05/26/11 - VCDL Update 5/26/11

[allingeneral]

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Henrico Police to do presentation on "man with a gun" calls at VCDL mee
ting in Richmond on June 8th
2. Thoughts on a gun owner "choke hold"
3. Who needs a gun in Washington D.C.?
4. Philly police to "inconvenience" citizens who legally open carry
5. Open carry interaction with New Mexico police officers
6. More on communicating with the police
7. Federal gun legislation would greatly expand who qualifies as mentally
ineligible from owning a gun
8. Doctors asking the question
9. Who needs a gun in a restaurant?
10. Gun grabber's latest lie: "No guns for terrorists"
11. Puerto Rico gun ruling
12. Oregon 'high' court: Medical pot users can have CCW permits
13. Obama: "I'm working on gun control under the radar"
14. Practice with both hands
15. Candidates at last week's VCDL meeting in NoVA


**************************************************1. Henrico Police to do presentation on "man with a gun" calls at VCDL meeting in Richmond on June 8th**************************************************

We have been working with the Henrico PD for them to make a presentation on how they handle "man with a gun" calls. They will also answer other questions you might have about their operation.

Mark your calendars for Wednesday, June 8th, from 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM. We will meet at :

Tuckahoe Library1901 Starling DriveHenrico, VA 23229

Fellowship will start at 6:30 PM. We will go to a local restaurant after the meeting for further fellowship.

A similar event was held with Fairfax PD earlier this year and we had a big turn-out. People really liked the opportunity to be able to interact with the men and women who patrol our streets and protect our communities.

As with all VCDL membership meetings, they are open to the public, so bring friends, family and co-workers.

See you there!

**************************************************2. Thoughts on a gun owner "choke hold"**************************************************

The federal government has a choke hold on commercial sales of firearms, which can be tightened by eliminating more and more FFLs until, like Washington, DC, there are few or none, creating an unofficial gun ban.

And if private sales are also changed to require a background check, even those guns would be caught up in such a choke hold.

John Ring emailed me this in response to VCDL Update 5/15/11, item #4 "Shot down: D.C. residents unable to register handguns".

--

You know, Phil, the problem in DC with lack of access to registration reminds me of an issue I have with mandatory background checks that surprisingly is never brought up.

In an environment where background checks are 100% required, an administration hostile to private firearms ownership would only need to focus on eliminating FFL holders to create a defacto ban on sales. The number of FFL holders has dropped sharply in the past few decades largely through governmental design. Reduction of FFL holders could easily be taken to a more extreme level...

**************************************************3. Who needs a gun in Washington D.C.?**************************************************

=46rom The Washington Examiner: http://tinyurl.com/3mr7d9l

By Scott McCabeMay 15, 2011

Teenage crime spiking in D.C.

Juvenile arrests have skyrocketed in the District this year, and city officials are bracing for the hot Washington summer when teens have extra time on their hands.

The number of children under 18 arrested and charged with violent crimes -- homicide, rape and aggravated assault -- has risen 10 percent this year compared with last year.

Burglary arrests of juveniles jumped 90 percent, while thefts shot up 173 percent.

Teenagers have played prominently in D.C. crimes that recently garnered national headlines. A 16-year-old from Southeast Washington allegedly stabbed another teenager four times at the National Zoo last month; an 18-year-old is accused of severely beating a corrections officer at the New Beginnings Youth Center; and a high school basketball star with a $50,000 academic scholarship was shot to death while trying to buy a gun for himself.

More young people are ending up homicide victims, too. Of the first 34 people killed in the city in 2011, 13 were 21 and younger. A year ago during the same time, there were 32 slayings, and 10 victims were 21 or younger.

William Chambliss, a criminal justice professor at George Washington University, said many factors may explain the increase in arrests, from reporting issues to police policies to an increase in the number of people in the age group.

"This may be like a stock market goes up and down," he said.

D.C. Police Chief Cathy Lanier did not respond to a request for comment on the increase in juvenile crime and how the city planned to address the problem.

D.C. Councilman Jim Graham said the numbers underscore the need to reform the D.C. juvenile justice system and "send a message that crime has consequences."

"We've moved too far toward permissiveness," said Graham, the new chairman of the committee that oversees the Department of Youth Rehabilitative Services.

For example, Graham said, teenage offenders who recommit crimes while at the New Beginnings Youth Center are routinely ordered to remain in their rooms for two or three nights.

