VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 4/29/16

[OakRidgeStars]

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 4/29/16

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a Virginia Citizens Defense League 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VA-ALERT archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/727/=now
----------------------------------------------------------------------

** Still catching up on some older items. The first four are new **

1. VCDL mentioned in Drudge
2. Obama to push for “smart” guns
3. Richmond televison station gets bad information on guns [VIDEO]
4. McAuliffe’s blanket restoration of rights for felons - what about gun rights for non-violent felons?
5. Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe goes fire training [VIDEO]
6. Elligson: On guns, let's stick to the facts
7. 1993 article: Batman takes on the Virginia gun lobby
8. FBI says it's stopping NICS appeals
9. FBI official: 'Perfect storm' imperiling gun background checks
10. Rifle capable of taking down helicopter found at 'El Chapo' hideout purchased [VIDEO]
11. How durable are Obama's gun reforms?
12. [NJ] For gun owners, an alternative to seizure [VIDEO]
13. [FL] Sheriff: A gun in your had sure beats 'a cop on the phone'
14. The Year of the Gun: 2015 shatters background check records
15. What really happens when you get shot

**************************************************
1. VCDL mentioned in Drudge
**************************************************

Sheriff Mack won an important Supreme Court case some years ago, confirming that state and local police do not have to do the federal government’s bidding.

Mack believes that law enforcement should follow their oath to the Constitution. Only in today’s upside-down world does that seem unreasonable.

I’m interviewed in the last paragraph.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/tru ... -momentum/

or

http://tinyurl.com/zk8g3ry

National sheriffs’ group, opposed to federal laws on guns and taxes, calls for defiance

Local police chiefs and sheriffs typically swear to enforce the laws of their state. But a group called the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association is intent on strictly enforcing their view of the U.S. Constitution and, according to a long new piece by the Center for Public Integrity, “its ambition is to encourage law enforcement officers to defy laws they decide themselves are illegal.” In essence, they are troubled by the overreach of the federal government in matters concerning guns, taxes and land management, and founder Richard Mack has described the federals as “the greatest threat we face today,” and his association as “the army to set our nation free.”

In an interview with Julia Harte and former Post reporter R. Jeffrey Smith, Mack said he had enlisted “several hundred” of the more than 3,000 sheriffs around the country as members of the CSPOA, and that hundreds more are sympathetic. At the association’s 2014 convention, dozens of sheriffs signed a declaration that they would not tolerate any federal agent who attempted to register firearms, arrest someone or seize property in their counties without their consent.

Mack struck a blow for states’ rights in the 1990s as a sheriff from Graham County, Arizona, when he and a sheriff from Montana challenged the Brady Bill’s interim requirement that local law enforcement agencies perform background checks on gun buyers. The Supreme Court ruled in Mack’s favor, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion affirming the states’ sovereignty under the 10th Amendment and that the federal government could not enlist the local police in 50 states to do its bidding. The decision did not have lasting impact because a national database was put in place to enable gun dealers to run the checks themselves, removing local law enforcement from the process.

But Mack became popular in conservative circles and he launched the CSPOA in 2011. At a recent training for local police, the CPI reported, Mack declared that “gun control is against the law” and that his goal was to sign up about one-fourth of the nation’s sheriffs to join the association. “And then everybody in this country has at least two or three places in each state where they can go for refuge,” Mack said, “find a true constitutional sheriff who’ll tell the federal government, ‘You’re not going to abuse citizens anymore.'”

What bothers some people about statements like that is the appearance that a local law enforcement official is substituting his or her legal judgment for that of a state or federal legislature. So I called Mack to ask him about his views and he willingly expounded on them, though he was not happy with the CPI article and even though The Post is not highly regarded in some conservative circles.

Mack’s philosophy is largely reinforced by his successful challenge to the Brady Bill, in which “we went through a lawful process to show the government is out of control, to force sheriffs to comply.” He said U.S. District Judge John Roll, who was killed in the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona in 2011, neatly summed up every sheriff’s dilemma: “He said I was forced to choose between obeying the law or keeping my oath of office. He described my problem in one sentence.”

Certain that any gun regulation violates the Second Amendment, Mack said “the government was forcing me to participate in a gun control scheme that I knew was unconstitutional. When all law enforcement is forced into that position by state or federal legislators, which one do we side with? And I believe there is a proper way to conduct oneself in knowing the difference between enforcing stupid laws and enforcing the principles of the Constitution.”

He compared the situation to that of officers in Alabama who enforced segregation laws against Rosa Parks, or military officers of Nazi Germany who committed genocide. “The cop who arrested Rosa Parks said,” according to Mack, “‘The law is the law.’ The officers at Nuremberg said the same thing, ‘We were just following orders.’ Well the court determined that following orders when you’re committing a crime, or genocide, doesn’t cut it. We say the same thing. Do not say, ‘I’m just following orders.’ Do what’s right. We stand for people being abused. I don’t care if it’s gun rights, land rights, Amish rights, the federal government should not get a free pass and we should stand against their abuses.”

Mack was adamant that “I have never advocated violence. I spent 20 years in law enforcement without ever beating up anybody.” But “when you have no place else to go, when all the courts are against you, all the legislators are against you, where else do you go? I believe to the local county sheriff…and if that means standing against the federal government, then so damn be it.”

Douglas County, Ore., Sheriff John Hanlin speaks to the media after a mass shooting at Umpqua Community College in October. He has notified federal authorities he will not enforce any federal law, including gun laws, or allow any federal agents to enforce such laws in his county, key tenets of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. (Reuters/Steve Dipaola
Some like-minded sheriffs have turned up at the two recent standoffs between the federal government and local ranchers, at the Bundy ranch in Nevada and then on behalf of the Hammond family ranch at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon, both times after the federal government tried to exercise control over public land adjacent to the two ranches. “Most Americans think that federal authority is ever most powerful and can usurp any governing entity below it,” Mack writes on the CSPOA website. “Though somewhat logical, that is simply a fallacy when one would consult the constitution. It is not the job of the federal government to interpose between you and the local law, it is your local government that will interpose.” Dozens of sheriffs, mostly from western states, sent letters to the White House in 2013 saying they would not enforce federal gun laws, including Douglas County, Ore., Sheriff John Hamlin. Hamlin’s view were later scrutinized after a mass killing in his county last October at Umpqua Community College.

