical care or safety. Anything else, the panel reiterated in the same 2-1 decision they held last year, was improper.
“[T]he Act codifies the commonsense conclusion that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient’s care – especially not when that inquiry or record-keeping constitutes such a substantial intrusion upon patient privacy,” wrote Circuit Judge Gerald Tjoflat, for the majority.
Tjoflat is longest serving federal appeals court judge still in active service, nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975.
District Judge L. Scott Coogler, a President George W. Bush appointee, joined in the majority position while Circuit Judge Charles Wilson, a 1999 President Bill Clinton appointment, disagreed, calling the law an unconstitutional prohibition on free speech.
In a strong 74-page dissent, Wilson argued that the Florida law was not, as argued, about civil rights but about politics. He argued health care workers should be able to ask patients questions about their guns, and attempts to talk them out of firearm possession is free speech protected by the First Amendment.
“This law is not designed to protect Second Amendment rights because doctors have no authority – and have not used their private positions of power – to compel firearms owners to relinquish their weapons,” Wilson wrote. “This law is instead designed to stop a perceived political agenda, and it is difficult to conceive of any law designed for that purpose that could withstand First Amendment scrutiny.”
Gun rights advocates in Florida welcomed the news that the law enacted four years ago will finally be allowed to take effect.
“This decision is a big win for families who are tired of anti-gun politics in a doctors examining room,” Marion Hammer, president of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and past president of the National Rifle Association, told Guns.com Tuesday. “We have said all along that this is not about the First Amendment, it’s about doctors providing medical care and not intruding in the privacy rights of gun owners.”
Hammer argues that guns are not a health care issue.
“We take our children to pediatricians for medical care, not moral judgment, or privacy intrusions – we go to address medical needs, not to be interrogated about gun ownership. The legislation is about helping families who are complaining about being questioned about gun ownership and the growing anti-gun political agenda being carried out in examination rooms by doctors and medical staffs,” Hammer said.
Guns.com reached out to the Brady Center for comment on possible further appeal to the Supreme Court, but did not receive a statement by time for publication.
**************************************************
17. The second amendment must go
**************************************************
Member Robin Whitworth emailed me this:
Great article with quotes about the second amendment from the founders I've never seen.
From fairfaxfreecitizen.com: http://tinyurl.com/pmtnk28
http://fairfaxfreecitizen.com/2015/07/3 ... t-must-go/
“The Second Amendment Must Go”
by Gary Porter
July 30, 2015
Constitution Corner
So says Sean Illing writing at Salon.com in the wake of the shootings in Chattanooga and Lafayette. Whenever there is a shooting, as if on cue, calls for repeal of the 2nd Amendment make the headlines. Seemingly without realizing what he was writing, Illing hits it on the head:
… reflexive posturing of this kind occurs every time something like this happens.
So Illing wants us to stop our (and his?) “reflexive posturing” and “rethink the Second Amendment?” OK, let’s do that.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Familiar words. Not as familiar is the fact that Madison’s original read:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Madison’s draft became unnecessarily confused when the amendment went to the Senate, who had added the tenuous connection to the militia. Death by committee!
Illing, whose other columns on Salon reveal him to be a “shoot from the hip” kind of guy, more guided by emotion than facts, decries the Supreme Court’s “disastrous” ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia. He writes:
At any rate, contrary to the disastrous Supreme Court ruling in 2008, the Second Amendment protects militias, not the individual’s right to carry a pistol in a supermarket or a theatre.
Well there you have it, who needs a Supreme Court when we have Mr. Illing. Next case, please.
But could Illing be right? Could the Supreme Court have gotten it wrong in 2008? Recent SCOTUS opinions (Burwell v. King, Obergefell v. Hodges) give us ample reason to doubt the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence—on any matter.
Perhaps a better question to ask would be, could Illing and the Heller Court both be right? Could there be both a collective (militia-based) right and an individual (self-defense) right that the Founders intended to secure? Finally, does the 2nd Amendment establish that right or does it merely secure pre-existing rights?