On April 28, a juvenile offender at the youth center who threw a rock at a correctional officer was ordered to sit down with the corrections officer for mediation, he said. The officer declined.

"Mediation? That's not appropriate, that's assault on a police officer, that's a felony in the District of Columbia," Graham said. "We're sending these kids back into the neighborhoods with the message that they are the boss, they've had the opportunity of a little rest and they're back in the action."

D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson was not alarmed by the juvenile crime statistics and said overall violent crime across the District was down by 8 percent.

Juvenile crimes tend to be cyclical, Mendelson said. In the summer of 2006, then-D.C. Police Chief Charles Ramsey declared an expensive crime emergency, and in 2008, Lanier closed off the streets to outsiders in the Trinidad neighborhood after a spate of gang-related shootings, he said.

"I don't see anything in these numbers that's extraordinary compared to previous years other than that, overall, the numbers are down," he said. "The juvenile numbers tell us that there needs to be more focus on juveniles."

Ronald Moten, head of Peaceoholics, said he fears that the summer is going to get worse, citing a cut in summer jobs for teens, a cut in mental health services for children and families, a rise in PCP use, and an increase in disputes between rival street gangs.

"This is just the beginning," he said.

**************************************************4. Philly police to "inconvenience" citizens who legally open carry**************************************************

If a police officer points a loaded gun at a lawful open carrier, is that merely an "inconvenience" for the gun owner? Let's ask the question another way: if someone points a loaded gun at a police officer, is the officer merely "inconvenienced" or is he in "mortal danger?" I think Philadelphia has a double-standard on what is an "inconvenience."

BTW, there was an open carry protest in Philadelphia recently. The purpose was to put Philadelphia on notice not to harass gun owners.

The Philadelphia PD has a black eye over an audio recording of some of their officers threatening a lawful open carrier because the police did not know the gun laws in Pennsylvania. Now the police are trying to prosecute the victim after he released those audio tapes.

The police department has blackened its other eye with its own fist.

Doug Olivo emailed me this:

--

How bold can they be while they harass law abiding citizens. What if the LT said if you are black you will be put on the ground until officers feel safe?!!!!!!

Plus they are still going forward with the reckless endangerment charges!!!!!!

=46rom FOX News: http://tinyurl.com/3nlsps6

By Stephen ClarkMay 21, 2011

After Altercation, Philadelphia Police Say They Won't Look the Other Way on Open-Carry Gun Owners

With a shocking altercation between Philadelphia police and a 25-year-old IT worker putting the spotlight back on open-carry gun laws, local authorities are warning gun owners that they will be "inconvenienced" if they carry unconcealed handguns in the city.

Lt. Raymond Evers, a spokesman for the city police, told FoxNews.com that gun owners who open carry, which is legal in the city, may be asked to lay on the ground until officers feel safe while they check permits.

"Philadelphia, in certain areas, is very dangerous," he said. "There's a lot of gun violence." Several officers have been killed in the line of duty in the past three years, local authorities say.

The warning comes after Mark Fiorino, a suburban Philadelphia IT worker, posted an audiotape to YouTube of his tense, 45-minute encounter with police in February over his exposed handgun. The video went viral and captured national attention.

After Fiorino released the audiotape, he was charged with disorderly conduct and reckless endangerment. He now faces up to two years in prison.

"The police department and assistant district attorney are coming after me, in my opinion, to make an example of me because I stood up to them and exposed them for their lack of knowledge," Fiorino said, who called the trial "absolutely inappropriate and a waste of taxpayer money."

Fiorino said he did nothing reckless, nor did he endanger anyone's life.

"I had a gun pointed at my chest," he said.

Only seven states ban the practice of openly carrying guns, and Pennsylvania isn't one of them, according to OpenCarry.org, which advocates gun rights.. In Philadelphia, a permit is required to carry handguns openly. But on Feb. 13 a police sergeant who was unaware of the law -- which dates back to at least 1996 when the state Supreme Court referenced it in an unrelated ruling -- stopped Fiorino, who was walking to an auto parts shop in Northeast Philadelphia with a gun on his hip.

Sgt. Michael Dougherty can be heard yelling out to Fiorino as "Junior," and asking him to show his hands as Fiorino protests having a gun pointed at his chest, prompting Dougherty to call for backup.

Dougherty grows increasingly agitated as Fiorino offers to show his permit when he is ordered to get on his knees, causing Dougherty to threaten to shoot if he makes a move. Dougherty then unleashed a string of profanities as the two argued over the legality of open carry.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty yells.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino responds."It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

When several other officers arrive, Fiorino is forced to the ground as he tries to explain that he's not breaking the law.

