VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 2/9/13

[Taggure]

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 2/9/13

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. WV: WVCDL - The State Journal's Decision Makers Interview [VIDEO]
2. DC: MILLER: David Gregory gets off scot free
3. NORTH: Preserving the Second Amendment
4. Piers Morgan's gun claims already debunked [VIDEO]
5. Youth gun violence down 95% from 1994
6. 60 percent of young Americans plan to purchase firearms, study reveals
7. A cop espouses concealed carry [VIDEO]
8. FL: Deputy threatens to shoot concealed carry licensee, arrests him for lawfully carried handgun [VIDEO]
9. OK: Female homeowner shoots 2 of 5 home invaders in Oklahoma City
10. Why would an average citizen need to carry a gun?
11. NY: NY seals first state gun laws since Newtown massacre
12. NY: Cuomo's new gun law does not exempt New York cops, could prevent police from responding to school shootings
13. NY: Own a gun in New York? You may be a felon [VIDEO]
14. NY: Newspaper removes controversial map of gun-permit owners
15. Doing the research the New York Times won't do
16. CA: Police officers storm into CA screening and shoot fleeing gunman multiple times
17. A mother's case for gun rights
18. TX: If we love our children, we need to protect them
19. OH: Ohio school district votes 5-0 to arm staff
20. Guns already allowed in schools with little restriction in many states
21. Schools teach how to act during shooting [VIDEO]
22. How to stop mass shootings [VIDEO]
23. How to end the 'gun debate' forever

*************************************************
1. WV: WVCDL - The State Journal's Decision Makers Interview [VIDEO]
*************************************************

My counterpart in the West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Keith Morgan, makes mincemeat out of a reporter.

Shawn Wu sent me this:

--

From youtube.com: http://tinyurl.com/b4seu8k


*************************************************
2. DC: MILLER: David Gregory gets off scot free
*************************************************

It's OK to break the law in DC as long as you are one of the elite.

From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/ce89rsh


MILLER: David Gregory gets off scot free
By Emily Miller - The Washington Times
January 11, 2013

The attorney general for the District of Columbia, Irvin Nathan, announced Friday that he will not press charges against NBC News’ David Gregory nor any employee of the broadcast network for violating the city’s gun laws. Violation of the city's firearms laws carry a maximum $1,000 fine and one year in jail.

Mr. Nathan wrote to an attorney representing Mr. Gregory and NBC News, Lee Levine of Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP, that, “OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.”

In the three-page letter, Mr. Nathan also wrote that “no specific intent is required for this violation, and ignorance of the law or even confusion about it is no defense." He said, "We therefore did not rely in making our judgment on the feeble and unsatisfactory efforts that NBC made to determine whether or not it was lawful to possess, display and broadcast this large capacity magazine as a means of fostering the public policy debate.”

The full text of the letter is at the bottom of this story.

The “Meet the Press” anchor ignored police guidance and held up an illegal 30-round rifle magazine in his D.C. studio during an interview on Dec. 23 with the National Rifle Association’s Wayne LaPierre on gun-control laws.

The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) concluded the three-and-a-half week investigation into the allegations -- seen live on national TV -- without an arrest by turning over the facts to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG).

In 2012, the police arrested at least 105 people for charges that included possession of a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. The OAG charged 15 of those people in cases that included a “high-capacity feeding device or extended clip.”

Ted Gest, the OAG’s spokesman, explained that, “This does not mean that the 105 arrests were presented to us and we charged only 15. Most of the arrests never made it to us — MPD either didn’t bring them to us or brought them to the U.S. Attorney.”

One of the 15 charged was James Brinkley, an Army veteran and federal employee, who was arrested and jailed while legally transporting his unloaded Glock 22 to the range with the two standard 15-round magazines that came with the pistol.

D.C. Assistant Attorney General Rachel Bohlen offered Mr. Brinkley a deal to plead guilty to possession of an unregistered firearm in return for unsupervised probation. He refused to falsely admit guilt.

“I hadn’t done anything wrong,” he told me in an interview. “I felt in my heart I was doing the right thing. I was going to stand up, no matter what the outcome would be.”

In fact, Mr. Nathan wrote in his letter about letting off Mr. Gregory: "We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. There is no doubt of the gravity of the illegal conduct in this matter,especially in a city and a nation that have been plagued by carnage from gun violence."

After a heated trial, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Carroll Wingo gave a lengthy and thoughtful decision on the case and acquitted Mr. Brinkley of all the firearms charges.

It is shameful that the politicians running the nation’s capital have sent the clear message that there are two systems of justice in the city -- one for the rich and powerful and one for everyone else.

Text of Letter:

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Office of the Attorney General

January 11,2013

Lee Levine, Esq.

Levine Sullivan Koch & Schulz, LLP

1899 L Street, N.W., Suite 200

Washington, D.C. 20036

Re: Meet The Press

Dear Mr. Levine:

As you know, the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has referred to this office (OAG) the results of its investigation of the broadcast by your client, the National Broadcasting Company(NBC), of the news program "Meet the Press" on Sunday December 23,2012. On that broadcast, during the course of an interview of a guest regarding firearms policy in the United States, the program host, David Gregory, exhibited on camera a large capacity ammunition feeding device ("magazine") in violation of D.C. law. I have also received and reviewed your letter to me of January 9, 2013, explaining the circumstances under which Mr. Gregory came into possession of the magazine, the purported confusion from the allegedly conflicting advice from federal and local law enforcement sources, and assurances by your client of future compliance with our laws.

The device in the host's possession on that broadcast was a magazine capable of holding up to 30 rounds of ammunition. The host also possessed and displayed another ammunition magazine capable of holding five to ten rounds of ammunition. Neither magazine contained any ammunition nor was either connected to any firearm. The broadcast took place from NBC studios located at 4001 Nebraska Avenue, N.W. in Washington, D.C.

It is unlawful under D.C. Code Section 7-2506.01(b) for any person while in the District of Columbia to "possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm" or loaded. Under the Subsection, the term "large capacity ammunition feeding device" means a "magazine, belt, drum, feed strip or similar devicethat has the capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept more than tenrounds of ammunition." Under D.C. Code Section 7-2507.06, any person convicted of a violation of this Subsection may be imprisoned for not more than one year, fined not more than $1,000,

The larger of the two ammunition feeding devices in question here meets the definition under the statute. OAG has responsibility for prosecuting such offenses and takes that responsibility very seriously. We have a history of aggressively prosecuting violations of this statute where the circumstances warrant. There is no doubt of the gravity ofthe illegal conduct in this matter,especially in a city and a nation that have been plagued by carnage from gun violence. Of course,the recent tragic, heart-breaking events, particularly at Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, which appear to have led to the program in question, also underscore our belief in the vigorous enforcement of such laws.

Having carefully reviewed all of the facts and circumstances of this matter, as it does in every case involving firearms-related offenses or any other potential violation of D.C. law within our criminal jurisdiction, OAG has determined to exercise its prosecutorial discretion to decline to bring criminal charges against Mr. Gregory, who has no criminal record, or any other NBC employee based on the events associated with the December 23, 2012 broadcast. OAG has made this determination, despite the clarity of the violation of this important law, because under all of the circumstances here a prosecution would not promote public safety in the District of Columbia nor serve the best interests of the people of the District to whom this office owes its trust.

Influencing our judgment in this case, among other things, is our recognition that the intent of the temporary possession and short display of the magazine was to promote the First Amendment purpose of informing an ongoing public debate about firearms policy in the United States,especially while this subject was foremost in the minds of the public following the previously mentioned events in Connecticut and the President's speech to the nation about them. There were, however, other legal means available to demonstrate the point and to pursue this line of questioning with the guest that were suggested to NBC and that could have and should have been pursued.