We know from the Declaration of Independence that we have unalienable, God-given rights to life and liberty and the right to pursue happiness; and we know from other period declarations that property should be added to this list.
Who or what is responsible for securing these rights? Only civil government? Of course not. I have the singular responsibility to determine what happiness I will pursue as well as whether I will pursue it or not. I share with government the responsibility of securing my property: I don’t leave it unprotected and, in turn, government helps return it to me if stolen and punishing those who took it (in the perfect world, at least).
Same for life and liberty. I clearly have the responsibility to protect both my own life and that of those whom God has placed in my care. I have an equal responsibility to protect my and their liberty from those who would threaten it; and government has the responsibility to capture and punish those who try to take either.
The means I choose to protect my rights should include any means whatsoever which do not place my fellow citizens in jeopardy or violate their own inherent rights.
Did the Founders see the right to bear arms as an individual right? Absolutely!
(The Constitution preserves) .. the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. (James Madison, Federalist, No. 46, writing before the 2nd Amendment was drafted)
[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. (Zacharia Johnson, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1788)
No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms … (Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Virginia Constitution, 1776)
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. (Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, quoted by Thomas Jefferson in his Commonplace Book)
The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. (Samuel Adams)
We can also discern the Founders’ view by looking at the State Constitutions that were enacted in the same timeframe:
Pennsylvania’s Constitution: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790).
Did the Founders also see the right to bear arms as a collective, militia-based right? Absolutely!
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves … and include … all men capable of bearing arms. … The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. (Richard Lee, in The Federal Farmer)
To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. (Richard Henry Lee, emphasis added)
No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state. … Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen, and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen. (Josiah Quincy, Jr., Thoughts on Standing Armies, 1774)
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. (Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787)
Massachusetts’ Constitution: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
(The Virginia Code § 44-1 establishes the) militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia (which) shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least 16 years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than 55 years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes: the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard; the Virginia Defense Force; the naval militia; and the unorganized militia.
Many Virginians today who are 16-55 years old are surprised when I reveal in my seminar that they are part of the unorganized militia.
This brings us to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment: did it establish a right or secure a pre-existing right? If we look to the White House website for guidance, we would have to conclude the former. There we find:
The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
I find this wording alarming, as should you, because it reflects either a gross failure to understand the purpose of Bills of Rights, or an intentional attempt to mislead for political purposes. Surely it is not a simple oversight. When discussing any other Amendment, the website accurately describes the action the Amendment performs (ex: “The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases also be tried by jury.”), yet with the Second, The White House staff seems to purposefully mis-characterize. Why?
Consider this: if people can be led to believe that the 2nd Amendment is responsible for giving citizens the right to bear arms, then to rid the U.S. of guns we need only repeal the 2nd! Judging from the calls for repeal that reliably follow every shooting, there are many citizens holding this erroneous view, which the White House appears to purposefully reinforce.
Yes, it is tragic that five purposefully-disarmed servicemen were killed by a jihadist. Yes, it is tragic that two young women out enjoying a movie lost their lives, with many others wounded, at the hands of a deranged madman. But it is also tragic that every six minutes of every day an American dies from medical errors or a lethal infection. Cancer causes one American death every 56 seconds ,and yet proven cures are kept off the market to appease the drug companies.
It is hard to keep occasional shooting incidents in proportion when the media purposefully inflames and magnifies each and every one.
So, Sean Illing is entitled to his view of the Second Amendment, however warped it may be—that view is protected one amendment back, by the way. But let’s all try to “correct the record” when we encounter fellow citizens whose views on the Second Amendment are in similar need of “refinement.”
**************************************************
18. 10 things you should never do as a concealed carrier
**************************************************
From concealednation.org: http://tinyurl.com/o4w5omz
http://concealednation.org/2015/07/10-t ... d-carrier/
10 Things You Should Never Do As A Concealed Carrier
by James England
July 25, 2015
There are WAY more than 10 things you should never do as a concealed carrier or as a firearms owner in general. But we’ve decided to pick 10 extremely important ones. We’re not judging you if you do these things – we’re just saying it’s the opposite of responsible.