In February, Mack’s group launched a campaign called “Vet Your Sheriff,” with a “Sheriff Survey” to be given to local sheriffs to see where they stand on the freedom spectrum. “Should the Federal Government,” asks Question 4, “come into your county and serve warrants and make arrests without informing you first of their intentions?” Question 9 asks, “According to the principles of our Constitutional Republic, who is responsible for keeping the Federal Government in check?”

I asked a local sheriff if he wanted to take the survey, but he declined. I asked the National Sheriffs Association, with 20,000 members, for their thoughts on the CSPOA, and they also declined. The deputy executive director, John Thompson, told the CPI that his association doesn’t take a position on how individual sheriffs carry out their duties. There are 3,080 sheriffs in 47 states, according to the association, though not all oversee full law enforcement agencies, with some primarily handling county jail oversight.

“It’s terrifying to me,” said Justin Nix, a criminology professor at the University of Louisville who specializes in police legitimacy and procedural fairness. “It’s not up to the police to decide what the law is going to be. They’re sworn to uphold the law. It’s not up to them to pick and choose.” Nix pointed out that officers use discretion all the time in deciding whether to charge someone with a crime. “But to be on the record, that you don’t want officers enforcing laws, that is pretty bold.”

Mack spoke in southwest Virginia earlier this month at a citizens meeting where he shared the bill with Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Van Cleave joked, “What a horrible thing it is, asking the sheriff to honor the Constitution.” He said that both state and federal laws have been passed which violate the Constitution, and “if we ignore them, then the government can do whatever they want. It’s chaos out there, without somebody putting boundaries in and honoring that those boundaries mean something.”


**************************************************
2. Obama to push for “smart” guns
**************************************************

Generally, “smart” guns are a dumb idea.

Some thoughts:

* Let’s start with the Secret Service adopting them, followed by the police, and then the military. If they pass muster with all those groups, then the public might be more receptive.

* However, does anyone want to be bet that if smart guns are ever mandated, that the police, Secret Service, and military will be exempt? That would confirm that the government has no real faith in them.

* Some other questions: what if you are wearing gloves, have blood on your hands, it’s raining, there is a EMP attack (knocks out all electronics)? What if you are wounded or killed and a family member or friend needs to use your gun to continue the fight? What if you are struggling with someone over the gun - how will the gun know who is pulling the trigger if you are both in contact with it? Can the gun be disable electronically by a hacker, a criminal, the government? What if the battery is dead?

If smart guns are not mandated, then they will have to survive on their own in the market place, just like any other commodity. If people want them, sales will be good. Otherwise, smart guns will fade away. I don’t have a problem with smart guns as long as they are not mandated - but we all know that is a real threat.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04 ... tcmp=hpbt1

or

http://tinyurl.com/gupnxhe

Obama set to push for ‘smart gun’ tech despite concerns | Fox News

The Obama administration is locked and loaded for a fresh push on gun control initiatives – reportedly moving to advocate for so-called "smart gun" technology as early as Friday, despite concerns from the gun lobby.

Politico reports President Obama is set to release findings on the technology from a multi-agency review, and White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett was previewing the material to a select set of groups on Thursday.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest confirmed to reporters that the administration would be making an announcement on Friday, without going into detail.

“We'll have more that we can talk about tomorrow," he said. "… Under discussion was exploring what kind of technology could be effectively used to make guns safer. So this is something that that a variety of federal agencies have reviewed and they'll have some findings to share.”

“Smart-gun” technology overhauls guns so they can only be fired by authorized users. The multi-agency review was ordered as part of Obama’s Jan. 4 executive action on guns.

The National Rifle Association and other gun groups do not necessarily oppose the technology itself, but are concerned about any new mandates from the government requiring it. And law enforcement groups have voiced concerns about the reliability of the tech, and whether it can be trusted when needed most.

Politico quoted a source saying a mandate is not being considered at the moment – but the roll-out of the review could fuel those concerns. Earnest would not say Thursday whether the announcement would entail simply findings or some kind of requirement.

The president’s January order had directed the departments of Defense, Justice and Homeland Security to prepare a report “outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice.”

The Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice now plans to announce in the Federal Register on Friday that it is seeking “an objective demonstration of the reliability of firearms available today with advanced gun safety technology integrated into the firearm.”

Most of the concerns revolve around the safety of the technology and how it will be tested.

“Police officers in general, federal officers in particular, shouldn’t be asked to be the guinea pigs in evaluating a firearm that nobody’s even seen yet,” James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, told Politico.

During a town hall days after his executive actions, Obama erroneously claimed smart gun technology “has not been developed primarily because it has been blocked by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and firearms manufacturers.”

The NRA does not oppose the technology. But in responding to the president’s controversial January executive action, the group’s Institute for Legislative Action said the private market, not the government, should drive its development.

“Although NRA is not opposed to the development of new firearms technology, we do not believe the government should be picking winners and losers in the marketplace,” the statement said.

While the administration may not be pushing an executive order mandating the purchase of smart guns, Second Amendment advocates fear a slippery slope.

In 2002, New Jersey passed a law requiring all guns sold in the state be smart guns once the technology is widely available, but the technology is not an option in most places, according to NJ.com.


**************************************************
3. Richmond televison station gets bad information on guns [VIDEO]
**************************************************

There’s no excuse for this happening. All the Richmond television stations know how to get in touch with me, and usually do.

Channel 6 didn’t this time and have put out bad information that will now confuse citizens, businesses, and even the police.

In the video, the report it is claimed that you can’t carry in, “…hospitals, … banks…”

That is completely WRONG. There is no law against carrying in hospitals, banks, or doctor’s offices. As private property, all of those locations can prohibit guns if they wish, but it would still not be a crime to carry there. It would only be a crime if you are told to leave and don’t leave. In that case a trespass charge would kick in.

http://wtvr.com/2016/04/27/where-you-ca ... ry-permit/

or

http://tinyurl.com/hjd5h7f

Where you can and can’t carry your gun with open and concealed carry permit

COLONIAL HEIGHTS, Va. -- After a local man was recently charged after bringing a concealed gun into Parham Doctors Hospital, CBS 6 wanted to look deeper into the rules surrounding open and concealed carry laws in Virginia.

It's common to see someone walking into Dance's Sporting Goods with a gun on their side.

Marlon Dance said he wouldn't have it any other way and added almost everyday someone walks in with questions about open carry and concealed carry.