OAG also appreciates that the magazine was immediately returned to the source that NBC understood to be its lawful owner outside of the District and that the magazine in question, with NBC's assistance, has been surrendered to MPD. OAG also recognizes the cooperation NBC has provided in the investigation of this matter.

On the other hand, no specific intent is required for this violation, and ignorance of the law or even confusion about it is no defense. We therefore did not rely in making our judgment on the feeble and unsatisfactory efforts that NBC made to determine whether or not it was lawful to possess, display and broadcast this large capacity magazine as a means of fostering the public policy debate. Although there appears to have been some misinformation provided initially, NBC was clearly and timely advised by an MPD employee that its plans to exhibit on thebroadcast a high capacity-magazine would violate D.C. law, and there was no contrary advicefrom any federal official. While you argue that some NBC employees subjectively felt uncertainas to whether its planned actions were lawful or not, we do not believe such uncertainty was justified and we note that NBC has now acknowledged that its interpretation of the information it received was incorrect.

NBC should be made aware that OAG's decision not to press charges in this matter was a very close decision and not one to which it came lightly or easily. Accordingly, NBC and its employees should take meticulous care in the future to ensure that it is in full compliance with D.C. law whether its actions involve firearms or any other potential violation. Repetition by NBC or any employee of any similar or other firearms violation will be prosecuted to the fullextent supported by the facts and the law.

I am confident that you will convey our deep concern and warning to your client.

Sincerely,

Irvin B. Nathan

Attorney General for the District of Columbia


*************************************************
3. NORTH: Preserving the Second Amendment
*************************************************

From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/aw92bor


NORTH: Preserving the Second Amendment
Obama ‘determined to act’ on gun restrictions
By Oliver North-The Washington Times
January 14, 2013

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Full disclosure right up front: I’m a proud life member of the National Rifle Association. I am on the NRA’s board of directors and serve as chairman of the organization’s Military and Veterans' Affairs Committee. I have owned and used firearms most of my life, and I can read. Unlike some in Washington, I don’t believe that the 27 words above — the Second Amendment of our Constitution — have anything to do with “gun rights.” Guns don’t have rights. I do. So do you.

Fifty-two years ago, like tens of millions of people before and since, I raised my right hand and took an oath of enlistment in our armed forces, pledging to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” I promised I would “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” Notably, the words promise loyalty not to a political party or a particular individual but to the Constitution, which enshrines our liberties and the limits and responsibilities of those who govern us like no other foundational document on earth.

Unfortunately, in the aftermath of recent carnage in a Colorado movie theater and a rampage at an elementary school in Connecticut, some now insist that “We the People” must accept some alterations in how we interpret the “archaic” language contained in our Constitution. On Jan. 9, after a meeting with “gun safety advocates” and “victims groups,” Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., head of the “White House task force on gun violence,” said the Obama administration is “determined to take action” and then added: “The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet.”

Those words, “executive orders, executive action,” used in conjunction with constitutionally protected rights and liberties, ought to alarm us all. They used to frighten Barack Obama. On Oct. 2, 2007, then-Sen. Obama railed against what he called the abuse of executive powers purportedly perpetrated by President George W. Bush in his administration’s efforts to protect the American people from acts of terror by radical Islamists. Apparently, the current occupant of the Oval Office has overcome his early concerns about chief executives exceeding their authority.

When the Biden task force was announced three weeks ago, the president claimed that no policy proposals would be “prejudged.” Yet after the Jan. 10 White House meeting with firearms manufacturers, firearms retailers, sportsmen and a representative of the NRA, neither Mr. Biden nor Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. even mentioned the NRA’s call for increased prosecution of violent criminals and those who break existing federal firearms laws.

While the meeting was under way in the Cabinet Room, a teenager carrying a 12-gauge shotgun walked into a high-school classroom in Taft, Calif., and opened fire, wounding a classmate. Remarkably, neither the vice president nor any member of his task force mentioned the NRA’s call for placing armed police officers in America’s public schools.

Instead, Mr. Biden talked about growing public support for new “gun control measures.” As yet, they haven’t publicly addressed steps the O-Team may take to cut firearms imports through onerous United Nations treaties and conventions. We are told by administration defenders, pundits, commentators of the left and “gun control advocates” that the American people want new restrictions on firearm design, limits on ammunition capacity and types, and universal background checks to regulate possession.

Hard evidence of public support for new restrictions on firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens is hard to find. A recent poll shows that 62 percent of the American people support the NRA’s measure to have police protect schools. The city of Los Angeles isn’t waiting for executive action or new legislation. Starting this week, at least one armed police officer will visit every public elementary school in the city.

More broadly, talk of new government restrictions has created a record-setting spike in gun sales across the country. Nearly every state has reported “traffic jams” in background check systems as tens of thousands of Americans line up to purchase firearms at gun stores.

The constitutional controversy created by the Obama administration also has backfired for those who sought to demonize the NRA as an extremist, fringe organization. Since the Biden task force was formed, more than 100,000 of our fellow citizens have joined the NRA, bringing membership to more than 4.2 million.

That’s a good sign. The NRA is our nation’s leader in firearms education, training and safety. It’s also an effective, fervent advocate for our civil liberties. When the Biden task force delivers its “recommendations” Jan. 15, you can count on NRA members to defend our Constitution’s Second Amendment. If you haven’t joined us already, now is the time.


*************************************************
4. Piers Morgan's gun claims already debunked [VIDEO]
*************************************************

Mark Becker sent me this:

--

From foxnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/bx4svfq


Piers Morgan's Gun Claims Already Debunked
January 10, 2013

CNN’s Piers Morgan has for days cited U.S. and British gun homicide statistics in an attempt to get stricter controls on firearms here in America.

On Tuesday, Cincinnati Fox affiliate WXIX thoroughly debunked many of Morgan’s claims.


*************************************************
5. Youth gun violence down 95% from 1994
*************************************************

Walter Jackson sent me this:

--

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/bbz24w5


DOJ REPORT: YOUTH GUN VIOLENCE DOWN 95% FROM 1994
by Awr Hawkins
January 12, 2013

A recently released Department of Justice (DOJ) study shows that youth aged 12 through 17 are six times more likely to be attacked by someone using a knife instead of gun.

The study shows a heavy drop—a full 95%—in gun-related violence toward youth from 1994 to 2010.

Moreover, the study shows that "serious crimes against youth perpetrated at schools dropped 62%" over this same period of time.

The study also showed that youth who came from a single parent home were 3.8 times more likely to be a victim of violent crime, and "homicides among American youth declined by 65 percent from 1993 to 2010."

Nevertheless, President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) are pushing for more stringent gun control.


*************************************************
6. 60 percent of young Americans plan to purchase firearms, study reveals
*************************************************

Walter Jackson sent me this:

--

From campusreform.org: http://tinyurl.com/aklsgnt


60 percent of young Americans plan to purchase firearms, study reveals
by Scott Greer
January 16, 2013

Sixty percent of high school and college students say they plan on owning guns at a later stage in life, an academic study from American University revealed on Monday.

According to the study, about 40 percent of the American students surveyed said they definitely planned to own firearms once they had established their own households. Another 20 percent said they were “contemplating” owning guns.

Those findings were part of a broader study conducted by American University professor Jennifer L. Lawless and Loyola Marymount professor Richard L. Fox which focused on the political opinions of young Americans. The study was conducted prior the recent Newtown massacre, but after the Aurora theatre shooting.

Lawless told Campus Reform on Tuesday that in her view the findings were proof that President Obama should move swiftly, and without the permission of Congress if necessary, in order limit the availability of firearms.

“The next generation plans on owning guns, so if we want to avoid the tragedies that we’ve seen… we obviously need to move quickly and if an executive order is the way to do it, then that is the way the to do it,” she said.

Lawless said the study was not prompted by the Aurora shooting, pointing to the fact that the study focused on a broad range of political opinions among young people which included firearms.