10. Firing Warning Shots
There are a lot of tense, ambiguous situations out there. Like, maybe you’re debating whether or not you should take a defensive posture and remove your concealed carry firearm or not. Let’s skip to the chase – if you feel threatened, act accordingly. That’s all it comes down to. But DO NOT – repeat, DO NOT – fire warning shots. If someone doesn’t believe your concealed carry firearm is loaded, they’re welcome to find out the hard way. Heck, if you have it out already, you can even tell them to chill out on the ground while you wait for police to arrive. There’s a whole lot of options (A LOT). Firing a warning shot isn’t one of them.
And in most cases, discharging a firearm within most municipalities or while out in town is an actual crime. As in, if you discharged that round and police arrive and find that you weren’t actively using that round to defend yourself from an imminent, deadly threat – you’re in hot water. So, if it’s come to rounds being exchanged – make sure the first one counts.
9. Pants Tuck Your Concealed Carry Pistol Without A Holster
Can’t afford gender reassignment surgery? Having a hard time hitting those high soprano notes? Sticking a loaded pistol down the front of your pants isn’t really a good alternative – but it will work!
Holsterless concealed carry isn’t effective. There’s nothing protecting your trigger guard and even with a tight belt, you’re not really providing good, even retention across the firearm. It’s asking for a disaster to happen.
Holsters are just like ammunition – a required investment in order to protect yourself. And there are plenty that are affordable and effective.
8. Instinctive Shooting Without Practice
If you don’t practice instinctive shooting, don’t expect it to suddenly appear when you pull out your concealed carry pistol. More importantly, if you don’t practice dry firing, holstering and re-holstering, and do some actual range time once in awhile, those skills are virtually non-existent in your reactive mind – the part of your brain you need to actually respond to an emergency.
7. Not Paying Attention To What’s Around Your Target
In an actual active shooter environment, you have to stay on top of what is in front and behind the shooter. Reflexively spraying rounds in the general direction of an attacker is a great way to injure or kill others – with absolutely no guarantee of taking out your target. So before you fire, look around the target area. It only takes a few milliseconds and you could save someone’s life. It’s also a fundamental of firearm safety. Which brings us to…
6. Ignoring The Fundamentals Of Firearm Safety
There’s a serious misconception with some concealed carriers that the fundamentals of firearm safety suddenly evaporate if they’re stuck in an active shooting environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single round that exits your gun will be investigated when the police arrive. And if they find you’ve negligently responded to a threat, you’re not going to be the “hero that saved the day” – you’re going to be taken up on criminal or civil charges.
5. One Magazine And Done
If you have a concealed carry pistol – where’s your number two magazine? If it’s not on you or nearby, you’re putting yourself unnecessarily at risk. Like the botched robbery we reported on earlier in Los Angeles and plenty of other places – once the shooting starts, it doesn’t stop until the police arrive, the threat is gone or someone is dead. If it’s not a direct hit that does it, it certainly will be the first person who runs out of ammunition. That doesn’t mean you need to walk around with an ammo can. Just having a spare magazine that’s accessible is (probably) good enough.
4. Inserting Yourself Into Conflicts
“Equal and opposite reaction”
There is nothing wrong with self-defense. There’s nothing wrong with helping out someone who is being brutally attacked, robbed, or victimized. But do understand the legal quandary you’ll be placing yourself in. We recently reported on a story involving a man who tried to intervene in a domestic assault. Unfortunately everyone involved, the attacker turned his attention from the woman to him and the man defended himself with one well placed shot from his concealed carry pistol. Did he do the right thing? Morally and ethically, he certainly stopped a woman from being assaulted. He also protected himself from being the victim of an assault. But law enforcement and county prosecution will ultimately determine the full consequences for his actions. Make sure – whatever you do – you’re willing to accept the consequences. And there will always be consequences.
3. Not Locking Up Your Firearms
If you have children in the house (or even other occupants), you should always secure firearms that are not physically on your person. In this news report we covered, a burglar was able to enter a woman’s home, grab her shotgun and point it at her before a friend shot him.