When it comes to open carry Dance explained "It has to be carried in the open, on your side, it doesn't matter where it is, because most people will carry it on their side, but it has to be visible."

Dance said to carry concealed you must have a permit. "Most people who carry concealed, you'd never know they had the guns".

But carrying a gun means not just knowing the law but where you can and cannot carry. "It's your responsibility to know what the laws are," said Lou Smith, a concealed permit holder.

Smith has had a concealed carry permit for five years.

"I know for the most part where you can and can't carry and where you should and should not carry," he said.

Hannah Lands open carried until she turned 21 and got her concealed carry permit. "Most times I carry in my purse, if you carry on your person, you just have to recognize that certain items of clothing you might wear, might lead somebody to believe you are carrying."

But open carry and concealed carry have their limitations. "State buildings and federal buildings, hospitals, schools, banks, you shouldn't be carrying guns in those places," said Dance.

On the other hand, if business owners want to keep guns out of their store, they have that right.

"If a business does not want you to walk in with a gun, you can get a decal that's got a gun on it, with a line going through it," according to Dance.

In Virginia you must be 18-years-old to purchase a gun and 21-years-old to hold a conceal carry permit.


**************************************************
4. McAuliffe’s blanket restoration of rights for felons - what about gun rights for non-violent felons?
**************************************************

In a transparent move to get some votes for Hilary Clinton, the Governor has pardoned 200,000 felons, regardless of whether they were convicted of a violent felony or not. (May not work - the Blaze interviewed five random Virginia felons on who they were going to vote for: http://tinyurl.com/hezhals)

While those violent and non-violent felons can vote, they still can’t possess a gun.

In our politician’s hurry to “get tough on crime” they have made all kinds of things felonies that should not be felonies. VCDL has long held that once a felon fully pays back their debt to society, they should get ALL their rights back automatically. Certainly that should be true for non-violent felons. (Originally felonies were something you were put to death for, so getting your rights back wasn’t an issue.)

If a felon is still too dangerous to be trusted to be a gun owner, then why should he be trusted to vote? In that case, why is he even back on our streets?


**************************************************
5. Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe goes fire training [VIDEO]
**************************************************

Thanks to Alan Rose for sharing this link:

Governor of Virginia Terry McAuliffe goes fire training. He says he wants to "do everything." OK then has he visited a gun range? Has he tried open carrying? Does he have a Concealed Handgun Permit? Has he carried concealed? Has he attended a VCDL event and enjoyed the company of polite and armed Virginians? Perhaps he should sample the other side before trashing our gun rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeUyRwzzLTo


**************************************************
6. Elligson: On guns, let's stick to the facts
**************************************************

Thanks to member Joseph Elligson for the link:

Another of my letters was published today. I keep trying.

I believe we need more members witting letters. I recognize that The Roanoke Times is a Liberal newspaper. It is a good reason to write letters supporting our beliefs. Many of my letters, critical of obama's reign have not ben published. But I keep trying.


http://tinyurl.com/jyv6z9y

or

http://www.roanoke.com/opinion/letters/ ... 60d05.html


Elligson: On guns, let's stick to the facts
By Joseph E. Elligson
January 20, 2016

It is always interesting that those opposed to guns have so many assumptions that will eliminate guns, gun violence and murders. Where are the facts supporting the assumption that "I am more likely to be killed or injured by an armed citizen than by a "bad guy" or police officer?"

I believe the homicide rates from Baltimore, Washington D.C., Chicago and Detroit prove that citizens are more likely to be killed by bad guys rather than an armed citizen.

It is interesting that these cities have strict gun control laws in effect, yet the gun violence and murders continues to escalate. In 2015, Baltimore had 344 homicides. It is also interesting that many of the cities with high gun violence and murder rates have the highest unemployment rates and the educational systems with poor success rates.

Those advocating removing all guns claim this will stop or seriously reduce gun violence and murders. If this is true, then why not remove all guns from police departments, sheriff departments, ATF, and private security guards? After all, removing guns will stop gun violence, therefore, the police will not be threatened by guns.

We do not hear those pushing for eliminating guns criticize movie directors, movies, TV shows and video games for including so much gun violence. These venues are teaching children and adults the culture of violence.

After watching so many violent games or TV shows, individuals may become immune to feelings of seeing someone killed. Of course, any opposition to these programs and movies is immediately denounced as a First Amendment violation by educators, scholars and liberals.

Why the double standard? It is OK to idolize and worship directors and celebrities who preach against guns while earning millions from movies based on gun violence. If we are to reduce gun violence, let's start with eliminating gun violence in movies, games and TV shows. Also, let's dedicate resources to improving the educational systems at the state levels.

No question we do need to speak out, but let us speak and develop solutions based on facts, not politically driven propaganda.


**************************************************
7. 1993 article: Batman takes on the Virginia gun lobby
**************************************************

Thanks to member John Wilburn for the link:

I randomly came across this searching on the internet. It's good to read an article from 1993 to remind us how things were and how they could be again if we don't remain vigilant.


http://tinyurl.com/h2h8w9w

or

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 77192.html


Batman takes on the Virginia gun lobby: David Usborne visits the state which is the main source of guns used in crime in eastern America
By David Usborne
January 27, 1993

THE latest episode in the uphill campaign to wean Americans from owning guns features a Batman comic and a hardly draconian proposal to limit Virginians to buying only one gun a month. Nothing in it, though, is meant as a joke.

Virginia has become the latest focus of the gun-control debate since the release last year of government statistics suggesting that one in four guns with traceable origins seized from the scene of crimes in New York City was bought in Virginian gun shops. In Washington DC, it was one in three.

The report has stirred Virginia's Governor, Douglas Wilder, to urge new gun-law proposals on state legislators in Richmond. 'Virginia is the No 1 source-state for handguns on the East Coast,' he said recently. 'We must stop the trafficking or become known as the Grim Reaper State.'

At the core of his plan is the proposal to impose on gun shops a sales ceiling of one handgun per customer per month. Though at first sight it may seem ludicrous as a serious measure, its supporters say it will be critical in stopping bulk sales to criminals who mean to sell the guns in the cities.

'They come into the state and go into a store and buy handguns by the dozens,' says David Cullen, a state attorney. 'Then they haul the guns north and sell them on the street for cash or drugs.' He points out that Virginian gun laws are more lax than in almost any other state. Anyone who can show a state driving licence can walk from a store with as many guns as they like.