The study indicated that there is no significant difference between the percentage of high school and college students who are considering purchasing firearms. Both polled at about 60 percent.

Students who identified as Democrats were twice as likely to fear gun violence as those who were not, the study found. Only 33 percent of the respondents who were questioned were raised in households where guns were owned.

David Burnett, the public relations director of the conservative student group Students for Concealed Carry, told Campus Reform on Tuesday he was not surprised by the study’s result.

“With every single spree killing we’ve seen in this nation in the past twenty years, with every sexual assault that takes place, nine every day on college campuses, with every robbery report we have, with every campus that goes on lockdown, these gun free zones are proven to be indefensible and impractical,” he said.

“College campuses put pictures on the door and expect psychopaths to abide by them,” he continued. “I think more and more college students have been waking up to this reality in the past five years since Virginia Tech and they don’t want it.”


*************************************************
7. A cop espouses concealed carry [VIDEO]
*************************************************

Shane Belanger shared this:

--

From youtube.com: http://tinyurl.com/akfwymf


A COP ESPOUSES CONCEALED CARRY,VIDEO
March 15, 2010

Robert R.Surgenor Sr, retired police detective, makes the (convincing) case for concealed carry and gun ownership by law abiding citizens. Unlike so many anti gun people he points out the positive aspects. The audio of 911 calls, beginning and end, show a stark and tragic contrast with regard to being defenseless or armed.


*************************************************
8. FL: Deputy threatens to shoot concealed carry licensee, arrests him for lawfully carried handgun [VIDEO]
*************************************************

Why we need to protect open carry in VA. The officer overreacted.

Sue Ward sent me this:

--

From liveleak.com: http://tinyurl.com/azncqtt


*************************************************
9. OK: Female homeowner shoots 2 of 5 home invaders in Oklahoma City
*************************************************

A good example of when an AR-15 would be handy.

Brian Stevenson shared this:

--

From gunssavelives.net: http://tinyurl.com/a3vqd5r


Female Homeowner Shoots 2 of 5 Home Invaders in Oklahoma City
January 19, 2013

According to police a female homeowner and a friend of the homeowner were facing a perilous situation when 5 men tried to gain access to the home.

The female homeowner grabbed her gun and opened fire, striking one of the suspects.

At some point, for reasons unknown, a friend of the homeowner who was in the home used the gun to shoot another of the would be home invaders.

The two shot suspects were taken to an area hospital and are in critical condition.

It is unclear if the other three suspects were apprehended.


*************************************************
10. Why would an average citizen need to carry a gun?
*************************************************

EM John Pierce shared this:

--

From opencarry.org: http://tinyurl.com/bgzdavg


[SNIP]
Why would an average citizen need to carry a gun?
by John Pierce
January 18, 2013

This is a common question asked by the anti-gun crowd and sometimes even by those who are not anti-gun but who are not gun owners. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at today’s news from around the country to see if we can answer the question.

You might be robbed, have your throat slashed, and be beaten with hammers

[/SNIP]


*************************************************
11. NY: NY seals first state gun laws since Newtown massacre
*************************************************

Thank heavens this didn't happen in America, but in a dictatorship called "New York."


From news.yahoo.com: http://tinyurl.com/arxp7qk


NY seals 1st state gun laws since Newtown massacre
by Michael Gormley, Associated Press
January 15, 2013

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York lawmakers agreed to pass the toughest gun control law in the nation and the first since the Newtown, Conn., school shooting, calling for a stricter assault weapons ban and provisions to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill who make threats.

"This is a scourge on society," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday night, six days after making gun control a centerpiece of his agenda in his State of the State address. The bipartisan effort was fueled by the Newtown tragedy that took the lives of 20 first graders and six educators. "At what point do you say, 'No more innocent loss of life'?"

The measure also calls for restrictions on ammunition and the sale of guns. It is expected to pass Tuesday.

"This is not about taking anyone's rights away," said Sen. Jeffrey Klein, a Bronx Democrat. "It's about a safe society ... today we are setting the mark for the rest of the county to do what's right."

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features, such as folding stock, muzzle flash suppressor or bayonet mount. The proposal would reduce that to one feature, including the popular pistol grip. The language specifically targeted the military-style rifle used in the Newtown shootings.

Current owners of those guns will have to register them.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. New Yorkers also would be barred from buying assault weapons over the Internet, and failing to safely store a weapon could lead to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

Stores that sell ammunition will have to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

The legislation also increases sentences for gun crimes including the shooting of a first responder that Cuomo called the "Webster provision." Last month in the western New York town of Webster, two firefighters were killed after responding to a fire set by the shooter, who eventually killed himself.

The measure passed the Senate 43-18 on the strength of support from Democrats, many of whom previously sponsored bills that were once blocked by Republicans. The Democrat-led Assembly gaveled out before midnight and planned to take the issue up at 10 a.m. Tuesday. It is expected to pass easily.

The governor confirmed the proposal, previously worked out in closed session, also would mandate a police registry of assault weapons, grandfathering in assault weapons already in private hands.

It was agreed upon exactly a month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy.

"It is well-balanced, it protects the Second Amendment," said Senate Republican leader Dean Skelos of Long Island.

Cuomo said he wanted quick action to avoid a run on assault weapons and ammunition. He estimates there are already about 1 million assault weapons in New York state.

Republican Sen. Greg Ball called that political opportunism in a rare criticism of the popular and powerful governor seen by his supporters as a possible candidate for president in 2016.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," said Ball who represents part of the Hudson Valley. "We have taken an entire category of firearms that are currently legal that are in the homes of law-abiding, tax paying citizens. ... We are now turning those law-abiding citizens into criminals."

In the gun debate, one concern for New York is its major gun manufacturer upstate.

Remington Arms Co. makes the Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle that was used in the Connecticut shootings and again on Christmas Eve when the two firefighters were slain in Webster. The two-century-old Remington factory in Ilion in central New York employs 1,000 workers in a Republican Senate district.

The bill was the first test of the new coalition in control of the Senate, which has long been run by Republicans opposed to gun control measures. The chamber is now in the hands of Republicans and five breakaway Democrats led by Klein, an arrangement expected to result in more progressive legislation.

Former Republican Sen. Michael Balboni said that for legislators from the more conservative upstate region of New York, gun control "has the intensity of the gay marriage issue." In 2011, three of four Republicans who crossed the aisle to vote for same-sex marriage ended up losing their jobs because of their votes.


*************************************************
12. NY: Cuomo's new gun law does not exempt New York cops, could prevent police from responding to school shootings
*************************************************

So New York police with 7-round magazines are going to arrest the ones that have 30-round magazines? Sounds like a formula for failure.

Jay Minsky sent me this:

--

Philip:

The new tough New York State gun law (NY SAFE Act) signed into law this week does not exempt on/off duty or retired law enforcement officers from the law. The result, IF ENFORCED by the State, would (1) prevent them from carrying guns on school grounds, which would impede the efforts of these officers to respond to a school shooting; (2) not allow officers to carry more than 7 rounds in their firearms; and (3) require retired law enforcement officers to turn in their firearm magazines that hold more than 7 rounds. If the State ignores or does not enforce these provisions they are still technically in violation of the statute. Criminals should be dancing in the streets, first for restricting defensive options of the population and second by making every law enforcement officer a criminal.

From dailycaller.com: http://tinyurl.com/bcqqgcc


Cuomo’s new gun law does not exempt New York cops, could prevent police from responding to school shootings
by Will Rahn
January 17, 2013

A New York lawmaker says that the state’s recently passed gun control law stunningly fails to include any exemptions for law enforcement officers, and technically prohibits police from ever bringing guns on school grounds or possessing extended ammo magazines.

The NY SAFE Act, which was championed and signed into law by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo, bans all magazines that hold more than seven bullets and pre-1994 high capacity magazines, and prohibits the carrying of guns on school grounds.