We’ve also covered news stories about children whom have gotten into their mother’s purses and either shot themselves or their parents. This is important! A firearm is a tool. It can be used by anyone who picks it up. And if it is not secured, you are giving them invitation to do so.
2. Choosing Convenience Over Safety
There are a lot of fads out there in regards to “new” ways to holster a firearm. Everything from using a holster system that doesn’t protect the trigger guard to storing it at an angle where it may be easily taken from you – your concealed carry firearm is your life line. Do not take chances with it. Do not put it on your body in such a way that it may harm you or others. If that means wearing clothes that break your status as a fashion icon – so be it.
Complacency kills.
1. Overestimating Your Abilities And Underestimating Your Opponent’s
The most dangerous habit a concealed carrier can get himself into is assuming he knows more than his opponent. Most people in the United States will be able to live their lives without being the undue victim of gun violence or gun crimes. For the very few who will deal with it – siding on the side of caution is always the right move.
If you can read minds, great. For everyone who can’t – never assume anything about your opponent or the situation you find yourself in. Judge it critically, quickly, and always move towards the option that promises safety first. Prepare and train for uncertainty and never assume an enemy will act like a paper target – these are good steps towards avoiding overconfidence as a concealed carrier.
**************************************************
19. There's a drone flying over my house. Can I shoot it?
**************************************************
From yahoo.com: http://tinyurl.com/ns2sjuv
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/theres-a-dro ... 65994.html
There’s a Drone Flying Over My House. Can I Shoot It?
by Wayne Rash
July 31, 2015
Here’s some news plenty of you will find to be a bummer: Just because a drone happens to be flying over your property, that doesn’t mean you can shoot it down. Sorry.
A Kentucky man found out the hard way there are consequences for terminating a drone with extreme prejudice, no matter how annoying it may be. The man, who claimed the drone was spying on his sunbathing daughter and used a shotgun to terminate its flight, was charged with violating a variety of state laws, including criminal mischief.
Part of the problem in determining what is and isn’t fair protection against drone encroachment is a web of laws and regulations that are inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Worst of all for those whose personal space has been violated by drones, these laws rarely spell out what, if anything, you can do about it.
The following is our attempt to sort out what your rights are when you’re subject to an unwelcome drone visit.
So, can I shoot down a drone?
The answer is probably not. For one thing, the Federal Aviation Administration considers a drone to be a civil aircraft, and there’s a law that makes it a federal crime to destroy an aircraft. The penalty is pretty steep, too — up to 20 years in the slammer.
But is it legal for someone to fly a drone over my home?
Yes. Like other aircraft, it’s perfectly within the law for a drone to fly over your property, so long as it is high enough in the air. (We will explain more about that later.)
What about my privacy and property rights?
Zachary Ludens, a lawyer who specializes in aviation and drone law for the firm Carlton Fields Jorden Burt in Miami, said that while some states have trespassing laws that may include low-flying drones, simply shooting them down isn’t an option, at least not immediately. Some states, such as Nevada, prohibit drones from flying less than 250 feet above ground level; even then, shooting the drone isn’t a course of action you can legally pursue.
However there are other actions you can take if a drone trespasses or violates other rights, including bringing suit against the operator or owner of the drone.
Some good sources for information on state-by-state drone laws can be found here (http://dronelife.com/2014/07/19/state-drone-laws/) and here (http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolrep ... -tell-you/).
If I can’t shoot the drone down, what can I do?
Ludens suggests you try to find the operator of the drone flying over your property and ask them to stop. “There’s no right to bring a trespassing action the first time,” Ludens explained. “You have to notify the person.”
Drones that are operated commercially (which was apparently the case in Kentucky, where the device was taking real-estate photos) have to be within line-of-sight of the operator. If you feel the drone is trespassing, tell the operator that, and then request they keep the machine out of your airspace. But be aware that you have very limited rights concerning flights over your property. In most states, flying across your property at the appropriate altitude is perfectly legal.