"Shut the f---- up!" Dougherty yells.

Police found the recorder while searching Fiorino's pockets. Officers eventually released him after speaking to the department's lawyer and being told that he was within his legal rights.

Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey took issue with Dougherty's language and his lack of knowledge about the law during the altercation, Evers said, but not with the stop itself.

Evers, who has been an officer for nearly 20 years, said "very rarely do people open carry in Philadelphia." But he added he wasn't make excuses.

"We weren't as up on that crime code as we should have been," he said, adding that officers are being re-educated on open carry in response to the incident.

Dougherty is facing disciplinary action pending the outcome of an internal affairs investigation, Evers said.

Fiorino's trial is scheduled to begin in July and the district attorney's office emphasizes that Fiorino's response to the police, not his gun rights, are at issue.

"This office respects and upholds the rights of a citizen to lawfully carry a firearm," Tasha Jamerson, a spokeswoman for the district attorney's office, said in a statement emailed to FoxNews.com. "The permit to carry a concealed weapon, however, does not mean that a permitholder can abuse that right by refusing to cooperate with police."

Jamerson said Fiorino "allegedly became belligerent and hostile" when police officers "were legally attempting to investigate a potential crime."

But Fiorino's attorney, Joseph Valvo, said the case is larger than Fiorino.

"It's my position that this entire prosecution is an effort by Philadelphia authorities to send a message to legitimate gun owners that open carry as a practice is not welcome in Philadelphia despite the fact that it's constitutionally protected behavior and that's offensive to me as a citizen and as a lawyer," Valvo said.

Gun rights advocates say they're are also offended.

John Pierce, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org said, Philadelphia police have sent a clear message to gun owners that will chill their rights to openly carry.

"Even if it's legal, we can punish you financially and by disruptions in your life," he said.

But the district attorney's office dismissed as "ludicrous" claims it is seeking retaliation or trying to send a message.

"This office only charges people with offenses that we think we can prosecute," Jamerson said in an interview with FoxNews.com. "We just don't willy-nilly charge a person with a crime as retaliation for an incident."

The February incident wasn't the first time Philadelphia police officers have confronted Fiorino about his unconcealed gun. Since July, he has been stopped twice and he has had an audio recorder on him each time in case a cop is having a bad day or doesn't understand the law, he said.

His handgun was confiscated once for five months, but neither occasion escalated like the third encounter.

Fiorino said he studied Pennsylvania law for a year before he started openly carrying a gun. He said he carries the gun openly because some of his friends have been held up at gunpoint and he's not willing to allow himself to be helpless.

Police spokesman Evers said Fiorino appears to be inviting trouble from the law by "surreptitiously" recording his encounters with police.

"If you put everything together, it was more than him walking down the street to go to an auto parts store -- without a jacket in the middle of winter," Evers said.

But Fiorino denies that he was looking for trouble.

"How many times does a convenience store need to be robbed to be justified in putting up a security system?" he said.

**************************************************5. Open carry interaction with New Mexico police officers**************************************************

In this video some New Mexico officers try to browbeat a gun owner who was open carrying into providing ID when he had done nothing wrong. In the end the gun owner just walks away and the police, correctly, let him go.

=46rom Youtube: http://tinyurl.com/3hwbftr

**************************************************6. More on communicating with the police**************************************************

John Pepper emailed me this in response to VCDL Update 5/19/11, item #5 "More on interaction with officer in an unmarked police vehicle".

--

Dear Philip,

About number 5. When Instructing defense with firearms I did delve into tone and inflection of ones voice as mentioned in this write up from a police officer. Words and how they are said can have multiple meaning for the same word. This was done in the portion of the class that warned the students not to talk to the police after a defense action instead answering, "I will not answer any questions without an attorney." The word tone or inflection was used to emphasize how messed up one could get if they did talk to the police creating a misunderstanding as to meaning.

The student was asked to say one word at several inflections. It was an eye opener for them usually with their remarking something like, "Darn you're right. The ways I just said it has several meanings." At that I would tell them, "All the more reason not to talk to the police. What you said and how it is interpreted by the police and D. A. may not be what you meant."