But because no loophole for law enforcement was included in the law, every police officer in the state is technically in violation of the statute even though the prohibition is unlikely to be enforced, according to New York Assemblyman Al Graf.

Graf — a former New York City police officer and the ranking Republican member of the assembly’s powerful Codes Committee — says that the ban could even impede the efforts of officers to respond to a school shooting.

“The language is unclear, and to go further, a cop cannot go on school property with a gun,” Graf told The Daily Caller. “They weren’t exempted from that, either.”

“There was actually a story that was relayed to me the other day about a New York City police officer who went to a school the other day to pick up his kid, and the security guard told him that if he came to the school with his off-duty gun he would be arrested,” Graf continued.

The prohibition on carrying a gun into a school could even extend to on-duty police officers responding to an emergency such as a shooting.

“I guess they would have to sit there and take their gun belts off before they came in” to the school, Graf said.

Graf says that the exemption was not included in the bill because Cuomo, a rising Democratic star and possible 2016 presidential candidate, rushed it through the legislature via a shortcut known as a “message of necessity.” This allowed for little public scrutiny of the bill, which was easily passed by the legislature and signed into law on Tuesday.

“I got my hands on the bill at 11:30 at night,” Graf said, adding that he only had an hour to go through it before a meeting of the Codes Committee.

“Nobody was really able to look the bill,” before it was passed, according to Graf.

According to Graf, amendments to fix the bill were already in the works by the time it was voted on, but have not yet reached the floor.

“It doesn’t exclude retired police officers, so all of them have to turn in guns and magazines and stuff like that,” he said. “What they did is disarm the good guys and make sure the bad guys outgun them.”

“There are so many problems with this bill it’s unreal,” Graf said.

Gov. Cuomo’s office did not respond to TheDC’s request for comment, but now reportedly says an exemption will soon be included in the law.

UPDATE: Cuomo spokesman Matthew Wing tells The Daily Caller that “No police officer possessing [an] ammunition clip with more than 7 bullets is in violation of the law or guilty of any crime, period.”


*************************************************
13. NY: Own a gun in New York? You may be a felon [VIDEO]
*************************************************

From youtube.com: http://tinyurl.com/byx62pu


Own a gun in New York? You may be a felon.
January 15, 2013

A New York State Senator has lambasted the passing of what is being called the nation's toughest gun control bill, saying that it was introduced during the middle of the night, and that members were forced to vote on the legislation when they had not even had a chance to read it.

"I simply cannot support a bill that turns law abiding citizens into criminals by creating an entire new category of illegal firearms out of currently legal rifles and shotguns," said Senator Greg Ball in a statement.

"...the last minute push, in the middle of the night without critical public input from sportsmen and taxpayers was outrageous and forced members to vote on a bill they had not read." Ball noted.

The Senator stated that he believed the bill does nothing to address the issue of mental illness, and gave specific examples of cases within his district, which he urged that the legislation would not help to improve in any way.

"We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president," the Senator said on the Senate floor, in reference to Governor Andrew Cuomo.

Ball added that he believed the NY Senate was willing to transform law-abiding citizens into criminals "hoping on the front pages that we will be seen as preventing tragedies."

"Good night, I voted no and I only wish I could have done it twice." Ball concluded.
New Yorkers prepare to be Disarmed!!

Senator John J. Bonacic, who also opposed the legislation, called it "nothing more than window dressing designed to make people feel secure until the next tragedy strikes -- all while criminalizing the actions of otherwise law abiding citizens."

In prepared comments, Bonacic noted " In reading the summary of the legislation provided (my comments below are based on how the legislation has been explained, because the print of the bill has not been shown to Legislators as I write this -- 8 PM on January 14), it appears law abiding citizens would become criminals -- eligible to be sent to jail, simply by failing to tell the government they own guns they lawfully purchased."

"Equally problematic is the provision in the legislation prohibiting more than seven rounds in a ten round magazine -- something irrelevant to a criminal." Bonacic also stated.

"Under the legislation, magazines people now own, which are capable of holding ten rounds (bullets) continue to be legal, but a person may only load seven rounds in them. It strains credibility to believe a criminal bent on a massacre is going to load only seven bullets in a ten round magazine. Law abiding citizens, on the other hand, who erroneously load too many bullets in a magazine, would be criminals under the legislation." the Senator concluded.


*************************************************
14. NY: Newspaper removes controversial map of gun-permit owners
*************************************************

Too little, too late.

Walter Jackson sent me this:

--

From newsmax.com: http://tinyurl.com/ab3s2tw


Newspaper Removes Controversial Map of Gun-Permit Owners
by Todd Beamon
January 18, 2013

The controversial interactive map of gun-permit owners in two suburban New York City counties was taken off-line Friday after hundreds of complaints.

The Journal News, the newspaper that published the map insisted it was not removing the map due to the pressure, instead saying the database had most likely been viewed by those interested readers and that the information would become outdated over time.

“Our decision to do so is not a concession to critics that no value was served by the posting of the map in the first place,” Janet Hasson, publisher of the Gannett-owned newspaper, said in a letter posted on its website.

“On the contrary, we’ve heard from too many grateful community members to consider our decision to post information contained in the public record to have been a mistake.

“Nor is our decision made because we were intimidated by those who threatened the safety of our staffers,” she added. “We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower.”

Twenty-seven days ago, the White Plains, N.Y.,-based newspaper published the names and addresses of residents in Westchester and Rockland counties with gun permits in the wake of the Dec. 14 elementary school shootings in Connecticut.

The map sparked outrage from conservatives, gun advocates, and other groups from around the country, leading the newspaper to hire armed guards to protect staffers who had received threats to their safety.

Several bloggers responded by posting similar maps with the names and addresses of key Journal News staffers and executives.

One group, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, called for a nationwide boycott of the paper's advertisers including Best Buy and CVS. The organization called the map a "wanton act" that "has put in harm's way tens of thousands of lawful license holders."

Even members of the statewide Affiliated Police Association said it would hold the newspaper accountable if any of its members were targeted because they were listed on the map.

At least two homes listed on the map have been burglarized — with thieves taking guns, gun boxes, and permits, among other items — though authorities have declined to immediately link the incidents to the interactive map.

Meanwhile, New York legislators responded earlier this week by passing laws that allow permit holders to request confidentiality and that impose a 120-day moratorium on the release of permit-holder data.

Saying that “hundreds of threats were made to Journal News staffers,” Hasson said, “In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, the Journal News thought the community should know where gun-permit holders in their community were, in part to give parents an opportunity make careful decisions about their children’s safety.

“The Journal News mapped the public database of permit holders, placing a dot on the address of every permit holder in Westchester and Rockland counties and providing the name and street address of each holder,” she continued. “The dots conveyed a powerful message: gun-permit holders are everywhere in our counties."


*************************************************
15. Doing the research the New York Times won't do
*************************************************

From anncoulter.com: http://tinyurl.com/bjd28bb


DOING THE RESEARCH THE NEW YORK TIMES WON'T DO
January 9, 2013

In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John Lott. It concluded that the only policy to reduce the incidence of, and casualties from, mass shootings are concealed-carry laws. The Times will never mention this study.

Instead, Rosenthal's column proclaimed that armed guards do not reduce crime because: "I recently visited some Latin American countries ... where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, ATM, restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner."

So there you have it: The cock crowed, then the sun came up. Therefore, the cock's crowing caused the sun to come up. Rosenthal went to Harvard Medical School.

Here's a tip: High-crime areas are often bristling with bulletproof glass, heavy-duty locks, gated windows and armed guards. The bulletproof glass doesn't cause the crime; it's a response to crime. On Rosenthal's logic, hospitals kill people because more people die in hospitals than outside of them.

(In any event, the Lott-Landes study didn't recommend armed guards, but armed citizens.)

