----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL Update 7/26/09 - Defending your right to defend yourself
**Note: I apologize. The CBS "60 Minutes" show tonight had the same
footage as back in April. I thought it might have new footage from
the four-hour interview. Lesley Stahl did update the introduction to
the story to reflect recent events, such as the repeal of the National
Park gun ban. **
1. AG issues formal opinion which confirms that Governor Kaine mislead
gun owners
2. National anti-gun group targeting Virginia - big Lobby Day turnout
needed in January!
3. Anti-gun delegate sticks up for VCDL's 1st Amendment rights 4. GOP candidate's remarks spur outcry 5. Pro-gunners opposed to online training for CHP? 6. LTE: In the right hands, guns do save lives 7. Legal seminar on Virginia self-defense laws 8. They carry guns (openly) 9. Clarification on carrying in National Parks 10. BBC looks at TN repeal of restaurant ban 11. ATF rejects TN Firearms Freedom Act 12. Fireworks (and ammo) amnesty business booms 13. Post-election rush on guns spawns shortages of bullets (sic) 14. Jersey City police chief wants weapon to hunt humans? 15. Shooting Yourself 101: Facility bans holster after two ADs 16. A loopy drinking debate 17. Rev. Ken Blanchard discusses freedom and 2A
**************************************************
1. AG issues formal opinion which confirms that Governor Kaine mislead
gun owners
**************************************************
Finally released: the formal opinion from the Attorney General's
Office confirming what we already knew about Governor Kaine's
assertion that he did NOT sign a bill into law that allows untrained
Commonwealth Attorneys and their deputies to carry concealed in
restaurants and drink alcoholic beverages: the Governor either lied
through his teeth or he is an incompetent attorney (so much for that
Harvard education):
http://tinyurl.com/nqbjph (PDF file format)
[SNIP]
"Accordingly, it is my opinion that the 2008 Amendments clearly exempt
Commonwealth's attorneys and assistant Commonwealth's attorneys from
the general prohibitions on carrying concealed handguns, subject only
to the restrictions in S 18.2-308(J1). Therefore, pursuant to state
law such individuals may carry concealed handguns on school property.
Further, it is my opinion that the 2008 Amendments do not specifically
prohibit such individuals from consuming alcohol while carrying
concealed handguns; however, they are restricted by existing statute
from being "under the influence" of alcohol or illegal drugs."
As I have stated before, VCDL doesn't care that Commonwealth Attorneys
can carry on K-12 school grounds or that they can carry in restaurants
that serve alcohol (and even drink). They are good, trustworthy
people - just like Virginia's nearly 200,000 CHP holders.
What we DO care about is that CHP holders are currently treated like
second class citizens in regard to both of those issues and we want to
get the law changed so that CHP holders, too, can carry concealed both
in restaurants that serve alcohol and on K-12 school property.
**************************************************
2. National anti-gun group targeting Virginia - big Lobby Day turnout
needed in January!
**************************************************
One of the national anti-gun groups is actively looking for a salaried
employee to do nothing but work on damaging or destroying gun shows in
Virginia using the non-existent "gun show loophole" as the target.
They are running advertisements in magazines where lobbyists are
likely to see them.
The ad does not hint at which group is paying for it.
Why are the antis doing this? For two reasons:
1. One candidate for Governor, Senator Creigh Deeds, is running on a
platform of closing the "gun show loophole" using a semi-voluntary
method. (Bob McDonnell has said during his campaign that he does NOT
support changing the laws affecting gun shows.) Deeds' idea is
strongly opposed by VCDL because, while it is voluntary for the seller
to request, it makes participation MANDATORY for any gun dealer chosen
by the seller. Gun dealers are private businesses and should not be
forced to do something that might not benefit, or could even harm,
their business. The proposed background check will also necessarily
raise the cost of the gun being sold to pay for the background check.
2. Virginia has been very successful in fighting off all attempts to
harm either gun shows or gun dealers and VCDL has made national news
while doing so. The antis want to make an example of Virginia so
badly they can taste it. They want to crow, "Even Virginia now agrees
with this 'sensible gun control.' Now the rest of the states need to
follow Virginia's lead."
We MUST NOT let that happen - ever. We cannot let ourselves and our
fellow Americans down.
We need a massive turnout for Lobby Day! Mark your calendars NOW.
Lobby Day is on Monday, January 18, 2010 - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day.
Let your boss know ASAP that you need that day off (if you don't
already have it off, as it is a national holiday). Bring friends,
family, and coworkers with you.
Past Lobby Days have made a huge difference and we need to keep doing
them into the forceable future.
And Lobby Day gives us all a chance to work hard for some things that
our busy lives have robbed too many of us of: just being a proud
American and spending some of our valuable time protecting the fabric
of our freedom!
Stand with VCDL on January 18th!
**************************************************
3. Anti-gun delegate sticks up for VCDL's 1st Amendment rights
**************************************************
I will gladly invite Delegate Morrissey to our next picnic in the
Richmond area if he wants to come (none are planned right now). He
will be free to address everyone there.
Clearly Delegate Morrissey just doesn't know VCDL very well, and that
would be an opportunity, at some point in the future, to get to know
us better:
http://tinyurl.com/ldldol
timesdispatch.com
VCDL Had the Right To Distribute Stickers
Editor, Times-Dispatch: I write with respect to the recent news
article detailing efforts by the Virginia Citizen Defense League to
hand out at the Coliseum lapel stickers stating, "Guns Save Lives."
Will Jones' article stated that officials at the Coliseum attempted to
stop members of the VCDL from distributing the stickers.
As a member of the General Assembly, I have frequently spoken out
against the proliferation of handguns. Indeed, during the recently
completed session I spoke out strongly against any attempts to allow
people to bring concealed handguns into bars and restaurants. Further,
I introduced legislation that would define who was and was not a
registered gun dealer at gun shows.
I do not expect to be invited to too many VCDL barbecues.
However, it was absolutely wrong and constitutionally irresponsible
for officials at the Coliseum to prohibit, or otherwise hinder, VCDL
members from distributing the stickers. While I do not agree with the
message conveyed, I absolutely agree that members of the VCDL should
have the unfettered right to distribute lapel stickers to anybody and
everybody.
To obstruct or impede an individual's efforts to distribute said
stickers is a clear and unequivocal violation of the First Amendment.
Joseph D. Morrissey.
Highland Springs.
**************************************************
4. GOP candidate's remarks spur outcry
**************************************************
Note the condescending "political neophyte" language below describing
Ms. Crabill.
Ms. Crabill just states what anybody who has studied the Second
Amendment already knows: the Founding Father's wanted an armed
populace so that We the People could take back our country if it ever
became tyrannical.
Of course anyone with tyrannical tendencies, or who wants an all
powerful government turning us into slaves, would tend to be offended
by Ms. Crabill's comments.
And certainly only "radicals" would have the audacity to quote the
Founding Fathers.
http://tinyurl.com/napczh
GOP Candidate's Remarks Spur Outcry
By Fredrick Kunkle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 17, 2009
A Virginia Republican's fierce call to resist President Obama's
political agenda -- with bullets, if necessary -- ignited an outcry on
the Internet yesterday and forced her to clarify that she was not
looking to incite violence.
Appearing at a "Tea Party" rally Wednesday to protest Obama's
expansion of government, Catherine Crabill, a political neophyte
running for the House of Delegates in the Northern Neck, quoted from a
March 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then went further, calling on
Americans to resist the course Obama has set for the country.
"We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we
have to resort to the bullet box," Crabill said. "But that's the
beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who
enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was
not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was
to guard against tyranny."
Crabill, a real estate agent and home-schooling mother of four, said
yesterday that she would not back down from her defense of the right
to use bullets to address government grievances, saying that if fiery
words were good enough for Henry, they're good enough for her.