Although Mr Wilder's Democratic colleagues have a large majority in the Richmond legislature, ensuring the passage of his bill is likely to be hard going. The US gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, is fighting back, denying there is any link between gun ownership and violent crime.

An unexpected factor in the controversy has been the release last week of a special issue of Batman in comic strip form. Published by DC Comics in New York, the edition, entitled 'Batman: Seduction of the Gun', tells the story of an evil gang in the fictional Gotham City arranging to take a ride to real-life Virginia to buy all the weapons needed for their deadly deeds.

One frame of the comic depicts a henchman of the gang leader, called Chaka Zulu, confronting Batman who is posing as a gun dealer named Freddie Lasker. 'You still got those connections down in Virginia?' asks the henchman. 'Chaka wants your butt down there and hook us up with some guns'.

The issue was a deliberate attempt to help expose the role of Virginia in gun-running and is dedicated to John Reisenbach, the son of an executive of Warner Brothers, which owns DC comics. Aged 33, Reisenbach was shot dead for no apparent reason on a Manhattan street in 1990.

For Mr Wilder, the comic and the publicity generated by its appearance seem like a gift. His office has wasted no time in drafting Batman and his sidekick, Robin, into supporting his gun bill campaign. 'The fact that the state has achieved this notoriety in a comic book strip should be an embarrassment to all Virginians,' said his spokesman, Glenn Davidson. 'If the statistics and the headlines don't make the point, this comic book will.'

However, gun retailers, in particular, refuse to be impressed. 'This is just another example of Virginia-bashing,' complains Bill Mitchell, manager of the Gun Shoppe, a virtual shack clad with security grilles and alarms, situated alongside Route 1 at Woodbridge in eastern Virginia. 'They're trying to blame us because they have no control of crime in DC.'

Mr Mitchell denies that his shop, crammed with glinting Colt and Beretta handguns and Uzi assault weapons, doubles as a supermarket for big-city criminals. He insists that he delays a sale whenever his suspicions are aroused and telephones the local gun control authorities. About six times a year, he says, officers arrive in time to pick up and question some such dubious customer.

But would it really matter if the public was asked to buy no more than one handgun a month? Absolutely it would, replies sales assistant Ernie. 'We have a customer who has six sons and buys each of them a handgun as presents every Christmas. And why shouldn't he?' he says indignantly. Funny, Bill at the Gun Shoppe had just such a customer, too, though that gentleman purportedly had seven boys. Almost unbelievable.


**************************************************
8. FBI says it's stopping NICS appeals
**************************************************

This is exactly why we don’t want to extend the maximum time a person has to wait (3 business days) if they don’t get a response from NICS on a gun purchase.


Thanks to member Bill Albritton for the link:


http://tinyurl.com/gw5t3gg

or

http://www.pagunblog.com/2016/01/20/fbi ... s-appeals/


FBI says it's stopping NICS appeals
by Sebastian
Janaury 20, 2016

So overwhelmed are NICS examiners with the Great Obama Gun Rush, they are apparently considering suspending appeals for people who are denied (there’s an instant play ad for me on the link, so beware):

The surge of criminal background checks required of new gun purchasers has been so unrelenting in recent months that the FBI had been forced to temporarily halt the processing of thousands of appeals from prospective buyers whose firearm purchase attempts have been denied.

I’d argue there are serious constitutional implications with something like this, that is there should be if the courts were willing to take the right seriously, which they aren’t, so it’s a moot point.

But it’s interesting that Obama Panic is driving so many gun sales that we’re breaking the system. The article goes on to describe the woes of the NICS system, which relies on voluntary compliance from the states. The article implies that the overload currently being experienced contributed to the Charleston mass murderer (we don’t give these bozos the infamy they seek by naming them) slipping through the system.

During the background check, [racist murdering ass]’s March arrest on felony drug charges was mistakenly attributed to the Lexington County, S.C., Sheriff’s Department, not the Columbia, S.C., Police Department, which actually made the arrest. The sheriff’s department operates the jail where [the murderer] had been detained.

The Columbia police report included information that [the dope smoking murderer] admitted to drug possession, which would have triggered an immediate denial by NICS, according to bureau guidelines. But that information was never seen by the reviewer because the FBI’s database did not include Columbia police contacts in its list of agency contacts for Lexington County purchase reviews. The reviewer did attempt to reach the Lexington County prosecutor’s office, which was handling the drug case at the time, but received no response.

The gun control folks are now making a push to end “default proceeds.” Essentially the FBI has three days to complete the check and make a determination of status. If the FBI fails to issue a denial or a proceed, the dealer is permitted to go ahead with the sale after three days. In the case of our racist, doped up murder boy here, the dealer waiting five days.

Default proceeds are intended to protect the rights of the public from the government being able to shut down all gun sales through either being unwilling or unable to process the background checks. Imagine, for instance, a Carrington level event, or some other natural or manmade disaster, which takes down large portions of our telecommunication systems, with NICS down and unreachable. You might want a gun in that kind of SHTF scenario? Under the existing system, sales could still proceed after three days. Under the system the gun control proponents propose, all legal guns sales would be shut down. Default proceed is non-negotiable, and a system that would shut down all gun sales in a serious national emergency ought to be unconstitutional.


**************************************************
9. FBI official: 'Perfect storm' imperiling gun background checks
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/jyltt5d

or

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-of ... ar-BBordM9


FBI official: 'Perfect storm' imperiling gun background checks
by Kevin Johnson
January 19,2016

CLARKSBURG, W.Va. — The surge of criminal background checks required of new gun purchasers has been so unrelenting in recent months that the FBI had been forced to temporarily halt the processing of thousands of appeals from prospective buyers whose firearm purchase attempts have been denied.

Since October, the bureau’s entire cadre of appeal examiners— about 70 analysts — was redeployed here to help keep pace with waves of incoming background investigations that continued through December when a record 3.3 million firearm sales were processed.

The transfer of examiners, which had left a backlog of 7,100 appeals, is only part of a makeshift reorganization that FBI Assistant Director Stephen Morris said has become necessary to handle a burgeoning workload that expands in the wake of every mass shooting and call for increased gun control that invariably prompt firearms sales binges across the country.