Rosenthal also produces a demonstrably false statistic about Australia's gun laws, as if it's a fact that has been carefully vetted by the Newspaper of Record, throwing in the true source only at the tail-end of the paragraph:

"After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. ... Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent ...," said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation."

"Ms. Peters" is Rebecca Peters, a George Soros-funded, Australian anti-gun activist so extreme that she had to resign from the International Action Network on Small Arms so as not to discredit the U.N.-recognized organization -- which isn't easy to further discredit.

Could the Times' public editor weigh in on whether unsubstantiated quotes from radical activists are now considered full and complete evidence at the Times?

It would be as if the Times headlined an article, "Abortion Increases Risk of Breast Cancer" with the sole support being a quote from Operation Rescue's Randall Terry. (Except Terry would have evidence.)

Whether or not the homicide rate went up or down in Australia as a result of strict gun control laws imposed in 1997 is a fact that could have been checked by Times researchers. But they didn't, because facts wouldn't have given them the answer they wanted.

Needless to say, the effect of Australia's gun ban has been extensively researched by Australian academics. As numerous studies have shown: After the gun ban, gun homicides in Australia did not decline any more than they were expected to without a gun ban.

Thus, for example, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, the homicide rate has been in steady decline from 1969 to the present, with only one marked uptick in 1998-99 -- right after the gun ban was enacted.

The showstopper for anti-gun activists like Ms. Rosenthal and Ms. Peters is the fact that suicides by firearm seemed to decrease more than expected after the 1997 gun ban.

But so did suicides by other means. Something other than the gun ban must have caused people to stop guzzling poison and jumping off bridges. (Some speculate that it's the availability of anti-depressants like Prozac.)

Curiously -- and not mentioned by Rosenthal -- the number of accidental firearms deaths skyrocketed after Australia's 1997 gun ban, although the law included stringent gun training requirements.

It turns out, until the coroner has certified a death as a "suicide," it's classified as "unintentional." So either mandatory gun training has led to more accidents, or a lot of suicides are ending up in the "accident" column.

Most pinheadedly, especially for a graduate of the Harvard Medical School, Rosenthal says: "Before (the gun ban), Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. (Since then,) there have been no mass killings."

Mass murder is a rare enough crime that any statistician will tell you discerning trends is impossible. In this country, the FBI doesn't even track mass murder as a specific crime category.

After Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" killers slaughtered the entire Clutter family in Holcomb, Kan., the murder rate in that quiet farming town went up 400 percent in a single year! Was it Holcomb's big showing at the 4-H club competition that year?

Totally unbeknownst to Elisabeth Rosenthal, Australian academics have already examined the mass murder rate by firearm by comparing Australia to a control country: New Zealand. (Do they teach "control groups" at Harvard?)

New Zealand is strikingly similar to Australia. Both are isolated island nations, demographically and socioeconomically similar. Their mass murder rate before Australia's gun ban was nearly identical: From 1980 to 1996, Australia's mass murder rate was 0.0042 incidents per 100,000 people and New Zealand's was 0.0050 incidents per 100,000 people.

The principal difference is that, post-1997, New Zealand remained armed to the teeth -- including with guns that were suddenly banned in Australia.

While it's true that Australia has had no more mass shootings since its gun ban, neither has New Zealand, despite continuing to be massively armed.

The only thing Australia's strict gun control laws has clearly accomplished is increasing the amount of violent crime committed with guns immediately after the ban took effect. Of course, Times reporters don't have to worry about violent muggings, rapes and robberies because they live in doorman buildings.

For those who can't afford fancy doorman buildings, bad journalism kills.


*************************************************
16. CA: Police officers storm into CA screening and shoot fleeing gunman multiple times
*************************************************

I wonder why the LAPD officers had AR-15s since they are not supposed to be good for self-defense?

Jack Doyle sent me this:

--

From dailymail.co.uk: http://tinyurl.com/a45cajn


Police officers storm into California 'Les Miserables' screening and shoot fleeing gunman multiple times
by Daily Mail Reporter
January 12, 2013

* Tom Billodeaux, 20, allegedly assaulted his girlfriend in a parking lot near the theater and pulled a gun on a bystander who tried to help
* He then fled into the nearby Reading Cinemas Carmel Mountain in San Diego and hid in a theater with 15 other people
* Officers opened fired when he reached for his handgun; he was wounded in the chest and the arm, but his injuries are not life-threatening
* Theater patrons dove for cover and fled in terror after gunfire rang out - darkly reminiscent of the Aurora, Colorado, massacre

Police shot and wounded an armed suspect who was hiding out in a movie theater in San Diego, sending theatergoers at a Saturday matinee of 'Les Miserables' diving for cover.

Officers say Tom Billodeaux, 20, of Escondido, California, pulled a handgun on them after they discovered him sitting with 15 other people in the dark theater at Reading Cinemas Carmel Mountain.

San Diego police armed with assault rifles stormed the cinema and went theater-to-theater looking for Billodeaux after he allegedly threatened his girlfriend and a bystander with a pistol and then fled into the megaplex.

The terrifying incident, which saw screaming movie patrons hiding behind their seats and fleeing in fear after a gunfire erupted in a move theater bore dark echos the massacre of a late-night screening of 'The Dark Night Rises' in July in Aurora, Colorado.

James Holmes allegedly killed 12 people and wounded 58 others after he attacked unsuspecting theatergoers with an AR-15 assault rifle and smoke grenades.

Captain Terry McManus told U-T San Diego that police searched theater by theater and evacuated moviegoers until two officers spotted Billodeaux in a theater with about 15 others.

McManus said the man initially complied with officers' order to put his hands up, but then he put them back in his lap and brandished a handgun. He said one of the officers opened fire.

The officers thought their lives were threatened, he said, 'and more importantly, they thought the lives of others were in jeopardy.'

Billodeaux was shot in the chest and the arm. He was taken to the hospital in critical condition, though he is expected to survive.

No was else was injured. Police say he was sitting apart from the other patrons in the theater - though it was not known how close the nearest bystander was.

Later, investigators said they did not believe Billodeaux intended to shoot anyone in the theater and was merely hiding from authorities.

Billodeaux became the target of an intense police search after witnesses reported seeing him get into a fight with his girlfriend across the street from a shopping plaza where the Cineplex is located, Lieutenant Ernie Herbert said.

Witnesses tried to intervene, but he threatened them with a gun and ran to the shopping plaza.

The owner of a business next to the Cineplex said police shut down the shopping center's parking lot and stopped every car to look for the man. Officers with dogs checked each store, while a police helicopter hovered above.

'There were 20 police cars blocking the entrance, then the fire truck and the ambulance rushed in,' Steve Krongard, the owner of the Nickel City arcade, said. 'Then we saw seven cops with what looked like rifles, then paramedics went into the theater.'

Herbert said police turned their attention to the Cineplex after learning that an armed man had ducked into the Cineplex.

The theater's manager told Krongard the shooting occurred during a screening of 'Les Miserables.'

A moviegoer told KGTV the lights suddenly went on during the film and two officers came into the theater with their guns. Another witness told the station that everyone got on the floor and started heading for the exit doors.

McManus said the gunman never made any threats to others in the theater. He said the man had left a suicide note at his Escondido home before going to his girlfriend's workplace to confront her.

It was the second shooting at a San Diego County movie theater in as many days.

A concession worker suffered an arm injury when a shot fired outside a San Marcos movie theater went through the lobby window and struck her, sheriff's officials said.

The shooting occurred during a fight in the parking lot at Edwards San Marcos Stadium 18 and triggered a large police response because authorities were initially not sure whether there was a shooter inside the Cineplex.

No arrests have been reported after the San Marcos shooting.