"Those are my convictions," Crabill, 52, said in a telephone
interview. "I am a full-blooded, freedom-loving American, and what
we're seeing in Washington is domestic terrorism at its worst."
But as the video of her remarks zipped around the Internet, she said
she worried that she would be caricatured. And she said she wanted to
make clear that she was not advocating armed resistance.
"I have no desire to see this country erupt in any kind of violent
revolution," Crabill said. "I don't even own a gun."
Looking around a nation in which some people have been stockpiling
weapons since Obama's victory, however, she said she worried where it
all might lead. She said her speech was less a call to arms than a
call for conservatives to mobilize for coming elections at all levels.
"It scares me what's going on," she said. "And this administration is
socializing every area of life." She added: "Socialism is probably
being kind: This is a Marxist agenda."
After a video of her remarks was posted on the Internet, some
Democrats seized on them to suggest that the Republican Party remains
a haven for extremists.
"The Northern Neck is conservative, but not reactionary, and I think
people will be appalled," said her opponent, Del. Albert C. Pollard
Jr. (D-Northumberland).
Some said her remarks were not surprising, given an April 1995 article
by the Washington Times that identified her as a member of a militia
known as the New Mexico Citizens Action Association and quoted her as
saying that she believed the Oklahoma City bombing had been the work
of the federal government. Pressed about her remarks of nearly 15
years ago, Crabill disputed the exact wording but not the gist of her
beliefs.
**************************************************
5. Pro-gunners opposed to online training for CHP?
**************************************************
"He's among the outraged readers who responded to Tuesday's column
about a new law that has turned the gun competence requirement into a
farce."
Actually most of the outrage expressed by Roanoke Times readers was
aimed at Dan Casey's biased writing, not the on-line CHP training.
However Mr. Casey did find two CHP holder who agreed with him. And
one of those two is a firearms instructor, who would have a clear
financial conflict of interest in the debate.
Be careful what you ask for. Let the government set standards for
training and they can make them so tight that most will not qualify.
Dan Casey would applaud such a thing.
Truth is that on-line training has been available for over a year
now. Where exactly is the problem that this column is wringing its
hands over?
http://tinyurl.com/l6txn2
roanoke.com
Others speak on handgun measure
By Dan Casey
Pete Jennings is a 40-year National Rifle Association member who moved
here from New Jersey in 1994 and now lives in Huddleston. One day some
years ago, the retired salesman was mugged in Brooklyn.
That's one of the reasons Jennings, 74, applied for a concealed-carry
permit shortly after he moved to this area. To meet the gun competence
requirement in Virginia's concealed-carry law, he completed a two-day
course in Roanoke that included live-fire training.
He's among the outraged readers who responded to Tuesday's column
about a new law that has turned the gun competence requirement into a
farce.
"They've watered it down to the point where it makes it a damn joke,"
Jennings said. "That's not right."
To summarize: Through the Norfolk-based Concealed Carry Institute, you
can now meet Virginia's "competence" qualification for a concealed
carry permit with a $39.95, one-hour online course, provided you can
pass a 20-question true-or-false and multiple choice quiz at the end.
(If you fail, you're provided the correct answers and you get to
retake the test for free).
I took the course Monday, passed that quiz and earned my certificate
-- even though I've never touched a handgun in my life.
It is completely nuts that Virginia law would deem me competent enough
with a handgun to get a concealed carry permit.
Mike Smith of Bedford County agrees.
Like Jennings, Smith considers himself a diehard supporter of the
Second Amendment and concealed carry. He's an NRA-certified instructor
who makes his living teaching gun safety. He can also certify other
instructors.
Smith, 39, has 13 years of experience in firearms instruction. He
charges students $85 for the five-hour NRA FIRST Steps Pistol
Orientation. Many of his students ask a lot of questions, he said.
That's a chief problem he has with a one-hour streaming video "course."
You can't ask a computer screen those questions.
"If it was up to me, I would say a person has to have training with an
instructor," Smith said. "A classroom setting where a student is
sitting in front of an instructor. The student would also have to go
to the range and demonstrate firing of a handgun. You need to at least
know how to shoot a handgun if you're going to carry for self-defense."
Smith acknowledges that he has a stake in the law because of his
business. But that's not the big reason he's opposed to it, he said.
"It just very much concerns me when someone is carrying a firearm for
self-defense and has never had the training," he added.
The legislation allowing online courses was introduced by state Sen.
Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, who is running for Virginia attorney
general. Among the people who have contributed $1,000 to Cuccinelli's
campaign is Robert Marcus, the owner of the Concealed Carry Institute.
(Cuccinelli's opponent in the attorney general's race, Del. Steve
Shannon, D-Fairfax, also supported the bill).
Before the law went into effect July 1, there was some debate around
Virginia as to whether an online course would satisfy the requirement
in state law that concealed-carry permit applicants demonstrate gun
"competence."
Circuit Court judges approve the issuing of concealed-carry permits.
Some would accept online training as proof of competence and some
would not. Now they must.
(The legislation does not change the requirement that applicants must
also have a clean criminal background, be mentally stable, not have a
restraining order against them, and have not been ordered by a court
into drug treatment.)
All of Western Virginia's delegates and senators voted for this
legislation when it passed the House and the Senate earlier this year.
And all of them except one -- Del. Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke -- voted to
override Gov. Tim Kaine's sensible veto of the bill.
Friday, I spoke to a couple of them about that.
State Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, said: "My understanding is it was
to clarify existing law, not to change the law."
Anyway, "Why would you want to get a permit to carry a concealed
weapon unless you have a gun and already know how to use it?" Edwards
asked.
Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Botetourt, holds a concealed-carry permit and
acknowledged he went through a hand-on firearms training course to
acquire it. He called the bill "a technical amendment.
"There's no perfect system," Smith said. "Whether it's for a concealed
weapon or a driver's license, it's not perfect. No one in our
government is. But we strive to make it better."
In this case, however, it seems the General Assembly's fix made things
even less perfect.
The law weakens the notion of gun competence almost to the point of
meaninglessness.
It would be more honest for lawmakers to do away with the competence
requirement altogether, rather than pretend that one exists.
As Pete Jennings puts it:
"Why don't we throw out the driver's license program and say, 'Hey,
kid, you want a license? Here you go -- you'll learn to drive by
running into things.' "
**************************************************
6. LTE: In the right hands, guns do save lives
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/nbu4ot
timesdispatch.com
In The Right Hands, Guns Do Save Lives
Editor, Times-Dispatch: In the editorial, "Shooting Straight," you
questioned the rhetoric of the "Guns Save Lives" stickers. Although
I'm not a member of Virginia Citizens Defense League, I can suggest at
least one reason for that phrasing. Unlike the case when a criminal
uses a gun to kill someone, the mere presence of a firearm can prevent
or interrupt a crime.
I have personal experience of this. In the 1970s, I had a handgun with
a problem. I unloaded it, holstered it, and took it to a local
gunsmith to be fixed. I was on a bicycle, and along the way I was
harassed and threatened by three drunken idiots. After forcing me off
the road, they started to get out of the car to beat me up. It was
only when I turned so that they could see the handgun that they gave
up and ran away.
We know that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives. To
cite only two cases: In Colorado, a gunman starting shooting people at
the New Life Church, and was stopped by a gun in the hands of a
civilian; likewise, at Appalachian School of Law right here in
Virginia, a mad gunman was stopped by two armed citizens.
Roy B. Scherer.
Richmond.
**************************************************
7. Legal seminar on Virginia self-defense laws
**************************************************
From VA-ALERT reader David Rittgers:
http://tinyurl.com/kky6ph
I am holding a legal seminar on Virginia self-defense laws near Dulles
on Saturday, August 22 from 10am - 1pm. I am also discounting the
seminar. $65 for VCDL members, $75 for everyone else.
I cover quite a bit in three hours:
"For the cost of 200 rounds of .45 ACP (if you can find it) you will
get a much deeper understanding of self-defense in the Commonwealth of
Virginia from an attorney. Plenty of shooters are willing to invest in
their shooting skills but not many invest in their understanding of
the legal boundaries of self-defense.