Both Ludens and a spokesperson for the FAA suggested notifying local law enforcement. The FAA spokesperson also said that the agency should be notified if the drone is being operated in a way that poses a risk to others.
“The FAA maintains the ability to take enforcement action against anyone who operates an unmanned aircraft in a manner that endangers the safety of the national airspace system,” the spokesperson said.
But suppose the drone is a danger to me?
There aren’t many situations in which a drone could be a risk to life or safety, but some exist. For example a Connecticut teen built a drone armed with a handgun that he could fire remotely, but he didn’t threaten anybody. At publication time, the FAA and local police were still investigating the incident.
Perhaps a more serious threat were the drones that flew over wildfires in California on July 17, which prevented firefighting aircraft from dropping water and fire retardant on burning vehicles. In that case, Ludens said, fire or law enforcement personnel might have been justified in shooting them down.
Do I have any recourse?
If a drone is invading your privacy, then there are things you can do, although shooting it down isn’t on the list. (So put down that thirty-aught-six.) If you can spot the person operating the drone — and they refuse to stop what they’re doing — you can certainly call the police. You can also file legal actions against them, which may include a civil suit and/or a criminal complaint in areas where there are laws governing drone use.
To do that, you will likely also need to follow the drone to find out who’s operating it. Just don’t get too aggressive about it. The same teen who built the gun-totin’ drone was assaulted by a beach-goer after he flew another unarmed drone over her at the beach. She was arrested. He wasn’t.
So while you can’t use drone defense as a reason to buy that Purdy shotgun you’ve been lusting after (are you listening, Rand Paul?), you can do something. It may not be as satisfying as blasting the drone out of the sky, but the combination of police and lawyers may provide a more lasting and satisfying solution in the long run.
**************************************************
20. Impulsively angry gun owners
**************************************************
From captainsjournal.com: http://tinyurl.com/ogqar7j
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2015/07/ ... un-owners/
Impulsively Angry Gun Owners
by Herschel Smith
July 15, 2015
That’s just about all of us if you believe the press, except that according to Politicus USA, that’s only if you have a lot of guns.
This week an article was circulating around social media with a headline that would draw cheers from many, though by no means all, progressives: “Bombshell: Gun Owners Tend to Be Angry, Unstable, Impulsive.” If one clicks on the article, there is indeed some bombshell research contained within it. However, the headline does not accurately reflect the research study’s findings and misses the chance to inform, as well as advance, a policy argument. It is unfortunate because it doesn’t do progressives any favors to circulate headlines that are erroneous. It ends up putting us on the defensive as we have to defend why statements are being made that don’t reflect reality.
Researchers at Duke and Harvard conducted research with results that can help form social policy, indicate to family and friends when a loved one may be dangerous, and destigmatize a group that has long been maligned as unsafe. The social scientists who completed this research used the National Comorbidity Study to get their findings. The National Comorbidity Study has been conducted since the 1990s as a study of mental health and substance abuse in the community, most recently using a nationally representative sample of 5,563 people with the purpose of determining the percentages of mental illness and substance abuse in the population. The calculation of whether randomly selected research participants have either problem was done through an extensive, standardized, face-to-face interview. There are also questions about the use of professional services, etc. The most recent iterations have included questions related to gun ownership. This is where the “bombshell” research results come from.
The researchers found that 8.9% of those who reported being impulsively angry also reported gun ownership. This is not a small percentage if we, as Americans, are trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who could easily be at sudden risk of shooting any number of people. On the other hand, it also means that over 90% of the people who get impulsively anger did not have a gun. Because of the way the study is structured, the converse—over 90% of gun owners were not impulsively angry—is also true. Oops, there goes the bombshell idea that “gun owners tend to be angry, unstable, impulsive.”
What made this study so useful is that they were able to pinpoint who is at risk for violent behavior. It comes as absolutely no surprise that people who owned six or more guns or who had a history of violent behavior were those who reported the riskiest behaviors of “outbursts of anger,” “getting into fights,” or “smashing or breaking things.” These are the people who are at risk for killing someone. The vast majority of these people don’t have a diagnosable mental illness, and reported never having been committed, so the study’s authors point out that the focus on keeping guns away from people with serious mental illness who have been committed is misplaced. It ends up stigmatizing a group further that already struggles heavily with stigma.