“The last several months, we've kind of found ourselves in a perfect storm,’’ Morris said in an interview with USA TODAY. In each of the last six months, the number of background checks has risen steadily, according to FBI records, ending with December's record with more than a half-million over the previous monthly high posted in the aftermath of the 2012 Newtown, Conn., school massacre.

Since before Thanksgiving weekend, all annual leave for the more than 400 employees of the bureau’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System has been canceled. That Black Friday, the system was swamped with 185,345 background check requests on new firearm sales, a new single-day record. Morris said temporary background check examiners also are being pulled from internal construction projects and bureau divisions that oversee the gathering of crime statistics across the nation.

The near-constant frenzy of activity within the FBI’s sprawling complex, four hours away from the nation’s capital, may represent the most compelling argument in favor of at least part of President Obama’s recent executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence: the addition of 230 examiners to the NICS operation and 200 more agents for nation's chief gun enforcement agency, the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms.

The new positions are desperately needed, authorities said, to support the seriously stressed NICS system and to prepare for an even heavier workload as a consequence of the central provision of the administration's executive actions. That directive would require an increasing number of private firearms dealers to be licensed, subjecting their customers to scrutiny under the federal background check system.

Some of the administration's most vocal opponents on gun policy, including those who offered initial skepticism or outright opposition when the executive actions were unveiled earlier this month, now appear open to potentially adding the hundreds of requested positions that would require congressional approval.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, acknowledged in a written statement to USA TODAY that more NICS examiners “might be necessary.’’

Even the National Rifle Association, which assailed the administration's overall gun plan as "political exploitation,'' said that they would "have no objection'' to proposals that would both bolster the ranks of the ATF and the NICS system.

The group, however, remained critical of the plan's call for private gun sellers to obtain federal licenses so that buyers would go through background checks.

"If the addition of these agents are used to apprehend criminals — not to harass law-abiding gun owners — and (the examiners are used) to improve the broken NICS system, we would have no objection,'' NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told USA TODAY.

'Delay queue is growing'

Burrowed in the rolling hills of the West Virginia countryside, the idyllic setting for the NICS operation masks the fraught, politically charged debate that has engulfed national gun policy.

The NICS system, mandated by Congress as part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, has for nearly 20 years been a centerpiece of the government's effort to block criminals from obtaining firearms. Yet the operation has largely struggled to keep pace with a steadily increasing number of firearm transfers, while maintaining databases of criminal and mental health records that rely solely on voluntary contributions from state and local authorities. Those records are crucial to determining whether prospective gun buyers are eligible to purchase firearms.

"We live off those records,'' Morris said. "That is our bread and butter. ...The misnomer is that FBI has everything that exists on criminal history records in some big repository, and that's simply not true. A lot of data sits out in state and local systems. Being able to reach out and get that information can be very, very challenging.''

Morris said it is impossible to estimate how many records could be missing from the system.

"You don't know what you don't know, right?''

Earlier this month, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in letters to the nation's governors as part of the administration's executive actions, urged states to provide additional information, saying the existing NICS databases were "far from complete.'' The letters also contained subtle warnings that the FBI intended to publish each state's contribution in the coming months.

"The NICS is a critical tool in keeping firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons,'' Lynch wrote, "but it is only as effective as the information entered into the databases upon which it relies.''

While slightly more than 70% of firearms transactions are allowed to proceed within minutes after buyers appear at the counters of licensed dealers, according to the FBI, the records are especially key to quickly reconciling the remaining transfers that require deeper reviews of state and local data before decisions can be issued on whether guns can be sold.

Depending on the volume of gun sales, at any one time the queue of pending cases — which by law must be resolved within three business days — generally ranges in the several thousand. Recently, those numbers have ballooned as high as 13,000. If the cases, some of which depend on local law enforcement agencies finding paper records to satisfy an examiner's search, cannot be resolved within the three-day period, gun dealers are generally free to complete the sales.

"Some (cases) aren't being looked at until the third day,'' Morris said, referring to the increasing volume and limited staffing.

"That delay queue has grown ... that meter is running.''

Morris said that he would like to limit examiners' caseloads to two reviews per hour to ensure accuracy. But that number has nearly doubled to nearly four cases per hour.

Roof serves as cautionary tale

The enormous stakes are not always apparent, until the first reports of a new mass shooting echo across social media or cable television.

No one recent case underscores the sobering nature of the work here more, officials said, more than an April transaction in South Carolina, reviewed by a veteran examiner at the West Virginia facility.

In that case, which could not be resolved within the three-day period, Dylann Roof was mistakenly allowed to walk away with the .45-caliber handgun allegedly used two months later to kill nine people during an evening Bible study session at the iconic Emanuel AME Church in downtown Charleston.

During the background check, Roof's March arrest on felony drug charges was mistakenly attributed to the Lexington County, S.C., Sheriff's Department, not the Columbia, S.C., Police Department, which actually made the arrest. The sheriff's department operates the jail where Roof had been detained.

The Columbia police report included information that Roof admitted to drug possession, which would have triggered an immediate denial by NICS, according to bureau guidelines. But that information was never seen by the reviewer because the FBI's database did not include Columbia police contacts in its list of agency contacts for Lexington County purchase reviews. The reviewer did attempt to reach the Lexington County prosecutor's office, which was handling the drug case at the time, but received no response.

"We are all sick about what happened,'' FBI Director James Comey said during a July briefing when the error was disclosed.

Morris said the Roof case continually "humanizes the process,'' which mostly churns on far outside the public spotlight.

"These are people who are making life-and-death decisions,'' Morris said, adding that analyst in the Roof case remains on the job working new cases every day. Given the information available at the time, authorities have said the examiner did everything possible to appropriately vet the purchase.

"She's a great examiner, too. I'd love to have 230 more of them.’'


**************************************************
10. Rifle capable of taking down helicopter found at 'El Chapo' hideout purchased [VIDEO]
**************************************************

Thanks to member Billy Huckleberry for the link:


http://tinyurl.com/h8cxxoo

or

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01 ... ogram.html


‘Fast & Furious’ rifle capable of taking down helicopter found in 'El Chapo' cache
By William La Jeunesse
January 20, 2016

A .50-caliber rifle found at Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman’s hideout in Mexico was funneled through the gun-smuggling investigation known as Fast and Furious, sources confirmed Tuesday to Fox News.

A .50-caliber is a massive rifle that can stop a car or, as it was intended, take down a helicopter.