The seminar covers the following topics:
Purchase and possession of arms in the Commonwealth of Virginia General legal guidelines for the use of force Justification versus Excuse Self-defense Virginia's lack of a "castle doctrine" - and why it (mostly) doesn't
matter
Defense of Others
Defense of Property
What is "open carry" and what is "concealed carry" in Virginia? Not
quite what you think.
Interacting with Law Enforcement Officers
Travelling armed: planes, trains, and automobiles
What to do when in other jurisdictions: a practical "travelling" mode
for reciprocal states
The travelling part is not just one subject; it is covered throughout
the brief so that students have an idea how to deal with the laws
governing self-defense in other states. The important part is knowing
how they generally differ from Virginia (and they differ a lot)."
A legal seminar is not a concealed handgun course - it is a legal
class on the statutes and case law governing the open or concealed
carry of a handgun. This DOES NOT meet the Virginia Concealed Handgun
Permit (CHP) requirements. Rather, this is intended for people who
already have a CHP but are not versed in the law. If you received your
CHP after a basic concealed handgun course with no discussion of the
legal implications of using a handgun in self-defense, this is for you.
Disclaimer: The information provided in the seminar is not intended as
individualized legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You are not my
client. Participation in this seminar is expressly intended NOT to
create an attorney-client relationship. Students will sign a waiver
and agree to hold harmless Defensive Force Instructors, LLC before
class starts.
My resume: I am a former Special Forces soldier, International
Defensive Pistol Association Master-Class competitor, and an attorney
in Virginia. I teach NRA certified handgun courses and specialized
concealed carry courses on the side.
Please direct all email traffic to defensivehandgun@gmail.com
**************************************************
8. They carry guns (openly)
**************************************************
A long, but *excellent* read on open carry in California! Yes, open
carry is allowed if the handgun is unloaded. You can have a loaded
magazine on you, but it can't be in the gun. Sounds like fun for my
next visit to California:
http://tinyurl.com/mnvsr6
sandiegoreader.com
They Carry Guns
By Rosa Jurjevics | Published Wednesday, July 15, 2009
It's a beautiful day in Pacific Beach as Nate approaches the bronze
pelican statue on the boardwalk. He's slight and blond, spectacled and
clad in jeans and an army-green T-shirt. He squints. The sun's so
bright overhead that he is prompted to spray a fine mist of sunblock
over his fair skin to stave off a burn.
I've never met Nate before, but I know it's him (a) because I've seen
his picture and (b) due to the handgun that sits on a holster against
his hip. I'm about to get up from where I'm sitting and introduce
myself when someone else beats me to the punch. A scraggly-looking
beachgoer, a man of indeterminable age because he is so weather-
beaten, approaches.
"What's that for, bro?" he asks, pointing in the direction of Nate's
gun, a Taurus Tracker .44 Magnum revolver.
Before Nate can answer, the man continues.
"There are surfers at the beach looking to party, and you show up with
that? That's not right. Love life! Be mellow!"
This is when I walk up and introduce myself. The beachgoer looks at me
for a moment with wild blue eyes, then looks back at Nate, as Nate is
beginning to explain what he will have to reiterate time and time
again to concerned and/or interested parties: he is open carrying.
The term "open carrying" refers to one who is in possession of a
holstered, unloaded firearm on his or her person, displayed in plain
view. Nate begins to explain the legalities of this to the beachgoer
when Sean approaches, video camera in tow. In shades, a green shirt
with double-breast pockets, green cargo pants, and a Sig Sauer P229
holstered on his hip, Sean looks not unlike a police officer.
The beachgoer does a double take.
"Another one!" he exclaims, as Sean greets us warmly.
The beachgoer, incredulous, excuses himself -- with one final stare --
to go "get baked."
Soon we are joined by a third open carrier, Sam, who is Nate's older
brother. He's a tall fellow in jeans and a T-shirt, and his gun, a
Glock 17C 9mm semiautomatic pistol, sits squarely in a black holster,
handle well visible against the blue of his shirt.
And now it's my turn.
As the others deal with the beachgoer, who has returned, Nate and I
take off to his car, where he removes from the depths of his trunk a
silver handgun with a wooden handle. This is a Ruger Single Six .22
revolver, he tells me, as he slides it into the borrowed holster I
have fixed to my belt. The gun is surprisingly heavy, nestled just
below my waistline.
Back at the boardwalk, it seems that Sam and Sean are getting nowhere
with the beachgoer, so we prepare to head out.
First, I am given instructions on what to do if approached by the
police. I brace myself as Nate explains.
"What's going to happen is, they're going to want to do a 12031(e)
unloaded check," he begins. "They'll say they want to check your
weapon. You say, 'Are you requesting or demanding?' If they say,
'Demanding,' you say, 'I don't consent to any warrantless searches.
But I'm not going to resist.' And then you stick your hands out, they
check your weapon, and it's done."
Sounds easy enough, I figure. I've got my tape recorder ready, as open
carriers are urged, via websites like OpenCarry.org, to keep recording
devices on them while carrying to capture any interactions with police
(and civilians) they might have in case their rights are infringed upon.
"You don't have to answer any other questions. You don't have to give
them your ID," Sam instructs. "It's technically an illegal search
under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment says you have
protection against unreasonable search and seizure. If there's a woman
pushing a baby stroller down the boardwalk, that does not give the
police the right to check if the kid is kidnapped. So if you're in
full compliance with the law, minding your own business, they
technically don't have the right to stop you to check if your weapon
is unloaded or loaded."
Open carrying, Nate explains, is legal in San Diego and the rest of
California.
"[The law says] you can't carry a loaded gun in an incorporated area,"
he says. "This is an incorporated area."
"Because San Diego is a corporation," Sam chimes in.
"So then, [the law] says, 'Firearms carried openly in belt holsters
are not concealed within the meaning of this section,' " Nate
continues, referencing California Penal Code Section 12025(f), which
outlines the illegality of concealed carrying and what is and is not
considered a concealed firearm.
"So there you have that," Nate continues. "And then case law says that
ammo next to the gun is not considered loaded. So, basically, you
start out with a great idea and it gets detracted down to what we have
now."
The nuances of gun laws in California, I find, are difficult. For
example, concealed carrying is not legal in San Diego (and all of
California) without a permit -- that much is abundantly clear -- and
neither is carrying a loaded gun. Having ammunition situated next to a
firearm, however, does not amount to "loaded," meaning that Nate,
Sean, and Sam can carry full magazines on their belts.
The legalities involving open carry are dizzying, the restrictions
numerous. One cannot open carry 1000 feet from a school, for instance,
or in the "sterile area" of an airport or in a post office or a
national park (though it is legal in a national forest).
And then there's the somewhat sticky issue of the Second Amendment.
"Instead of [the Bill of Rights] being automatic, they did amendment-
by-amendment incorporation," Sam explains. "So now practically all the
amendments have been incorporated against the states except the Third,
because nobody's tried to quarter soldiers in [anyone's] house, and
the Second, because it hasn't happened yet." By "incorporated against
the states," Sam means that the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that
the amendment applies to the states.
So if it's such a hassle, why open carry?
As we walk, the trio explains.
For Sam, 39, who works from home studying "history and behavioral
economics independently and try[ing] to figure out what's going to
happen next before everyone else," it's mostly about constitutional
freedom, a cause he says he's felt strongly about since childhood.
He's been open carrying for about seven months and heard about it
through Nate and Calguns.net, a popular online meeting place for
California gun owners and enthusiasts.
"I really believe, and I think that most thinking people believe, that
we are slowly losing our freedoms in this country," he says.