So if you own six or more guns, you are at risk for killing someone. Six is the magic cutoff – not five, and not seven. It’s six. So the “researchers” and “social scientists” say.
Actually, her data proves nothing of the sort. There isn’t any cutoff, there isn’t any proof. This is nothing. In order to have a meaningful analysis, an individual would have to have (a) a number of very large sample populations, (b) assurance that the sample population wasn’t biased, (c) a reliable means of extracting true information (torture is illegal and unreliable and gun owners are known to give false or incomplete information concerning their ownership of guns due to [justifiable] mistrust of the government), (d) repeatability and verifiability (in other words, is there fully independent means of verifying that when they said they got violent they actually did so, were charged with it, and found guilty of a crime), and finally (and this may be the most important), (e) enough studies over a large enough set of sample populations that they could meet the central limit theorem and create a standard distribution in results, with a fractional standard deviation of, say, around 0.05 or less.
None of these things obtain, and they will never do so. And if you believe that there is such a thing as social “science,” then you may as well believe in witch doctors and voodoo. If you want to do science, then study the Navier-Stokes equations or the Boltzmann transport equation. Then maybe I’ll have some respect for you. Until then, you’re all just witch doctors to me.
**************************************************
21. Gun silencer sales are soaring
**************************************************
From wtkr.com: http://tinyurl.com/nbh7nxg
http://wtkr.com/2015/07/30/gun-silencer ... e-soaring/
Gun silencer sales are soaring
by CNN Wire
July 30, 2015
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Gun silencer sales are on fire.
The number of registered silencers surged 38% from last year to 792,282 in February 2015, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. There were 571,750 licenses in March 2014.
“It’s getting to be more mainstream,” said Josh Waldron, CEO of SilencerCo, which makes and sells silencers.
Waldron said his company has nearly doubled its workforce in the past year to 215 employees and also added more machinery as it tries to work through a backlog of orders.
The company, based in West Valley City, Utah, logs in record sales each month, Waldron said.
Loosening state restrictions have given the industry a boost. Silencers are now legal in 41 states, compared to 37 four years ago.
Also, some gun makers are making it easy to attach them.
“More companies (like Smith & Wesson) are coming out with firearms designs with threaded barrels that can screw on the silencers, just in the past couple of years,” said Rommel Dionisio, gun industry analyst for Wunderlich Securities.
The manufacturers too have been marketing the silencers with slogans like #fightthenoise and “Yes, silencers are legal.”
Silencers are not cheap. Also known as suppressors, they can cost thousands. The Cyclops from Advanced Armament that can be attached to rifles, is the most expensive suppressor on the market, at $2,500 a pop. The Arrow from Gemtech, a heavy caliber rifle suppressor, costs $1,895. Gemtech also some available for .22-caliber pistols, for $325.
Getting approved to buy a silencer also isn’t easy. Federal regulations for silencers are stricter than the background checks for most guns.
The buyer has to mail or fax a photo and fingerprints to the ATF and pay a $200 tax. Approval often takes nine months.
By contrast, buying a gun requires a basic background check where you show a photo ID at the store and electronically submit a form to the ATF. The entire process can be done in about 20 minutes.
But manufacturers like SilencerCo are trying to make the process simpler for silencer buyers with a $130 legal service called EasyTrust. Lawyers help cut down the process to about five months by securing approvals quicker. It’s proven to be popular — the company has sold 3,000 of those since April, when it launched the service.
***************************************************************************
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/]
VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 9/8/15
Moderator: Taggure
Forum rules
Only VCDL VA Alerts and associated calendar entries are to be posted here. You may reply to the threads here, but please do not start a new one without moderator approval.
Only VCDL VA Alerts and associated calendar entries are to be posted here. You may reply to the threads here, but please do not start a new one without moderator approval.
-
OakRidgeStars
- VGOF Gold Supporter
- Posts: 14108
- Joined: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 10:13:20