After the raid on Jan. 8 in the city of Los Mochis that killed five of his men and wounded one Mexican marine, officials found a number of weapons inside the house where Guzman was staying, including the rifle, officials said.

When agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives checked serial numbers of the eight weapons found in his possession, they found one of the two .50-caliber weapons traced back to the ATF program, sources said.

Federal officials told Fox News they are not sure how many of the weapons seized from Guzman’s house actually originated in the U.S. and where they were purchased, but are investigating.

Out of the roughly 2,000 weapons sold through Fast and Furious, 34 were .50-caliber rifles that can take down a helicopter, according to officials.

Federal law enforcement sources told Fox News that ‘El Chapo’ would put his guardsmen on hilltops to be on guard for Mexican police helicopters that would fly through valleys conducting raids. The sole purpose of the guardsmen would be to shoot down those helicopters, sources said.

The Fast and Furious operation involved federal agents allowing criminals to buy guns with the intention of tracking them.

Instead, agents from the ATF lost track of 1,400 of the 2,000 guns involved in the sting operation.

The operation allowed criminals to buy guns in Phoenix-area shops with the intention of tracking them once they made their way into Mexico.

The operation became a major distraction for the Obama administration as Republicans in Congress conducted a series of inquiries into how the Justice Department allowed such an operation to happen.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt after he refused to divulge documents for a congressional investigation into the matter.

This is the third time a weapon from the Fast and Furious program has been found at a high-profile Mexican crime scene.


**************************************************
11. How durable are Obama's gun reforms?
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/zejwylc

or

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/t ... un-reforms


How durable are Obama's gun reforms?
By Stuart Shapiro
January 19, 2016

Earlier this month, President Obama announced that he was taking a series of executive actions to attempt to restrict the sale of guns. The reaction on the presidential campaign trail was predictable. The president was denounced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) as a tyrant who was usurping his constitutional authority. Numerous candidates pledged to reverse all of the measures enacted by the president.

Much of the media coverage of the president's actions (and much of the political response) lumped all of the gun control measures together. But in reality, the president's announcement contained a variety of different policy instruments. Some of these will be easy to reverse by a new president in 2017 who might favor easy access to guns. Others will be a bit more long-lasting. The actions by the president can be divided into four categories.

Regulation: The president announced the finalization of several regulations regarding gun control and the proposal of several others. Many of these regulations had been in the pipeline for a while and should not have been a surprise. Two regulatory initiatives that the president announced were a regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) "to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity," and one by the Social Security Administration "to include information in the background check system about beneficiaries who are prohibited from possessing a firearm for mental health reasons."

The regulatory actions taken by the president will be the hardest ones for gun advocates to undo. As I wrote in The Hill last month, the options for reversing a regulation are limited for a new president, particularly if they have priorities elsewhere. However, this only applies to the regulations that the Obama administration can make effective before Obama leaves office. Rules that are just being proposed now are unlikely to be completed by the administration and will depend on a friendly president in office in 2017 for their finalization.

Guidance: While regulations fill in the gaps that Congress deliberately leaves in laws, guidance documents often fill in the gaps that federal agencies leave in regulations. Subject to almost none of the procedural protections of the regulatory process, agency use of guidance documents has been a controversial topic. Among Obama's measures were "clarifications" by the ATF as to whom is a gun dealer and therefore must conduct background checks on their customers. Guidance is relatively easy to revoke for a new administration, but may create norms of behavior that won't be so easily reversed.

Enforcement priorities: The oldest accepted role of the executive branch of government is enforcement of the laws. The president relied upon this authority to announce a number of measures that will affect the enforcement of existing gun laws and regulations. He announced both the hiring of new agents at ATF and the FBI and the reallocation of existing enforcement resources toward gun control. Enforcement discretion is largely the realm of the executive branch (although hiring new agents requires congressional funding), and a new president will be able to reverse this easily.

Research: The president included in his announcement a presidential memorandum (different than an executive order) directing the Departments of Justice, Defense and Homeland Security to increase research on the gun safety technology. Like the reallocation of enforcement resources, this can be easily undone by a president who does not consider this research a priority.

As one can see from the above categorization, many of President Obama's actions can be reversed by a Republican president. Obama has had tremendous successes in a wide variety of policy areas, but gun control is not one of them. As such, the announcements last week amount more to an admission of that failure than an exercise in tyranny. To achieve meaningful gun control, congressional action is necessary and Obama knows as well as anyone that this Congress has no intention of legislating in this area.


**************************************************
12. [NJ] For gun owners, an alternative to seizure [VIDEO]
**************************************************

Thanks to member Bill Albritton for the link:


http://tinyurl.com/glqxdqf

or

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/0 ... ionno.html


For gun owners, an alternative to seizure
By Mark Di Ionno
January 16, 2016

This story begins in the early 1980s, when developer Bill Michas began construction of a Whippany strip mall by first building a 3,000-square-foot underground vault for a safe deposit box business.

The business never took off, but the vault found another use. Today, people eating breakfast at The Original Pancake House or taking martial arts classes at AMA Fight Club, at the Pine Plaza Shopping Center, have no idea a weapons cache is buried deep beneath their feet.

Hand guns. Long guns. Legal guns. Guns once legal, now illegal due to new laws. Collectible guns. Hand-me-down guns, worth nothing but sentimental value.

Guns from people facing domestic violence charges, temporary restraining orders or other legal trouble. Guns from deployed soldiers. Or from people with kids in the house. Or from people trying to sell their houses.

That vault – encased in 3 feet of concrete on all sides, with steel-plated floors, ceilings and walls, and a 10,000-pound dynamite-proof door – now holds hundreds of guns legally transferred by their owners to a unique business called "Gunsitters."

While there are many gun businesses that store firearms, Gunsitters has found a niche in these legal transfers.

Someone facing a gun seizure by police can legally and temporarily transfer ownership to Gunsitters until their problems clear. If their problems don't clear and they lose the right to own guns, Gunsitters sells the guns for them.

The owners transfer the guns to the company for $1 a piece and buy them back at the same price. If the guns must be sold, Gunsitters takes a 20 percent commission.

"I don't know of any business like it, anywhere," said Frank Pisano, a Montville attorney specializing in New Jersey firearms laws.

One reason, Pisano said, is that Gunsitters offers a service that would only work in New Jersey, or other states with "draconian" firearms regulations.