"Everything's become more and more restricted, and nobody seems to
know what to do about it. If we would just get back to following the
Constitution, America would again be the place it was intended to be,
the place where everybody wanted to come. This whole open-carry
movement, for me, is really about more than just guns; it's about
liberty and what it means to be a free man."
Nate, a 22-year-old human biology student, voices another issue: the
lack of CCW (concealed-carry weapon) permit issuance. A concealed-
weapon license allows one to have a concealed weapon on his or her
person. In California, Nate says, concealed-weapon licenses are most
commonly issued to lawyers, jewelers, and traveling doctors.
"I knew I wasn't going to get a CCW permit. I'm not important enough
-- I don't make enough money, I don't have a good enough 'cause,'
according to California -- so I said, 'Well, I guess I'll just start
open carrying,' " he says. "Another reason I started doing it is that
it's a political statement. I'm not important enough for my right to
self-defense, so what we do is we just take it out in the open. This
is what we have to do."
Nate has been open carrying for about a year and heard about it on
Calguns.net.
"I just started doing it," he says. "Read[ing] up, whatever I could do."
Sean, a 32-year-old senior systems engineer, chimes in.
"I've always been somewhat of a gun-rights activist," he says. "I'm
really in it more for the activism more than anything else. I've
noticed that a lot of the guys are younger, and the police seem to
react differently to folks who are in their 30s than to folks that are
in their 20s. So I feel it's a good idea to keep the reactions
moderated a little bit."
Sean has been open carrying for about a year, he says, and is also an
active member of Calguns.net.
Most of the response the trio has gotten while open carrying has been
positive.
"On the 28th, I'd say about two-thirds of the contact we had was 'Hey,
that's legal to do?' " Sean says, referencing an open-carry event held
in San Diego in February. "Not accusatory or anti -- either positive
or just requesting information."
He pauses.
"The people who were blue-collar guys or office workers or whatever,
they're more curious about stuff like this than people who are just
out there on the beach all day because they don't have an obligation
to go be somewhere else. I think that's probably the reason that
there's sort of a skew in the types of contact we've had today."
As we walk and talk, a man in a red shirt passes us, his eyes
obstructed by wraparound shades. He turns around to face us.
"You walking around with live ammo in those?" he asks, walking backward.
"Not with live ammo in them," Sean replies amicably.
"Do you have a permit for that?" the man asks.
"You don't need one," says Sean.
"I'll find out down here for you, 'kay?" the man asks, somewhat
rhetorically, as he hightails it down the boardwalk.
"It's not Mexico, guys, you can't pull that poop off," he shouts, over
his shoulder.
"Do you really think that guy is going to go to the cops?" I ask, once
I'm sure he's out of earshot.
"Probably," says Sam. "And the cops will say, 'It's legal. You don't
have to like it, but it's legal.' "
Turning back, walking into the sun, we decide it's time for food and
continue -- undisturbed -- to Mission Boulevard, where there's a small
Mexican restaurant with outdoor seating.
San Diego open carriers, I discover, have had a few open-carry events
here in town, coordinated mostly via sites such as Calguns.net,
OpenCarry.org, and CaliforniaOpenCarry.org, where there are local
forums in which members discuss issues of gun ownership, gun rights,
gun laws, and more.
The last meet, at the time of this writing, was in February and took
place on the very boardwalk Nate, Sean, Sam, and I just traversed. The
police were well informed, and things went smoothly as an estimated 40
to 50 people, open carriers and supporters alike, congregated beachside.
At the Mexican restaurant, lunch proceeds normally, save for a few
stares, until I notice a large white-and-black SUV pull up in front of
us. "Uh-oh," I think. "Here we go."
A male cop emerges, a tall man with a salt-and-pepper crew cut. He
smiles at us.
"Howdy, folks. How're you all doing today?" he asks.
"Fine," everybody responds.
"I'm going to have to do a 12031(e) inspection on you and get out of
your hair," the cop says.
"Are you requesting or demanding?" Nate asks.
"I'm sorry?" asks the cop.
"Are you requesting or demanding?" Nate repeats.
The cop looks at him.
"Well, I'll start with a request, but then I'll demand," he replies.
"As long as you're demanding," says Nate.
The cop starts with Sean.
He has him face the opposite direction and goes around behind him,
removing Sean's gun. He checks for ammunition and, finding none,
places the gun back in its holster.
The cop makes his way around the table. Each of the trio stands and,
when asked to be checked, pipes up with "Requesting or demanding?"
When the cop gets to me, I gulp, even though I know my line.
"You, ma'am, are carrying as well?" he asks.
I nod, then jump right in.
"Requesting or demanding?" I ask.
"Requesting and then I'll be demanding," comes the reply.
I stand, watching as he removes the gun from my hip. I can hear the
revolver's wheel turning as he checks the chamber for bullets. Then he
hands it back to me -- the first time I've handled a real handgun --
and I slide it, if somewhat amateurishly, into the holster.
"Okay," the cop says. "I appreciate your cooperation."
Before he leaves, Sean asks if someone sent him over.
"Actually, we had a radio call. I guess you were out on the
boardwalk," the cop replies.
"I think I know the guy..." Sean says wryly.
"I talked to one person that had called. He said you were headed
south," the cop says. "So we were looking for you. We appreciate your
cooperation. Have a good day."
I glance around me and notice several cruisers are parked along the
edge of the Mexican restaurant's lot, plus the SUV.
Nate turns to me.
"You have just experienced the hassle of the open-carry movement," he
says.
"That guy was actually very good, very straightforward," Sean
comments, as the SUV and its entourage drive away. "He was not out to
abuse rights, he was not out to try and make anything up. He was just
doing his job."
This makes one cop stop for Sean, two for Sam, and three for Nate.
And, of course, one for me.
"It's all very complicated," I tell them, speaking of the various gun
laws, regulations, and restrictions, from state to federal, as we
collect our trash from lunch.
Sam nods.
"And if we just followed the Second Amendment the way it was written,
none of this would be necessary," he says.
Shortly after our encounter with the cops, we part ways, agreeing to
meet up at a later time that night. Nate, Sean, and Sam are taking me
to a local firing range, and come evening, I will have fired my first
gun.
The range is located in a squat brown building with an American flag
in the window and a big neon sign bearing the word "GUNS" in all
capitals. Inside is a small series of booths separated by dividers.
It's busy, and people in groups wait their turns, snapping pictures,
flashes going off in time to the sound of the guns. The ground is
littered with glittering brass shell casings, and I can feel them
through the soles of my shoes as I walk to my appointed booth.
Sean is my teacher for the evening, and he patiently goes over how to
handle the first guns I will shoot, a .22-caliber CZ Kadet and his .40-
caliber Sig Sauer P229. I try to remember, listening to his
instructions over the loud pops and bangs from neighboring rangegoers.
I take a deep breath. Eject the magazine. Click the slide back to make
sure it's not loaded. The CZ is heavy in my hands and heavier still as
I slide a full magazine inside and give it a firm tap with my hand. I
position my hands, making sure my grip is not too weak and my thumbs
are not too low. My finger slides over the trigger, pulls back.
Pow!
An explosion erupts, and the gun jerks back in my hands, shell
ejecting onto the floor; it drops and I don't see it. I'm transfixed.
I try again, trying not to close my eyes. The smell of gunpowder
tickles my nose.
I finish the clip, watching the holes that have appeared in the paper
target I was aiming at. They're nowhere near where they should be, but
it's not bad.
Sean reels the target in and points to a cluster of holes around the
bottom of one of the bull's-eyes. It's a clover pattern, he says; it's
good.
"You should be proud of that," he says, over the din. I smile.