*************************************************
17. A mother's case for gun rights
*************************************************

Steve Rouse sent me this:

--

From foxnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/aor2qqx


A mother’s case for gun rights
By Anna Rittgers
January 15, 2013

There was no good guy available to protect the children of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. from evil. Those poor, innocent, defenseless children had to wait 20 minutes for police to arrive, and the horror only ended when the gunman chose to take own life.

I am passionate about protecting the civil rights enshrined in the Second Amendment particularly because I am a thirty-something year old woman with a three year old and a newborn. The only chance I have against one or more assailants seeking to harm me or my family is a firearm.

As a free person, I have a natural right to protect myself whether an assault against my person occurs inside my home or outside of it. As a mother, I will use every available and legal means to protect my family.

Those in power—the wealthy, the politically connected—do not have to sully their hands with firearms to protect themselves. They have the means to outsource their protection and hire private security.

The rest of us can only rely on ourselves for protection. Yes, the police are there to enforce the law, but you may be surprised to learn that the police have no duty to protect you against crime.

In Warren v. District of Columbia, two women who were repeatedly raped at knife point and beaten in their own home - over the course of fourteen hours by two assailants - sued the DC police department. Their multiple calls to the cops reporting the crime in progress were misrouted by dispatchers and poorly investigated by the cops on patrol.

The court’s conclusion was sobering: despite the carelessness and ineptitude of the police in this particular case, the police cannot be held liable if they fail to provide adequate protection because there is no duty for the police to protect citizens. The case was dismissed.

It is hard for me to take Gov. Cuomo, Mayor Bloomberg, Senator Diane Feinstein, President Obama, Piers Morgan, Beyonce or any other politician, journalist, or celebrity seriously when they publicly rail against the availability of semiautomatic weapons, wring their hands over so-called “assault weapons,” and decide that AR-15 should be banned because in their opinion, no person “needs” one.

These gun control advocates want to restrict or ban me from accessing certain types of firearms and ammunition all the while their safety (and their family’s safety) is guaranteed by guards armed with semiautomatic handguns and AR-15 rifles with magazines containing multiple rounds—the very items they want to make off-limits for ordinary citizens.

The hypocrisy on parade is distasteful—guns to protect me, but no guns for thee.

While I may disagree with those who abstain from exercising their second amendment rights, I would never seek to use the law to force people to purchase and own a firearm. In return, I expect them to respect the fact that I choose to exercise a right protected by the Constitution.

Furthermore, people wholly uncomfortable with and uninformed about guns should not dictate what weapons I may use for my self-defense. Few understand the distinctions between classes of guns, and I should be able to use whatever tool I deem best--be it a stick, a Glock, a shotgun, or an AR-15.

I cannot fathom the pain the mothers of the Newtown victims feel, and I pray I never come to know their kind of loss. That’s why I’m committed to protecting my family to the best of my ability, and standing up to those seeking to deny me the opportunity to exercise my civil rights and leave us defenseless.

A gun is a tool that can be used for both good and ill. Denying law-abiding citizens the right to use those guns does nothing to prevent evil. A gun cannot magically transform its holder into some crazed, violent person. Any depraved person using a gun to perpetrate crime was depraved before picking up the weapon.

The simple fact is that evil will never be constrained by laws. Good guys—and gals—must be able to possess guns in order to fight evil.


*************************************************
18. TX: If we love our children, we need to protect them
*************************************************

Christopher Liberty sent me this:

--

From cnn.com: http://tinyurl.com/9wmv5v9


My View: If we love our children, we need to protect them
by David Thweatt, Special to CNN
January 14, 2013

Editor’s note: David Thweatt has been superintendent of the Harrold Independent School District in Harrold, Texas, for nine years.

This week, Schools of Thought will publish perspectives on school security. Tomorrow, a parent and author reacts to school safety responses in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

(CNN) - Good parents protect their children. We protect them from the wind, sun, fire, cold, sickness, from animals, harmful philosophy, other children, predatory adults, injury when possible, their own faulty reasoning and anything else that we see as a dangerous risk to their health and well-being. They are the future, and they are precious.

At the Harrold Independent School District in Texas, we believe we’ve done everything possible to protect our children. We use cameras, electronic security and emergency plans, and some of our staff members are armed.

When I got into education in 1979, the idea of guns in schools was completely off my radar. But I believe faulty logic was used to frame the 1990 gun-free school zones law, which made it illegal for most citizens to knowingly possess firearms near schools. No police record, news account or anecdotal evidence showed that school personnel authorized to carry weapons used guns to hurt or injure innocent children. There was no reason for the federal law except defective reasoning: Policy makers believed that because guns came into schools in the hands of law-breaking gang members and drug dealers, the smart response was to take them away from law-abiding citizens.

What a perilous law that has become. We hung a sign on virtually every school in America that said, “Here await our most precious possessions in the world, and they are not protected.”

In Harrold, our school serves about 105 students in our rural community 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth. Best-case scenario, we are a half-hour away from the closest law enforcement officials.

In 2005, after shootings at other schools and universities, I began to research ways to protect our school’s children, and my research included the idea of arming staff members. There was no blueprint for how that would work, so we spent two years researching and considering different requirements and legal issues. The school board passed it October 22, 2007.

We call it the Guardian Plan.

It does not OK every staff member to carry a gun. Employees must possess a Texas Concealed Handgun License and be approved by the school board. They undergo training involving accuracy and hostage situations and are required to use frangible ammunition to minimize ricocheting and injury to bystanders.

The Guardian Plan is not entirely outside the box of school security – many schools have armed guards or officers – but it has some unique qualities when compared to the status quo. No one knows the identity of our Guardians, and because they do not know who is armed, guns aren’t likely to be stolen, and our Guardians aren’t targets the way a guard or officer might be.

The number of Guardians can be higher than the usual one or two security guards, and they can be placed strategically throughout buildings. Unless the media shows up every few years to highlight the fact that some of our personnel are armed, my students forget the guns are present. They are out of sight, out of mind. That’s never the case with security officers with guns in open holsters.

The Guardian Plan is a blueprint that can work other places, but I firmly believe in local control and that every community needs to do what they think is right. Would I change any of the components? No. We thought about it so long, and tried to answer every possible question. I have taught in larger districts, and know they might need a different vetting process for who can carry a gun, and different discussions with parents and kids. In our town, we value self-reliance, and we are used to being our own first responders.

Many believe that Second Amendment traditions and rights are antiquated, treacherous and unnecessary. Some believe that if all of the guns and weapons were thrown into the sea, the world would be at peace. To be direct, this is naiveté at its zenith.

We know guns are not permitted in prisons, but those facilities are not nice, safe places. Killing tools of many kinds are fashioned there because creativity and design are not only traits of good and honest citizens. Not all immoral and depraved individuals are in prisons. Some have yet to be identified, and some are intent on harming our children - in our homes, schools and any other place. Guns in the hands of good people results in protection from bad people. It is that simple.

Is it foolproof? No, nothing is. At the end of the school day, we at Harrold want to know we’ve done everything possible to protect our children from people who are intent on harming them. We are better prepared to do that than many other places.

Across America, we need signs in front of schools that read: “We love our children: They are protected.”


*************************************************
19. OH: Ohio school district votes 5-0 to arm staff
*************************************************

Walter Jackson sent me this:

--

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/by6g737


OHIO SCHOOL DISTRICT VOTES 5-0 TO ARM STAFF
by Awr Hawkins
January 12, 2013

On Wednesday, the Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education voted 5-0 to put guns on campus.

Their move will allow custodians to undertake training and carry handguns on the K-12 school grounds in Williams county.

It will be a show of force and a real life defense against criminals like Adam Lanza.

School board president Larry Martin said the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary forced his hand: "Our main goal is to offer safety for our students while they are in our classrooms and in the building. We have to do something and this seems like the most logical, reasonable course to go with."

Superintendent Jamie Grime echoed Martin's sentiment: "There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures... guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect."