By the way, my students who did get into defense actions that I managed to get after action reports on in all cases except one killed the assailant or assailants. All were found justifiable. All except the one that didn't kill the assailant went by my advice and did not talk to the police. In her instance she talked complicating things by being under suspicion until the creep came out of about a five week coma and confessed. Had he died she would have had big problems overcoming the District Attorney who was using against her what she said to the police right after the shooting. The D A doubted her claim of attempted rape.

After action reports are hard to get and in most instances was long after the action with the student in the clear. That figures as their attorney told them to keep their mouth shut.

Onward, John

**************************************************7. Federal gun legislation would greatly expand who qualifies as mentally ineligible from owning a gun**************************************************

Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:

--

=46rom The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/3je55ae

By Jeff WinklerMay 13, 2011

Recently introduced federal gun legislation would codify and greatly expand the definition of those barred from owning a gun because they suffer from broad, umbrella-like definitions of mental health problems. Mental health advocates, however, say legislators reacting to "deranged" people going on shooting sprees are "completely missing the point."

Last week, New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy introduced the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011, a nearly-identical resolution to that introduced in the Senate in March by her New York colleague, Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer. Both bills include a section dedicated to further codifying in federal law what it means to be "adjudicated as a mental defective." The proposed change would label any person a "mental health defective" who appears to "lack the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs," or is "compelled" to receive counseling or medication.

Other, seemingly more obvious, definitions of a "mental health defective" include anyone who has been found criminally insane, found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of mental deficiencies.

According to the legislation, decisions of whether someone is of subnormal intelligence, competency and/or mental illness are to be decided by a "court, board, commission, or other lawful authority." No medical qualifications or background in psychological sciences are specified as necessary for such lawful authorities.

Apart from the sexist profiling in also including anyone who appears to be a danger to "himself or others," the proposed legislation creates more concerns than solutions among both mental health and gun rights advocates.

"[The legislation is] completely missing the point," said Ron Honberg, general council for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. "The reality is, making it difficult to get guns is not going to prevent tragedies like Virginia Tech or Tucson. Making the mental health system more responsive to people who have obvious treatment needs is going to prevent these things from happening."

Making it easier for the federal government to add those with mental illness to a national database like the National Instant Background Check (NIBC) system, said Honberg, not only stigmatizes those suffering from mental illness but could also dissuade fearful individuals from coming forward and receiving the treatment they need. Honberg also said he had questions about the wording of several passages in the bill, which appear to expand the scope of the government's control of individuals' rights without any clear restrictions.

"I'm not exactly sure what [compelled] means. Does that imply that the person is not willing to accept services but are compelled to accept services, or does it apply to people who accept services [after they have] been found to need them?"

Honberg continued, saying the definitions of a "commission" and being "committed" aren't nation-wide standards.

"I mean this is just such a complicated area. State laws vary significantly in terms of the criteria for civil commitment," said Honberg. "Some limit civil commitment to people who are found to be imminently dangerous to self or others. Others are broader and include what we might call a 'need for treatment' standard, so somebody whose in bad shape but not necessarily somebody who is provably dangerous to self or others."

Nor do the two pieces of legislation mention the durational limit in which someone may be considered a "mental deficient." Honberg said that existing state laws do contain a procedure for removing one's name from the list of those adjudicated as a mental health deficient, but "it's hard."

"Nobody knows about it and you have to apply to whoever maintains the NIBC system to have your name removed," said Honberg, who noted that only a handful of states expressly stipulate durational limits.

"Let's say 30 years ago I was civilly committed to a hospital but for the past 29 years I've done really well," said Honberg. "I've been a model citizen, I've worked, I've been productive, I've paid taxes. This would still apply to me."

Honberg's objections as a mental health advocate mirror those of Jeffrey Schaler, a frequent antagonist of his. A psychologist and professor at American University's School of Public Affairs, Schaler follows the Thomas Szasz school of psychiatric care in contending that "mental illnesses" have been distorted to be the equivalent of physical illnesses and maladies. Schaler, along with other Szaszian mental health experts, argues against the medicalization of mental troubles that are often subjective and cultural by nature. Schaler points to the fact that authoritarian control from the Soviet Union to the present has increasingly relied on this medicalization of mental health. Its affects, he said, can be seen in this most recent gun legislation as well.

"This is similar in some way to what is happening all over the country in the public schools. Teachers who are upset with certain students quickly diagnose the student as having Attention Deficit Disorder and/or Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, and they strongly argue that the child be put on an amphetamine drug like Ritalin or Concerta, or whatever," he said.