At the end of the night, I have shot eight guns -- three handguns, one
carbine, and four rifles. The list is a litter of letters and numbers
to me. There are the CZ Kadet, Sig Sauer, and CZ 97B for handguns. The
carbine is an FN PS90. For rifles, I handle the Ruger Mini-14, the Kel-
Tec SU-16CA .223, the not-so-fearsome AR-15 .223 -- a gun that might
be soon made illegal -- that weighs so much I can barely hold it to my
shoulder, and the Ruger 10/22, a lightweight rifle without much recoil
(kickback) that turns out to be my favorite. (Though the range
generally does not allow certain types of rifles to be used, for the
purpose of this article, we were permitted to shoot the Kel-Tec
SU-16CA and the AR-15.)
The evening after my shooting adventure, I'm due to meet another open
carrier, Tom, at a coffee shop in Mission Valley.
Tom is a neatly bearded gentleman with wire-rimmed glasses. Fresh from
work, it appears, he wears a dress shirt and black slacks along with
his Springfield Armory 1911 .45 that is barely visible on his belt.
His wife sits across from him, reading.
Tom smiles as he introduces himself, assures me that I'm not too
terribly late, and offers me a coffee before we settle down to talk.
While not new to gun ownership -- in fact, he's an avid collector --
Tom has only been open carrying for a few months. He is a member of
several of the online forums previously mentioned, where he reads and
responds to various topics and discussions.
Unlike Nate, Sam, and Sean, with whom he is acquainted, Tom has not
been stopped by many people, curious or otherwise. He speculates that,
because of his dress, most may take him for a plainclothes police
officer.
"They must think you've got a badge somewhere," I joke.
"Could be," he agrees. "That's the first thought. But people need to
be aware that a citizen living in a free country is allowed to have
liberty and to do these things. And most people assume it's against
the law."
Tom began carrying mostly out of political reasons.
"I got alarmed at how radically guns and gun owners are being vilified
across California and across the country," he says. "The laws are
being passed willy-nilly, some that don't even make sense, and it's
time to start pushing back against unfair, unjust laws."
He, like the others, agrees that the Second Amendment needs to apply
to the states as well as at a federal level. He elaborates on a
California case recently heard by a three-judge panel of the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court that tackles this issue, Nordyke v. King, in which
Alameda County attempted (and succeeded) in banning guns from its
fairground in order to stop a gun show.
"They started a legal action against the city. Another lawyer picked
[it] up and has been pursuing it for almost ten years on his own dime,
[with] no financial support. And what we're hoping it will do [is]
incorporate the Second Amendment to California."
Tom, 56, also open carries for other reasons than political activism,
recognizing that it could be useful in an unsafe situation. "I look at
it like we've never had a fire in our house, but we have two fire
extinguishers," he says, and cites something he read in the news as
one example. In February of this year, in Los Angeles, he says, two
men walked into a cafe and shot seven people, then walked out.
"Now, if they'd come up to that cafe and looked in the window and seen
two or three guys with a gun on their hip, wouldn't they have turned
around and gone someplace else?" Tom wonders aloud. "Or would they
have gone in anyway? The first responding officers heard the shots,
but they weren't able to get there in time to catch the guys. So the
only one who's in a position to do anything about it would be the
people who are right there getting shot at. And I'd like to ask those
people sitting in the cafe if they wished they'd had a gun when they
saw those guys walk in the door."
He makes the point that, in areas with stricter gun-control laws,
crime is higher.
"[In] places where the laws allow the citizens to take their security
into their own hands, violent crime goes down significantly," he says.
"Look at Chicago and Washington, D.C., where the citizens are
essentially forbidden to own handguns, and the incidents of violent
crimes are enormous." (In June 2008, the Supreme Court struck down
Washington D.C.'s ban on handguns.)
Later, he sends me a link to the FBI crime statistics from 2007 (the
latest information available). They report some grim facts. In
Vermont, which allows the concealed carrying of weapons without a
permit, the violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants is 124.3, while in
the District of Columbia, it's 1413.3. Alaska, like Vermont, allows
concealed carrying without a permit, and their number is 661.2. In
California, it's 522.6.
Though he knows the laws regarding guns aren't always in the favor of
gun owners, Tom speculates that they can only get so rigid.
"To completely eliminate all access to guns is going to be kind of
tough because we live in a country where the founders have determined
that it's a good thing for the citizens to be armed," he says. "And we
agree."
Tom doesn't open carry everywhere. He can't at work, where he is a
technical writer, and doesn't feel comfortable doing so at church.
"I consider it inappropriate to wear it exposed because it's a big
distraction," he says. "And we're there to worship, not there to be
distracted by someone's outlandish clothes or political activism."
He will also take it off, if on private property, when asked, such as
when he was stopped -- and the only time he's been approached
negatively -- in a supermarket.
"The whole point is to try and make people aware and comfortable that
law-abiding citizens can carry guns without the world coming to an
end," he says simply, "without having to provoke a SWAT incident.
We're very meticulous in obeying the law. We're very careful about
what the law says, what we're allowed to do [and] what we're not
allowed to do. And the police have endorsed that, verified that."
Though Tom may be in a minority, there is a growing open-carry
movement in San Diego. Tom estimates that there are between 75 and 100
active open carriers locally.
"We had between 75 and 100 people who said they were going to come [to
the February 28 event]," he says. "So there are at least 75 to 100.
There have been other meets where we've all gotten together for lunch
down at El Indio, and there were 20 to 25 people at each one of those.
And there's some overlap, and some people came to the first and not
the second, so I'd be surprised if there were less than 100 active
people in the San Diego area."
He attended the El Indio lunch and reports that everyone in the
restaurant was respectful and supportive.
"A couple of girls came in and had lunch and asked about it," he says.
"They said, 'Why are you guys all wearing guns?' "
He pauses, laughing at the story.
"And we explained the program to them, and they said, 'You know, I bet
this is the safest place in San Diego right now!' "
**************************************************
9. Clarification on carrying in National Parks
**************************************************
Looks like the date that we can start carrying in National Parks is
February 22, 2010.
http://tinyurl.com/ns4c24
ifallsdailyjournal.com
VNP clarifies gun carrying law
By Journal Staff
Created 07/17/2009 - 6:15am
On May 22, Pres. Obama signed into law the Credit Card Accountability
Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, an act which regulates
credit card companies and protects consumers.
A provision of that act allows the carrying of loaded firearms in
units of the national park and national wildlife refuge systems when
authorized by state law and not otherwise prohibited.
Section 3 of the act states that the carrying of loaded firearms will
not take effect until Feb. 22. Until that time, the current
prohibition against the possession of firearms in national parks will
remain in place.
Voyageurs National Park rangers will continue to enforce the
provisions of 36 CFR 2.4, adopted in 1983 and 1984, which generally
prohibit possession of a firearm within a park.
The safety of all visitors, staff, and wildlife is extremely
important. Park staff will work to ensure that there are no
misunderstandings that could cause unnecessary concerns to visitors or
threaten park resources.
For additional information contact Chief of Operations Jim Hummel at
park headquarters, 283-6650.
**************************************************
10. BBC looks at TN repeal of restaurant ban
**************************************************
Thanks to Matt Gottshalk for the link:
bbc.co.uk
Tennessee gun law divides opinion
By James Coomarasamy
BBC News, Nashville, Tennessee
Following a recent series of high-profile shooting incidents in the
United States, the southern state of Tennessee is changing its gun
laws this week.
It is relaxing them.
If a last-minute legal challenge fails, from Tuesday, gun owners in
the state will be allowed to carry their weapons in a lot more public
places - including bars and restaurants.
I went to Nashville to find out what local residents thought about the
proposed law change.
'Seconds count'
Nikki Goeser takes her Second Amendment right to bear arms very
seriously.
One of Tennessee's 250,000 registered gun owners, she saw her husband,
Ben, shot dead in front of her in April.
She believes her right was denied when she needed it most.
Soon, Tennessee's bars and restaurants will no longer be off-limits
for registered weapons.
State legislators - a quarter of whom own firearms - have passed a law
allowing guns into bars and restaurants, but preventing their owners
from buying alcohol.
For the bill's Democratic sponsor - State Senator Doug Jackson - it is
a case of preserving the rights of individuals and those of individual
states.