*************************************************
20. Guns already allowed in schools with little restriction in many states
*************************************************

From nbcnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/bqoazvr


Guns already allowed in schools with little restriction in many states
By M. Alex Johnson, staff writer, NBC News
January 13, 2013

With the debate over gun violence reshaped by the shooting deaths of 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school last month, lawmakers across the country are pushing proposals to arm teachers in the classroom. But many of them may be wasting their time.

More than a third of the states already allow teachers and other adults to carry guns to school. In most cases, all you need is the equivalent of a note from the principal — you usually don't even need law enforcement approval.

NBC News reviewed the firearms and education laws in all 50 states and found that 18 of them allow adults to have a loaded gun on school grounds, usually as long as they have written permission.

That's for pretty much any reason; the list doesn't include states that generally ban guns but carve out narrow exceptions for specific activities like safety demonstrations or military formations and parades.

During a Tea Party forum in Fort Worth, Texas Gov. Rick Perry became one of the first prominent officials after the Dec. 14 shootings to call for teachers to be allowed to carry firearms to work — even though Texas already allows any qualified adult to do so as long as the principal OKs it.

Since then, lawmakers in several states have jumped on board with proposals that mirror laws already on the books.

In Alabama, for example, state Rep. Kerry Rich, a Republican representing DeKalb and Marshall counties, has proposed legislation that would give schools the option of letting their teachers or administrators carry guns.

They already have that option.

In Kentucky, lawmakers said last week they're contemplating legislation that would let teachers and administrators pack a weapon after completing safety training.

Kentucky school boards already have the authority to allow that.

Oregon state Rep. Dennis Richardson, a Republican representing Central Point, said in an e-mail to schools superintendents in his district that, he too, supported allowing teachers to carry weapons at school.

Oregon school boards can already give that permission.

Self defense

The real debate is over proposals to create exemptions from gun bans in states that don't have them. Such measures have been introduced or proposed in Alaska, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee. (The Michigan Legislature passed a bill last year, but Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed it.)

"Parents will not let politicians stand and do nothing," said Tennessee state Rep. Eric Watson, a Republican representing Bradley County who is one of several Tennessee lawmakers planning to introduce legislation to allow properly certified school district employees to arm themselves.

Bradley County already has armed deputies, known as school resource officers, or SROs, in all 17 of its schools. But Watson said that's not enough.

"I'm not trying to take the position of an SRO. This is in support of an SRO," Watson, a former sheriff's captain, told NBC station WRCB of Chattanooga.

The American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have both campaigned against such measures, but not all local school administrators share their position.

In Tennessee, the membership of Professional Educators of Tennessee is "split about 50-50," on proposals like Watson's, said J.C. Bowman, a spokesman for the organization.

"Some don't want the responsibility, and they worry about liability," Bowman said. "But this doesn't prohibit it and it doesn't require it, so that's something we can work with."

Jim Rigano, a member of the Springboro, Ohio, school board, said he hoped to craft a policy to allow school employees with proper state permits to carry guns.

"I think it's about giving employees the opportunity to defend themselves," he told NBC station WDTN of Dayton.

President Barack Obama called for more, not less, gun control after last month's Connecticut massacre. But there's little the federal government can do in states that pass measures relaxing school regulations.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 prohibits anyone from having a firearm in a school zone. But that law includes the same exception recognized by the states identified in NBC News' survey: It doesn't apply if the weapons are "approved by a school in the school zone."

And in any event, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Steve Stockman, R-Texas, have introduced measures in the new Congress that would repeal the federal law altogether.

Here are the 18 states that allow adults to carry loaded weapons onto school grounds with few or minor conditions:

Alabama (which bans possessing a weapon on school grounds only if the carrier has "intent to do bodily harm")
California (with approval of the superintendent)
Connecticut (with approval of "school officials")
Hawaii (no specific law)
Idaho (with school trustees' approval)
Iowa (with "authorization")
Kentucky (with school board approval)
Massachusetts (with approval of the school board or principal)
Mississippi (with school board approval)
Montana (with school trustees' permission)
New Hampshire (ban applies only to pupils, not adults)
New Jersey (with approval from the school's "governing officer")
New York (with the school's approval)
Oregon (with school board approval)
Rhode Island (with a state concealed weapons permit)
Texas (with the school's permission)
Utah (with approval of the "responsible school administrator") [PVC: This is not correct. Anyone with a CHP can carry in a school.]
Wyoming (as long as it's not concealed)


*************************************************
21. Schools teach how to act during shooting [VIDEO]
*************************************************

Executive Member Dave Hicks sent me this:

--

From cnn.com: http://tinyurl.com/ak2hpho


Schools teach how to act during shooting
The Situation Room
January 9, 2013

Miguel Marquez finds that universities and colleges are using shooter training to prepare for armed intruders on campus.


*************************************************
22. How to stop mass shootings [VIDEO]
*************************************************

Shane Belanger shared this:

--

From youtube.com: http://tinyurl.com/apfyeyh


MrColionNoir: How to Stop MASS SHOOTINGS
January 15, 2013


*************************************************
23. How to end the 'gun debate' forever
*************************************************

Jack Gallant sent me this:

--

From activistpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/b7tvaah


How to End the 'Gun Debate' Forever
by Tony Cartalucci, contributor
January 11, 2013

Violence is driven by socioeconomic and cultural factors, not the mere presence of firearms. The statistics clearly show this, and the very same statistics manipulated by so-called "gun control advocates" irrefutably contradicts their agenda's premise when put into proper context. Worse yet, the obsession over gun control sidelines the urgency needed to address issues like poor education and dismal economic prospects for those living in the most destitute and violence-stricken neighborhoods in our country.

UK vs. Japan: 2 Unarmed Societies, 2 Vastly Different Homicide Rates.

Despite both nations being disarmed and having almost no "gun-related homicides," according to UN statistics*, Japan and the UK still have an astronomical gap in homicide rates. Why? A visit to either country reveals an entirely different culture, education system, infrastructure, and socioeconomic paradigm. This is why despite Japan having a much larger population, even total homicides are lower than the comparatively more violent but less populated United Kingdom - with homicide rates in the UK nearly 3 times higher than those in Japan.

According to the UN's study, which includes the most recent annual data available, Japan, with a population of roughly 130 million, had a mere 506 homicides over the stretch of a single year. Conversely, the UK, with less than half of Japan's population (53 million) had 722 homicides. The rates per 100,000 people for Japan and the UK are 0.4 and 1.2 respectively. The UK, despite being an unarmed population, and having virtually no gun violence, still has 3 times the murder rate than the nation of Japan. Those that are murdered in the UK or Japan, are just as dead as any human being murdered by a gun in the United States. And clearly, this indicates that the presence of guns, or their banning, is not a significant factor driving homicides and violence.

Gun Control Doesn't Work - Ask Mexico.

Despite the hundreds of millions of guns to be found across the United States, with tens of millions of American citizens armed - some very heavily, the homicide rate of America is still below the global average of about 7 homicides per 100,000 people. The US' homicide rate? 4.8 murders per 100,000.

A nation like Mexico - which is conveniently dismissed by gun control advocates, has - according to the UN - a homicide rate of 22.7 murders per 100,000 people, despite having vastly stricter gun control laws on the books. A visit to Mexico and the United States would, like visiting Japan and the UK, reveal a starkly different culture, education system, infrastructure, and socioeconomic landscape. Socioeconomic factors drive Mexico's rampant violence - not a lack of gun control laws.

Logical Fallacy of Focusing on "Gun-Related Homicides"

It is true that "gun-related homicides" are higher in the US than other nations in a carefully selected "industrialized nations" category - however, it can also be said there are more snowmobile deaths in Michigan than all of America's southern states combined.