Schaler said that just because someone may be "ordered" to take a drug, it doesn't mean that the person lacks the sufficient mental capacity of "normal" individuals. Furthermore, Schaler said the most troubling issue of further defining the terms of "mental illness" on a federal level is that diagnosis of those "diseases" is a cultural and political process, not a scientific process. The classification of homosexuality as a disease by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 is evidence of the political process prohibiting individuals' personal rights, said Schaler.

"People who are introducing and arguing for this legislation are essentially acting as if there is a post script at the bottom of the Bill of Rights that reads as follows: 'For mentally healthy people only,'" said Schaler.

McCarthy's legislation does not include Schumer's section on drugs, but both bills attempt to vaguely redefine who has been "adjudicated as a mental defective," a group already banned from possessing firearms.

While gun control advocates said they wanted to have a "common sense" debate over the access to firearms after the Tucson shooting, gun-rights groups such as the National Rifle Association and the 2nd Amendment Foundation immediately accused Democratic lawmakers of attempting to cynically exploit the tragedy to further limit the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The fears appeared to be legitimate in at least one instance, as Sen. Schumer's bill proposes barring anyone arrested, but never convicted, of any drug related crime from owning a gun for five years.

**************************************************8. Doctors asking the question**************************************************

EM Pat Webb emailed me this:

-

Philip,

I thought you would enjoy this. It is a form that SAS worked up in response to some doctors asking about guns in the home.

-Pat Webb

=46rom Second Amendment Sisters: http://tinyurl.com/3kusxps

By LeeAnn TarducciMay 18, 2011

Here is a tool to give to your doctor if he/she starts to ask / advise you about your possession of firearms.

Download PDF file: http://tinyurl.com/3l9d5d6

**************************************************9. Who needs a gun in a restaurant?**************************************************

Ray Adams emailed me this:

--

The patron that shot back did have a permit the Sheriff said. So far so good.

=46rom WAFB.com: http://tinyurl.com/3jzffo8

By Joshua AuzenneMay 17, 2011

PIERRE PART, LA (WAFB) - Authorities report two people are dead following a shooting at a restaurant Tuesday morning.

According to the Assumption Parish Sheriff's Office, a woman was shot and killed by her ex-boyfriend while she was at Landry's Seafood House in Pierre Part around 10:30 a.m.

Sheriff Mike Waguespack said the gunman later took his own life in the parking lot.

Waguespack added another man who was shot inside the restaurant was airlifted to an area hospital.

He was shot at least once.

No names have been released, but investigators said the woman was a long-time employee of the restaurant.

Waguespack explained the shooter got into an argument with his ex-girlfriend in the restaurant, pulled out a gun and shot her.

He said another man inside the restaurant then pulled out his gun and the two men fired at one another. Both were hit.

The sheriff reported the woman's ex-boyfriend then went out to the parking lot and shot himself.

A worker at Richard's Pharmacy, which is near the restaurant, said workers from the restaurant ran into the pharmacy for safety.

He said restaurant workers told him the victims were shot inside the restaurant and the gunman later shot himself just outside the restaurant.

The shooting remains under investigation.

**************************************************10. Gun grabber's latest lie: "No guns for terrorists"**************************************************

The Brady Campaign wants the U.S. Attorney General to be able to keep anyone he chooses from getting a gun. No valid reason necessary.

Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this message from Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

--

=46rom Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: http://tinyurl.com/29t3xaj

U.S. House Committee Allows Easy Access to Guns for Terrorists

By a vote of 21-11, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee defeated an amendment to close the "Terror Gap" that would have allowed the Attorney General to prevent known terrorists from buying guns.

Help us tell the 21 U.S. Representatives who voted against this amendment on Thursday that they made the wrong choice.

How can the Congress pretend to be serious about protecting the nation from terrorism, while voting to allow known terrorists to buy guns? Send your e-mail today!

One click will send an e-mail to the Committee Members who voted against closing the "Terror Gap"

"No Guns for Terrorists"

Over 1,300 persons on the terrorist watch list have been allowed to purchase firearms or explosives since 2004. Amazingly, being a known or suspected terrorist is not sufficient to prohibit someone from buying guns.

**************************************************11. Puerto Rico gun ruling**************************************************

Greg Trojan emailed me this:

--

Philip

Just saw this and thought it would be of interest. Sound like very good news for the 2nd in PR and adds to the movement in the right direction.