"People are fearful about tomorrow. They feel insecure. And the Second
Amendment right is something that they cherish and it's a means of
protecting themselves and their family and defending what they have.
It provides security in troubled times."
But on the streets of Nashville, even some staunch defenders of Second
Amendment rights fear that the Music City is about to become Dodge
City. And that mixing guns and alcohol is a recipe for disaster.
'Scared'
Nashville restaurateur Randy Rayburn is anything but cool about the
idea of his customers having guns.
He is leading a last-minute legal challenge to the law - to protect
his barmen.
"Yes they're scared, I'm scared, my wife is scared for our personal
safety."
He has done what restaurant owners are permitted to do - placed a sign
in his window, saying "no guns allowed".
But he is worried that the sign will not be enough to prevent people
taking the new law into their own hands.
" I don't care so much about a bad guy's life... If they choose that,
and I am armed I know what I'm doing, I will try to stop them. "
"We don't need vigilantism inside my business," he says. "I'm a gun
owner, I have a gun at my home, but I keep it there, not at a public
place where many people's lives can be threatened.
And he has support from the city's police chief, Ronal Serpas, who
does not believe that people who walk into bars with guns will steer
clear of the shot glasses.
"If you think about how alchohol influences the choices people make...
I don't believe people are not going to drink and have guns, because I
know they drink and drive," he says.
"What process is going through their mind as it's clouded by alcohol?
[They're] trying to do a good thing, but they have NO training, NO
experience, NO time for reflective thought, and their minds are
consumed by alcohol - it doesn't make sense."
But for Nikki - and other law-abiding gun owners - what does not make
sense is being allowed to have a gun, but being prevented from using
it when it counts
"I hear people say all the time, guns are made specifically to kill,"
she tells me.
"My answer to that is: 'yes a gun can kill, but in the correct hands,
it can be used to save innocent lives'. I don't care so much about a
bad guy's life. I'm sorry, I don't. They make the choice to be evil,
that's their choice. If they choose that, and I am armed I know what
I'm doing, I will try to stop them."
And soon she will be allowed to - in a lot more places.
**************************************************
11. ATF rejects TN Firearms Freedom Act
**************************************************
The BATFE is spitting at the States, saying that the 10th Amendment
isn't worth the paper it is written on.
The issue is states like TN and MT who have passed laws saying that
BATFE has no authority over guns manufactured in their state that are
sold only in that same state.
These new laws make sense as the feds only have jurisdiction over
*inter-state* commerce according to the Constitution.
But since when has the Constitution ever stopped the feds from doing
something they really wanted to do?
I expect this battle to intensify as VCDL will be backing any similar
measures introduced in Virginia next year:
http://tinyurl.com/lfmxbk
tenthamendmentcenter.com
The Battle Begins: ATF vs the Constitution
Posted on 18 July 2009
by Bryce Shonka
A line was drawn in the sand last week - a response by the Federal
Government to the State of Tennessee and their assertion of
sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.
(Editor's note: A similar response was sent to Montana Firearms
licenses on 07-16-09 as well)
Part of a series of moves by states seeking to utilize the Tenth
Amendment as a limit on Federal Power, the Tennessee State Senate
approved Senate Bill 1610 (SB1610), the Tennesse Firearms Freedom Act,
by a vote of 22-7. The House companion bill, HB1796 previously passed
the House by a vote of 87-1.
Governor Breseden allowed the bill to become law without signing.
The law states that "federal laws and regulations do not apply to
personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is
manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee. The limitation on
federal law and regulation stated in this bill applies to a firearm, a
firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured using basic
materials and that can be manufactured without the inclusion of any
significant parts imported into this state."
At the time of passage through the TN House and Senate, Judiciary
Chairman Mae Beavers had this to say-
"Be it the federal government mandating changes in order for states to
receive federal funds or the federal government telling us how to
regulate commerce contained completely within this state - enough is
enough. Our founders fought too hard to ensure states' sovereignty and
I am sick and tired of activist federal officials and judges sticking
their noses where they don't belong."
The Federal Government, by way of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms expressed its own view of the Tenth Amendment this week when
it issued an open letter to 'all Tennessee Federal Firearms Licensees'
in which it denounced the opinion of Beavers and the Tennessee
legislature. ATF assistant director Carson W. Carroll wrote that
'Federal law supersedes the Act', and thus the ATF considers it
meaningless.
Constitutional historian Kevin R.C. Gutzman sees this as something far
removed from the founders' vision of constitutional government:
"The letter says, in part, 'because the Act conflicts with Federal
firearms laws and regulations, Federal law supersedes the Act, and all
provisions of the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act, and
their corresponding regulations, continue to apply.' That is precisely
what I predicted the Federal Government's response to the Tennessee
act would be. As I told Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News's Glenn
Beck Program on June 5, 2009, federal officials don't care about a
good historical argument concerning the meaning of the Constitution."
"Their view is that the states exist for the administrative
convenience of the Federal Government, and so of course any conflict
between state and federal policy must be resolved in favor of the
latter."
"This is another way of saying that the Tenth Amendment is not binding
on the Federal Government. Of course, that amounts to saying that
federal officials have decided to ignore the Constitution when it
doesn't suit them."
The Federal Government has regularly claimed that the commerce clause
of the constitution, which gives DC authority to regulate commerce
between the states, gives them authority to regulate or add
prohibitions on items that never cross state lines.
One notable use of the commerce clause in this manner can be found in
the 2005 decision by the Supreme Court in 'Gonzales vs. Raich', where
the court contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for
medical purposes affects the interstate market of marijuana, and hence
that the federal government may regulate--and prohibit--such
consumption. They used this claim, even though at the same time they
made it clear that no legal market for marijuana exists.
One key aspect of the ATF's letter is that it was only sent out to
existing Federal Firearms Licensees, those generally already in
compliance with federal regulations - and who likely would not have
participated in the TN Firearms Freedom act anyway, according to
sources close to Tenth Amendment Center.
Ultimately what the letter represents is another move in the chess
match being played out between the states and the Federal Government,
the resolution of which may not be seen for quite some time.
Below is the full text of the letter sent last week by the ATF:
"U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
OPEN LETTER TO ALL TENNESSEE FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES
The purpose of this letter is to provide guidance on your obligations
as a Federal firearms licensee ("FFL"). The Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ("ATF") is dedicated to your success
in meeting your requirements as a Federal firearms licensee. The
following guidance is intended to assist you in accomplishing this goal.
The passage of the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, H.B. 1796, 106th
Leg. (Tenn. 2009) 1796 ("Act"), effective June 19, 2009, has generated
questions from industry members as to how this State law may affect
them while engaged in a firearms business activity. The Act purports
to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition
manufactured in the State, and which remain in the State, from most
Federal firearms laws and regulations. However, because the Act
conflicts with Federal firearms laws and regulations, Federal law
supersedes the Act, and all provisions of the Gun Control Act and the
National Firearms Act, and their corresponding regulations, continue
to apply.
As you may know, Federal law requires a license to engage in the
business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in
firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain within the same
state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly
marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model,
caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or
otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition
was made. The information required must be recorded in the licensee's
records not later than the seventh day following the date such
manufacture or other acquisition was made. Firearms transaction
records and NICS background checks must be conducted prior to
disposition of firearms to unlicensed persons. These, as well as other
Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the
firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines.
If you have any questions regarding the Federal firearms laws and
regulations, please contact your local ATF office. ATF works closely
with the firearms industry and appreciates the important role the
industry plays in combating violent crime. A listing of ATF office
phone numbers can be found at http://www.atf.gov/contact/field.htm.
Carson W. Carroll, Assistant Director (Enforcement Programs and
Services)"
**************************************************
12. Fireworks (and ammo) amnesty business booms
**************************************************
"'The storage of these things (is) unsafe,' said Omaha police Lt. Mark
Desler. 'If you have a quantity of ... older ammunition, it poses a
hazard. They're flammable, obviously, and it can cause problems inside
of your residence.'"