"It's easier, and there's less risk, for a lawful firearm owner to transfer his or her collection to a licensed dealer than attempt to navigate the complex and time-consuming laws regulating person-to-person transfers in New Jersey."

It's against the law in the Garden State to relinquish control of your firearms to another person, unless that person has all the necessary permits to take possession.

And why would someone want to relinquish control?

There are almost as many reasons as there are types of guns.

"Realtors won't show a house with guns in it," said Ross Osias, of Lincoln Park, a founding partner of Gunsitters. "So you have to move your guns."

"If a soldier is being deployed, he can't leave his guns on the base, so what does he do?" said Vince Damiano, of Hampton, a combat-wounded veteran, who runs a business called "Weapons Guard" in conjunction with Gunsitters for military people to store or temporarily transfer ownership of guns.

"We have one client, a kid in his 20s, whose parents won't let him keep the gun in the house," Osias said.

"Another client is a retired police officer whose son got in trouble, so he can no longer keep his guns in the house," he said. "We had another guy who was moving to California and just wanted to divest himself of his collection."

Storage fees range from $35 a month for a drawer that can hold five handguns, to $200 a month for a cage that holds a total of 45 rifles and handguns.

Much of Gunsitters business comes from people facing domestic charges. In New Jersey, the law requires guns be seized in the case of any domestic complaint, including verbal harassment.

"Our business is good for everybody involved," said Osias. "It stops the gun owner from getting his legal property seized. It also eliminates the threat for a potential victim in a hostile situation. And it helps police, so they don't have to record and store these guns, or go through the expense of destroying them."

State police statistics from 2012 (the last year available) show there were 65,060 domestic complaints in New Jersey. Domestic violence homicides numbered 38 – 26 women and 12 men. In 2011, according to the FBI, 37 New Jersey women were killed in domestic incidents.

The New Jersey laws for gun seizure cast a very wide net in domestic incidents. A gun collector in Cumberland County had his weapons seized after his wife was accused of abusing her 81-year-old father. Because the husband and wife lived together, his guns were taken, even though he wasn't named in the complaint.

Osias and his partner, Eric Rebels of Kinnelon, a former Department of Defense police officer, weren't always in the gun business.

Their first company, which still exists, is called Data Safe and the vault remains home to data cartridges.

But as technology advanced, information discs and hard drives shrunk, and the vault ended up with vast amounts of rentable space.

"We asked ourselves, 'What can we put in all this space?' " Rebels said.

The answer came three years ago, when a friend of Rebels, who is police officer, was facing a domestic harassment charge.

"He knew they would seize his guns and he would probably never get them back," Rebels said.

Rebels and Osias hired gun-rights experts and worked with law enforcement agencies to create a legal temporary and permanent transfer business.

"We made sure we were in compliance with AG (state attorney general), the state police and the ATF (federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives)," Osias said.

Osias and Rebels have a third company on site called F.S.S., which offers gun safety training and sells firearms. In the showroom display cases are guns that some Gunsitter clients aren't ever getting back.

"This way, at least they get money for their guns," Rebels said. "If police seize them (and eventually destroy them), it's a total loss.”


**************************************************
13. [FL] Sheriff: A gun in your had sure beats 'a cop on the phone'
**************************************************

Thanks to member Walter Jackson for the link:


http://tinyurl.com/zmk9akz

or

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... the-phone/

Sheriff: A gun in your had sure beats 'a cop on the phone'
by AWR Hawkins
January 17, 2016

Florida Sheriff Grady Judd is urging residents in his county to arm up, stressing that it is “more important to have a gun in your hand than a cop on the phone.”

Judd is Sheriff of Polk County.

According to Fox News, “Judd believes guns allow citizens to defend themselves when police cannot.” Moreover, he wants criminals to know that citizens in his county will defend themselves.

Following an incident where a home invasion suspect was shot earlier this month, Judd said, “If you are foolish enough to break into someone’s home, you can expect to be shot in Polk County.”

Detroit Police Chief James Craig has spent the past two years pushing for citizens in his city to arm themselves for self-defense, and Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpario led the charge for citizens in Arizona to carry guns more frequently following the a number of high profile shootings across the country in 2015. And following the December 2 San Bernardino terror attack, Arpiao told Breitbart News that armed citizens can take out the bad guys “before the cops arrive.”

In addition to Craig, Arpaio–and now, Judd–Police Chief Randy Kennedy (Hughes Springs, TX), Sheriff David Cole (Steuben County, NY,), Sheriff Michael A. Helmig (Boone County, KY), Sheriff Paul J. Van Blarcum (Ulster County, NY), and Sheriff Wayne Ivey (Brevard County, FL), have all urged residents with concealed carry permits to carry guns daily to stave off crime and terrorism.


**************************************************
14. The Year of the Gun: 2015 shatters background check records
**************************************************

Thanks to member Walter Jackson for the link:


http://tinyurl.com/hp79hph

or

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-surging/


The Year of the Gun: 2015 shatters background check records
by AWR Hawkins
January 19, 2016

The FBI’s background-check figures show that 2015 shattered the annual record for background checks, and December 2015 alone broke the record for the number of checks performed in a given month.

Breitbart News previously reported that 23,141,970 background checks were performed in 2015. This surpassed the previous record of 21,093,273 by over 2 million.

And FBI figures show a big part of that was December, with 3,314,593 background checks in that month alone. The previous single month record was set in December 2012, when a population driven by fear of post-Sandy Hook gun control underwent 2,783,765 background checks for gun purchases.

On top of this, single month records were May, June, July, August, September, October, November, and December were set in 2015. In other words, May had more background checks that any May on record, June more than any June, July more than any July, and so on and so forth.

According to Fox News, gun control proponent Ladd Everitt responded these surging numbers by suggesting the same gun owners are simply buying more guns. Everitt believes the same people who already owned guns are simply “stockpiling” more, and he based this claim on a Washington Post study which relied on numbers from the General Social Survey, a group renowned for its gun control propensities.

Everitt ignored the myriad testimonies of gun store owners who explained that their business during the booming months of May-December 2015 contained a lot of first time buyers who were not only getting guns, but signing up for concealed carry in response to high profile shootings or attacks.

The bottom line is this–at 23,141,970 million background checks, 2015 was the year of the gun.