=46rom The Volokh Conspiracy: http://tinyurl.com/3g435of

By Eugene VolokhMay 18, 2011

[SNIP]

The Puerto Rico Appellate Case Recognizing a Second Amendment Right to Carry Guns in Public

I blogged about this last week, but now I have a translation of both the majority and the dissent, translated by reader Rick Nemcik Cruz (many thanks to him for this). Since this is the first post-Heller appellate case, to my knowledge, that has held that a Second Amendment includes the right to carry guns in public, it struck me as especially worth noting. Note also that the Puerto Rico government has apparently decided not to ask the Puerto Rico Supreme Court to reconsider the case. (Thanks to Antonio A. Hernandez Almodovar for that information.)

Ex Parte Roque C=C7sar Nido Lanausse (Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, Guayama Judicial Region, Panel XII, Case Num. KLAN201000562, Jan. 31, 2011)

**************************************************12. Oregon 'high' court: Medical pot users can have CCW permits**************************************************

VCDL Board member Dale Welch emailed me this:

--

=46rom examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/3e65kx6

By Dave WorkmanMay 19, 2011

[SNIP]

The Oregon Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that people who use medica

l marijuana cannot be denied concealed weapons permits, noting that there is nothing in the 1968 federal gun control act that specifically preempts a state's concealed carry licensing statute.

However, marijuana advocates should not get too excited about this, because the ruling does not clear the way for pot users to buy or possess firearms.. The case is Willis v. Winters, named for Cynthia Willis, a medical marijuana user.

--

AND SPEAKING OF gun control organizations, one of them - the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) - is in trouble with Twitter over harassment of gun rights advocates. According to the blog site No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money, CSGV has had its Twitter account suspended for "outing" pro-gun bloggers and posting personal information about them, including their home addresses.

This column checked the proper links to confirm the report, and Twitter actually has suspended the group.

CSGV apparently violated Twitter's terms of service.

**************************************************13. Obama: "I'm working on gun control under the radar"**************************************************

David Ford emailed me this:

--

=46rom the Greeley Gazette: http://tinyurl.com/3vllerh

By Jack MinorMay 18, 2011

Obama: "I'm working on gun control under the radar"

While the Obama administration said it is committed to gun rights, a gun control advocate has spilled the beans, saying Obama is using stealth to work on firearms restrictions.

The Washington Post did a story on Steve Crowley, the White House gun control czar. Crowley is considered to be an expert on regulation and tort law. His approach to gun control appears to be a regulatory one.

According to the article, Jim and Sarah Brady visited Capital Hill on March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan; to push for a ban on "large magazines."

The couple reportedly were meeting with press secretary, Jay Carney, when, according to Sarah Brady, the President came in. She said the President told her he wanted to talk about gun control and "fill us in that it was very much on his agenda."

She went on to say Obama told her, "I just want you to know that we are working on it. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

The statement reinforces an article in the Huffington Post describing how the administration is exploring ways to bypass Congress and enact gun control through executive action.

The Department of Justice reportedly is holding meetings discussing the White House's options for enacting regulations on its own or through adjoining agencies and departments. "Administration officials said talk of executive orders or agency action are among a host of options that President Barack Obama and his advisers are considering."

Dudley Brown, president of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, says he is not surprised to hear the President is trying to unilaterally enact gun control regulations. "It's clear that President Obama and Sarah Brady have been using the ATF to enact what they can't get through Congress: a ban on the importation of self defense shotguns, new reporting requirements for multiple rifle sales, and the attempt to smuggle firearms across the border to Mexican gang members are just a few examples."

**************************************************14. Practice with both hands**************************************************

Geoff Bricker emailed me this:

--

Phillip,

I wanted to bring up a point I'm sure some of your members may overlook. When my friends and I go shooting, we usually use our dominant hands and rarely practice with our others. I recently sustained a shoulder injury to my right shoulder and can't use it for much, let alone pulling a handgun if I needed to. I want to emphasize the importance of practicing with your non-dominant hand, and even obtaining a holster which can hold the weapon on the other side.

**************************************************15. Candidates at last week's VCDL meeting in NoVA**************************************************

Two candidates addressed the VCDL meeting in Annandale last week. Both sported openly carried sidearms as they talked about their support for our right to keep and bear arms.

David Ramadan (david4delegate.com} is a VCDL member and is running in a new district - House district 87.

Ken Vaughn (vaughnforcongress.com) is running against anti-gun Congressman Gerry Connelly, whose last win was razor thin, in the 11th District.

-------------------------------------------***************************************************************************