WHAT is the Lt. talking about? I guess when a reporter calls, he just
starts making up things as he goes along, hoping that as an "official"
he can get away with it.
http://tinyurl.com/kn3gqp
KETV.com
Fireworks Amnesty Business Booms
People Also Turn In Ammunition, Tear Gas
POSTED: 11:01 am CDT July 11, 2009
UPDATED: 4:06 pm CDT July 11, 2009
OMAHA, Neb. -- People brought old fireworks, bullets and even tear gas
to drop-off sites in the Omaha area for the sixth annual Fireworks
Amnesty Day.
More than a dozen metro police departments worked together to allow
people to turn in illegal items and ammunition, no questions asked.
"I brought three old boxes of shotgun shells because I haven't hunted
since 1983, when my dog died," said Paul Wilson, of Ralston. "I just
kind of forgot about them until this thing."
"The storage of these things (is) unsafe," said Omaha police Lt. Mark
Desler. "If you have a quantity of fireworks in your home or a
quantity of older ammunition, it poses a hazard. They're flammable,
obviously, and it can cause problems inside of your residence."
Officers set up three drop-off sites, including one at Seymour Smith
Park.
"It is very dangerous to throw fireworks in the trash. It's very
dangerous to throw ammunition in the trash," Desler said. "This is the
safest way to get rid of it. We dispose of it properly."
**************************************************
13. Post-election rush on guns spawns shortages of bullets (sic)
**************************************************
Uh, there is no real shortage of BULLETS. There IS a shortage of
CARTRIDGEs, also called ROUNDS. Sigh.
http://tinyurl.com/kp4vj6
HamptonRoads.com
Post-election rush on guns spawns shortages of bullets
In the world's most heavily armed nation, bullets are in short supply.
Gun shops have empty shelves. Stampedes mark the opening of gun shows.
Rising prices are forcing police to bust their budgets. Some have cut
back on shooting practice.
The ammo industry says factories are running wide open but simply
can't keep up with a demand - particularly for handgun calibers - that
spiked with the November elections, and just kept going.
Robert House, owner of Classic Firearms in Virginia Beach, has been
selling guns and ammo in Hampton Roads for 30 years. From time to
time, popular guns have been hard to keep in stock. But ammunition?
"I've never seen anything like this," House said. "There have been
fistfights at gun shows over the last box of ammunition."
Rumors swirl about the shortage.
Yes, it's true that booming metal markets in China and India are
consuming boatloads of brass, copper and lead.
No, it's not true that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are cutting
into the civilian bullet supply. The Army says most of its small-arms
ammo comes from a dedicated factory in Missouri.
Instead, blame politics, and the thoroughness of the Democratic
victory in November. Gun owners have long viewed Democrats as enemies
of the Second Amendment. With that party now in control of the White
House and both branches of Congress: "People think they'd better buy
while they can," said Ron Hess, a long time Norfolk gun shop owner.
"Gun owners just figure that Democrats make screwed-up gun laws."
But those who study such things say the bullet shortage is a tangible
sign of something much deeper - the wider-than-ever gulf that divides
the inside of the winners' circle from the outside.
"Obama won the election because many moderate conservatives switched
parties," said Robert Spitzer, the author of a book about politics and
guns, and a political science professor at The State University of New
York.
That defection, Spitzer said, distilled the remainder into an even
"more conservative, homogenous base," Spitzer said. "A certain siege
mentality sets in, and more than ever, it's 'us' against 'them.' "
One thing is certain: Like most shortages, this one is a self-
perpetuating cycle. Initial demand thinned out supplies, which fueled
panicked buying, which only worsened the shortage.
In the gun shops, time is now told in two different eras: "Before
Obama" and "After Obama."
"He's been good for business," Hess said. "My sales are up 40 percent."
Bob's Gun Shop has been open in Norfolk for 64 years. Record days have
taken place "After Obama." Firearm sales were a big part of that,
owner Robert Marcus said, but the thirst for ammunition seems
"insatiable."
Marcus is limiting his customers to two boxes at a time and has given
up pestering his suppliers for more deliveries.
"After a while, you get tired of hearing 'no,' " he said. "We're just
beginning to see ammunition we ordered in December."
Manufacturers say the problem is capacity. Factories, located mostly
in the Midwest, are geared for a relatively predictable market.
Expansion is costly, and the industry has seen bubbles before.
The last occurred in late 1999, when fears of Y2K chaos spurred a
buying binge at gun stores. In 1994, the start of the 10-year-long
Assault Weapons Ban sparked sales as well.
"So everybody in the industry is trying to figure out how temporary
this is," said Curtis Shipley of Georgia Arms, a manufacturer west of
Atlanta. "They're looking into their crystal balls, wondering, 'How
much should I invest?' "
In the meantime, Shipley says: "I've got 15,000 orders I can't fill
and a customer service nightmare."
Prices have doubled in some shops. At Hess' place, Ron Hess Gun &
Tackle, a 50-round box of .380 ammunition costs $49.95.
"Before Obama," Hess says, "it was $24.95."
Hess says the higher prices are being passed down the supply chain
from manufacturer to distributor to retailer. He says he can get any
caliber his customers want, if they're willing to pay the cost.
"There's only a shortage if you want it at the old price," Hess said.
"All it takes is money."
That's enough to inspire target shooters such as Ken Williams, an
accountant from Suffolk, to scour the gun shops regularly. One visit
to the range can easily eat up 100 rounds.
"I'll buy everything I can if I find a good deal," Williams said.
Police are feeling the pinch, too. In Virginia Beach, the budget for
ammunition skyrocketed from around $200,000 last year to $500,000 for
the fiscal year that just ended. In Portsmouth, the department has cut
back on bullets traditionally issued to officers for extra practice on
the firing range.
Norfolk police say they keep a two-year supply on hand, a policy that
"is certainly paying dividends now," spokesman Chris Amos said. At
Bob's Gun Shop, Marcus says he has fielded calls from the Fairfax
sheriff's office and other agencies desperate for ammunition.
Political analyst Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at
the University of Virginia, sees no rational reason for the run on
ammo. Sabato says there are no signs from Washington that stricter gun
laws are on the way.
"I follow Congress closely," Sabato said, "and I've seen no indication
that this is true."
Sabato says there are plenty of Democrats from rural areas who fear
they'd lose their seats if they voted for more gun laws.
Spitzer, the New York professor, says the new president isn't eager to
challenge gun rights, either.
"The final irony of all this is that Obama's base is less than happy
with him, too," Spitzer said. "He's been deliberately avoiding the gun
issue. He's behaved a lot more like a centrist."
Spitzer says organizations such as the National Rifle Association,
with 4 million-plus members, fed the ammo-buying frenzy with a
drumbeat of " 'they're-coming-for-your-guns' messages. They stoke fear
for their own political reasons."
The gun industry, Spitzer said, reaps the benefits of increased sales.
The NRA denies such an agenda.
"I have heard some gun manufacturers calling the president their
salesman of the year," NRA spokeswoman Alexa Fritts said. "But it's no
joke that since the election, guns and ammo have been flying off the
shelves. That's a direct result of a real fear. We know the record of
some of the people in this administration, and gun owners are worried
about their Second Amendment freedoms."
The NRA points to one bill making the rounds that seeks to license
handgun owners. Talk of raising the excise tax on ammunition also has
the organization on alert.
There are some signs that the ammunition shortage is easing. Summer's
heat puts a damper on outdoor target shooting. Sales usually fall off
this time of year. Calibers impossible to find just a few weeks ago
are beginning to reappear.
Still, the industry predicts, it will be months before supply can
fully cover demand. Under normal circumstances, ammunition is big
business. Gun owners buy an estimated 9 billion bullets every year.