**************************************************
15. What really happens when you get shot
**************************************************

Thanks to member Walter Jackson for the link:


http://tinyurl.com/hm7t4vn

or

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/what-reall ... -get-shot/


What really happens when you get shot
by Connor Narciso
December 8, 2015

STAFF SERGEANT NICK Lavery wasn’t only the most physically imposing Green Beret on our team, he was the most physically imposing soldier any of us had ever seen. He was 6’5?, approaching 280 pounds, and cut like a linebacker—the position at which he excelled, not coincidentally, as a college football player at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. He was a weapons specialist, and an expert in hand-to-hand combatives. If Army scientists and tattoo artists had highjacked a Darpa lab to create the ultimate soldier, they would have created Nick. But that wouldn’t prevent a single gunshot to the leg from nearly killing him.

Most of what we learn about gunshot wounds, we learn from watching television. A small sliver of this programming is actually educational, like the ballistics tests performed on Mythbusters. (Some lessons: Bullets fired into liquids will stop or disintegrate rather than slice through seawater a la Saving Private Ryan, and a weapon that would blow a victim backwards would also blow the shooter back.) But these examples are outliers. Depictions of gun violence in fictional shows and movies are routine, and often wildly imaginative. Those depictions are distorting understanding of what bullets can—or can’t—do to bodies.

As a combat medic in Afghanistan, I treated a variety of gunshot wounds. And as the husband of an emergency room provider at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, gun violence has remained—at least peripherally—a significant part of my life. This year, murder rates in Baltimore are on track to surpass death tolls generated by the crack epidemic. Through conversations I’ve had with ER doctors at Johns Hopkins, in addition to my own combat experience, I can offer a few tips you won’t learn at the movie theater. This isn’t just about exposing Hollywood sophistry: It’s about knowing what to do if you ever find yourself near or among the 297 or so people in America who are shot each day in homicides, assaults, suicides, suicide attempts, accidental shootings, and police interventions.

Lavery sustained his wounds at close range, the fateful round fired from a Soviet-designed PKM 7.62 mm machine gun. Lavery had quickly positioned himself between the shooter and a younger American infantryman, an instinctive decision for which he would receive the Silver Star. “I have no doubt that he saved my life,” the infantryman said later in a sworn statement. Nick seemed indestructible. Earlier, during the same deployment, a grazing round scarred his face, and shrapnel from an exploding RPG injured his shoulder. On this day, his ‘good luck’ ran out.

The femoral artery runs down the thigh, using the femur as a backstop. It supplies oxygenated blood to the leg, and in healthy adults is between 5 and 10 mm in diameter. The relatively small but powerful projectile that hit Lavery’s massive leg barely could have followed a deadlier trajectory: It struck and shattered his femur, severing his femoral artery in the process. Unaware of the arterial damage, his powerful heart continued pumping large quantities of blood toward the oxygen-starved muscles in his right leg, causing valuable blood cells to accumulate uselessly in the expanding interstitial space. Without immediate medical intervention, the wound would have killed him. He survived, but lost his leg above the knee.

The threat of blood loss is not unique to Lavery: It’s the number one preventable cause of death on the battlefield. Ruptures to the body’s arterial thoroughfares—including brachial arteries in each arm, bilateral inguinal arteries in the groin, and the thick subclavian arteries sitting unnoticed beneath each clavicle—can potentially result in massive hemorrhaging. It isn’t uncommon to see heroes on the silver screen fighting courageously through their extremity wounds, when in fact the disruption of peripheral or junctional arteries can cause irreparable harm within minutes.

The human body does possess certain defense mechanisms in the event of rapid blood loss. The vascular system will “shunt” blood from the extremities into the core to maintain perfusion to vital organs, but that’s really only effective once the hole gets plugged. Sudden amputations, in particular, will cause the surrounding musculature to tense and contract. A complete amputation doesn’t look like the busted fire hydrants in Kill Bill—instead, it may take minutes or hours before they bleed heavily. Combat medics in training are reminded repeatedly of failures by their predecessors to properly identify and treat “clean” amputations, injuries that resulted in delayed but sudden exsanguination en route to a higher echelon of care.

Penetrating trauma and tissue damage from projectiles are a bit different. They have the potential to cut through arteries and large veins without alerting the body’s muscles to problems. With bullets, it all comes down to shot placement and passage—which, without the gift of surgical precision that no gunman will ever have, is another way of saying it comes down to luck. Aiming for limbs to create “flesh wounds” is a movie myth, and generally not something that police or soldiers ever train to do.

Furthermore, even multiple gunshots to the torso won’t guarantee death, or even incapacitation. Arun Nair is an attending physician in the ER at Johns Hopkins, and an International Health Fellow. “Bullets are magic,” Nair tells his students. He recounts the story of a young man in Lebanon who survived after being shot six times.1 He took repeated shots to the chest and throat. One of the six bullets stopped inside his pericardium, the narrow space between the heart and its thin protective membrane. Another bullet ended up in the victim’s esophagus; he swallowed it. Amazingly, the patient was alert and speaking lucidly to the doctors. You can’t assume anything, says Nair. Bullets can bounce, ricochet, and change vector under the skin.

So, what can bystanders do when confronted with gun violence? First, if possible, stop the bleeding. Swelling and discoloration are signs of hemorrhaging anyone can recognize. Researchers studying American war zones have attributed 90 percent of preventable deaths to uncontrolled bleeding, and ordinary soldiers aren’t exclusively capable of managing blood loss. You can control hemorrhaging by applying manual pressure, or by fastening a tourniquet—improvised or commercial—high and tight on the limb.

What else is there to do? The answer is … not much. A small percentage of combat deaths are due to a condition known as a “tension pneumothorax”—colloquially, a collapsed lung. The lungs have no muscles. They expand due to negative pressure inside of the pleural cavity, which means any type of hole is bad. The goal is to prevent any air from being sucked into the chest cavity, often with the application of an occlusive dressing, whether it’s tape, plastic, or an actual chest seal. Any hole between the neck and the navel is a potential concern. Identifying and treating the tension pneumothorax also is possible on-scene, but it requires training and equipment.

In a medical emergency, time is always critical, and obviously every effort should be made to evacuate casualties to a hospital. But survival may depend upon the quick instincts of a first responder. Is a gunshot wound to the chest preferable to one in the leg? Absolutely not. But doctors don’t take anything for granted, and neither should you.



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