Last year's sales hit $1.16 billion.
For now, though, the rush does seem to be slowing down a bit,
according to House, the owner of Classic Firearms. He says that a
month ago, when the doors opened at a gun show, customers would "run
as fast as they could" to get to the ammunition tables.
"Now they're just walking very, very fast."
**************************************************
14. Jersey City police chief wants weapon to hunt humans?
**************************************************
"'We need help to stop these weapons from hitting the street,' said
Police Chief Thomas Comey. 'This weapon is manufactured for nothing
other than to hunt man...that should be used by law enforcement and no
one else.'"
So only the police should be allowed to use guns to hunt men? I didn't
realize that the police, even in New Jersey, were into murder for
sport (according to the Chief's own words and his, er, logic).
http://tinyurl.com/nwalsn
myfoxny.com
Jersey City Police Chief Takes Aim at NRA
Updated: Thursday, 16 Jul 2009, 8:24 PM EDT
Published : Thursday, 16 Jul 2009, 8:24 PM EDT
ARUN KRISTIAN DAS
MYFOXNY.COM - Jersey City's top cop angrily denounced the influx of
illegal guns onto the streets of the city and even took rhetorical aim
at the National Rifle Association after an early-morning shootout left
five cops wounded, two critically.
"We need help to stop these weapons from hitting the street," said
Police Chief Thomas Comey. "This weapon is manufactured for nothing
other than to hunt man."
Police Chief Thomas Comey was angry that a suspect who had a prior
weapons conviction had no trouble obtaining the Mossberg pump-action
tactical shotgun.
The suspect, Hassan Shakur, used the shotgun loaded with buckshot and
slugs to shoot at Jersey City and Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey cops.
Officers returned fire, killing Shakur and an apparent accomplice,
Amanda Anderson.
At a news conference Thursday afternoon, Comey said he considers that
type of shotgun an "assault weapon" that should be used by law
enforcement and no one else. He said that authorities traced the gun's
serial number and were reasonably certain that at some point the
weapon was purchased legally in the South.
"We should stop being afraid of the NRA and start being afraid [for]
our own rights," Comey said.
The NRA could not be reached for comment Thursday.
**************************************************
15. Shooting Yourself 101: Facility bans holster after two ADs
**************************************************
Thanks to Gary Smith of HandgunHunt.com for the info:
RECENT HOLSTER-RELATED SHOOTINGS (BLACKHAWK SERPA HOLSTER NOW
PROHIBITED IN KR TRAINING CLASSES)
At IPSC and IDPA matches in San Antonio recently, two different
shooters shot themselves in the leg while drawing. In both cases, the
root cause was the shooter putting his finger on the trigger before
the muzzle was in a safe direction.
Drawing a pistol safely at high speed cannot be mastered without doing
a lot of slow speed, dry fire practice, preferably in front of a
mirror where you can see what you are doing. In a correct and safe
draw, the trigger finger does not touch the trigger until the gun is
gripped by both hands, and the muzzle is pointed at the target - what
we call "step 3" or our "ready position". In our classes we emphasize
keeping the finger off the trigger when at "ready" and only putting
the finger on the trigger when you intend to shoot and are moving the
gun from "ready" to a firing position (position 4). It takes 3000 or
more reps of slow dry practice to make correct trigger finger
placement during the draw an automatic action that happens whether you
think about it or not.
Those who only practice drawing when attending our classes or on match
day risk the same kind of negligent discharge that resulted in both of
these shooters taking a bullet in the leg. You cannot go fast safely
until you understand what a safe technique is, and you can do it
safely at slow speed. Trying to run before you can walk in this case
can get you seriously hurt.
Equipment issues played a role in these shootings: one shooter was
using a 1911 style pistol. These guns are normally carried "cocked and
locked" with the hammer back and thumb safety on. In order for the
1911 shooter to shoot himself, he had to take the safety off during
'step 1' of the draw, as he established his grip on the pistol, and
then put his finger on the trigger as the gun came out of the holster,
before the gun got to our "step 2" which is the first point in the
draw where the muzzle is guaranteed to be clear of all body parts.
When drawing a 1911 style pistol, the safety should not come off until
the gun is at position 3 (ready position) and should ONLY come off
AFTER the person has made a decision to shoot and is moving the gun to
a firing position.
The other shooter was using the Blackhawk SERPA holster, which has
been banned by many shooting schools. The problem with the SERPA is
that the user must press a lever with the trigger finger to release
the pistol, and if the shooter does not practice indexing the trigger
finger along the slide (away from the trigger guard) as the gun comes
out of the holster, the natural flow of body movement is to continue
curling the trigger finger as the gun comes out. That movement can
obviously lead to the trigger finger pressing on the trigger way too
early in the drawstroke. There have been multiple self-inflicted
gunshot wounds at multiple schools all over the US, all a result of
the design of this holster and the failure of holster users to put in
sufficient slow dry practice to master the complex movement and fine
motor skill of operating this holster while drawing. I believe that
the number of schools banning this holster has reached critical mass
and that prohibition of this holster has now become an industry "best
practice", so KR Training now prohibits the use of the SERPA holster
in our classes in the interest of preventing student self-injury.
**************************************************
16. A loopy drinking debate
**************************************************
Thanks to Carla and Dave Hicks for the link. My comments imbedded:
http://tinyurl.com/kktn2r
roanoke.com
A loopy drinking debate
Dick Howard
Howard is a retired health care professional. He lives in Salem.
Several days ago, I was ranting to my wife about the two sweepingly
superficial and patently false arguments that proponents of lowering
the legal age of drinking trot out.
Right on cue, I can always count on hearing: "If they're old enough to
fight for their country, they oughta be old enough to drink." Followed
by: "If they're old enough to handle the responsibility of voting,
they oughta be old enough to drink."
Dr. John McCardell may have a Ph.D., but he must have flunked botany
because he does not know apples from oranges ("Q&A with John
McCardell," June 28 news story). Let me hop onto his tortuous train of
mixed-fruit logic and ride it a little further to see where the next
stop could be.
He wants us to believe that since we have decided 18-year-olds are
competent to fight for their country (that's the apples) and to vote
(more apples), then, by his loopy extension, these same 18-year-olds
should be entrusted with the legal right to purchase and drink any
amount of alcohol (that's the oranges) they darn well want.
Whoa!
That's a great big leap of weak logic there, but for the sake of
discussion, let's let this train careen on down the tracks.
In Virginia, no one under the age of 21 can legally purchase a handgun
or obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. So couldn't
McCardell's same logic be applied to the right to purchase and carry
concealed handguns? [PVC: Yes and that would actually make a lot of
sense.]
You know, it would be the "they're old enough to fight for their
country and old enough to vote, so why aren't they old enough to
legally purchase and carry a concealed handgun?" argument. Makes sense
to me as long as I ride that crazy train. [PVC: Actually fighting
for your country does require training and carrying of guns. It
doesn't require drinking or voting.]
But we have made the very wise legal decision that 18year-olds are not
competent to own and carry concealed handguns, and I think we have
appropriately applied the same yardstick to measuring the competency
of 18-year-olds for purchasing and drinking alcohol. It should be
noted that when abused, one is as deadly as the other. [PVC: And we
have laws to handle those who abuse alcohol or misuse guns.]
I haven't heard of anyone calling out for the laws to be changed to
allow people under 21 years old to own and carry concealed handguns,
but if there are such persons, they should hop a little ride on
McCardell's lower-the-drinking-age train of logic. [PVC: Actually I
like the idea of lowering the CHP age. Several other states have
already done so without issue.]
**************************************************
17. Rev. Ken Blanchard discusses freedom and 2A
**************************************************
Thanks to Leyla Myers for the link. Really well done and great to
forward to others who are sitting on the fence when it comes to
freedom and the right to keep and bear arms:
http://tinyurl.com/ld2jmc (YouTube)
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
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