However, in comparing Michigan and America's sub-tropical region, the problem isn't snowmobiles, the problem is reckless behavior. Comparing only "gun-related homicides" in the United States with other nations is similarly dishonest, intellectual bankrupt, and statistically invalid. The problem is homicide and violence in general - not merely the means with which a murder is committed. A human being stabbed to death with a knife or throttled to death with one's bare hands, is just as dead as a human being shot with a pistol, shotgun, or "assault rifle."

A serious dialogue in tackling violence cannot begin until "violence" in and of itself is recognized as the problem - and not merely a myopic fixation on one of many implements that can be used to commit acts of violence. Indeed, guns do enable people to proficiently kill large numbers of people - but then again, so we are told by the US government, a handful of men with box cutters managed to kill 3,000 innocent people on the morning of September 11, 2001 - with not a single shot fired.

The human capacity to commit violence is unencumbered by a lack of means to do so. Banning certain implements will not deter an individual, or group of individuals from harming others if that is their intent. As the UK's disarmed but still violent society illustrates, merely banning guns is not the solution. The differences between Japan and the UK are not legal - but socioeconomic and cultural. In the UK, violence in general is the problem. A focus on the implements rather than the factors that drive it, is like treating a cancer by nursing the symptoms. It is a logical fallacy - and ultimately a fatal one.

Obsession with "Assault Rifles"

According to the FBI's 2011 analysis of homicide in the United States, out of 8,500 gun-related homicides, only 323 (3%) were committed using rifles of any kind - including "assault rifles." Compared to knives and other cutting instruments (1,694), blunt objects (496), and bare hands/feet (728), rifles should be the least of the honest "gun control" advocate's concerns.

The obsession with "assault rifles" for most is psychological, irrational, and a result of a manipulative mass media, blowing out of proportion what are superficially horrific "massacres," but statistically rare (a fraction of 1% of all gun violence). On an institutional level, the obsession with "assault rifles" stems from the fact that semi-automatic rifles are the standard arms of modern combat, just as muskets were when the 2nd Amendment was first put to parchment. For a runaway tyranny, tens of millions of rifles in the hands of its citizenry poses a major obstacle for further exploitation and expansion both at home and abroad.

Handguns in the most destitute parts of the United States, driven by poor education, poor economic prospects, and rampant drug crime, drive the vast majority of "gun-related homicides." Solving this problem means empowering these people with a proper education, and the means to make for themselves a viable local economy as well as acquire the skills necessary to participate socially and economically on a national level.

By addressing the root of violence, it would also empower disenfranchised people to take for themselves a larger percentage of the nation's wealth - something the current ruling elite are demonstrably not interested in. So the violence will continue for the sake of preserving the wealth and influence of corporate-financier special interests, while attempts to disarm the public will be made to allow for that wealth and influence to be expanded further yet at our expense.

End the Debate Through Organization and Deterrence

1. Address the Real Cause of Violence: Looking over the UN's statistics and then studying the multitude of factors in each country driving total homicide rates can give us a glimpse into both the cause of violence and real solutions for reducing violence. Cherry picking weapon-related homicides to suit one's political proclivities at the expense of ignoring systemic violence is not only intellectually and morally depraved, but negligent as well.

The most violence-stricken nations - nations like Honduras, El Salvador, Ivory Coast, Guatemala, Mexico, South Africa, Sudan, Colombia, Puerto Rico - suffer from tremendous socioeconomic disparity, a lack of education, political turmoil, rampant drug gangs, and even low intensity civil wars and proxy invasions fueled by Fortune 500 exploitation.

Guns did not create these conditions - guns are not even manifestations of the turmoil spurring on the violence, rather the abuse of firearms are - the runaway fever of a bacterial infection. Treating a fever alone will not cure a serious infection - and to ignore the infection and myopically fixate on the fever alone will cost the patient their life.

Conversely, education, socioeconomic development, technological progress and the leveraging of technology to empower the downtrodden, impoverished, and violence prone, are the antibiotics used to battle and ultimately cure the infection.

The body's ability to induce a fever is a natural defense against infection - as an armed population is a natural defense against armed gangs, despotic governments, and foreign invaders. The fever is only dangerous if left unattended and if chronic infection beyond the fever's ability to suppress it sets in. Disarming a population is analogous of disarming the body of its natural defenses, an immunodeficiency which turns routine sickness into life-threatening conditions.Mexico's decision to disarm law abiding citizens across its nation has left millions defenseless in the face of drug gangs who have no intention of honoring Mexico's gun control laws - the result is horrific violence that threatens the very survival of Mexico as a nation.

Commit to addressing all violence - not just "gun related" crime, and force the "gun control" advocates to both recognize the true cause of crime and commit to facing it. Will an honest individual argue against stopping all murder as opposed to only "gun-related homicide?" Will an honest individual argue against improving education and socioeconomic prospects for poverty-stricken, violent segments of the population? Will an honest person look at the inner-cities of America and honestly say simply banning guns will cause rainbows to shine and progress to finally be made toward lifting people out of socioeconomic stagnation? Do honest individuals or media personalities only cry to "ban guns" on the rare occasion suburban children are killed, when people in the inner-city face death on a daily basis? An honest person would not.

2. Get Organized Locally: It is clear that the "gun control" agenda peddled by the US government and the global corporate-financier interests that direct its policies, is aimed at subjugating civilization. This is the same government that willfully lied to the American people regarding "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq to trigger a decade-long war that cost a million innocent Iraqis their lives, along with thousands of US troops sent off to hunt the non-existent weapons and fight terrorists funded and armed by America's own allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. A government interested in stemming violence and protecting innocent life, they are not.

Trying to debate a criminal who only debates as a means of stalling for time and obfuscating his ceaseless efforts to exploit, dominate, and destroy all around him, is an exercise in futility. There is no debating or negotiating with a criminal, nor with an illegitimate, criminal government. The interests of Wall Street and London driving American and European politics will not be "convinced" to end their assault on human freedom through clever debate.

When confronting a belligerent adversary, the first priority should be avoiding conflict - be it rhetorical and political, or upon the battlefield. This is not a tenet of pacifism - but rather a stratagem devised by renowned Chinese warlord, Sun Tzu in his treatise, The Art of War:

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

The idea is to pose a level of martial, economic, and social prowess, vigilance, and preparedness - denying your adversary even the opportunity of feasibly confronting you. It also involves imposing your will upon the adversary, rather than simply responding to a series of your adversary's provocations. It cannot be said of America's firearms owners that they possess any of these qualities - which is why their rights and freedoms are being slowly subverted, and the battle slowly taken from them.

Getting organized locally, first as a shooting club, then as community activists involved heavily with local law enforcement, volunteer firefighters, disaster response, gun safety and marksmanship courses, competitions, and so on creates a physical infrastructure, a coordinated, active and well exercised armed citizenry capable of facing a myriad of adversity together as a community, for their community.

For each county in the United States to have such an organization, guided by American values as documented in the US Declaration of Independence and US Constitution, would collectively create a deterrence that would shut down the "gun debate" before it even started. Banning guns would be as feasible as banning gravity.

Such an organization being present and prepared for natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, would be able to maintain law and order in a personal, local way - a way federal agents, troops and mass-murdering Blackwater mercenaries could not compete against. Such an organization would have immediately went into action, and FEMA would have been left at a roadblock outside New Orleans, barred from meddling in the affairs of a responsible, sovereign citizenry.

Getting organized is the only solution. Anything less will lead to the slow but sure, incremental erosion of our rights and ability to address our responsibilities in the manner of our own choosing. Endlessly debating professional propagandists is a necessity, but this alone will never succeed. Presenting a corrupt, tyrannical government with the organizational capacity to defend our rights both preserves these rights, and prevents conflict from even occurring in the first place. That such organizational capacities would include local law enforcement, and ideally even the National Guard, would take organized force out of the hands of special interest, and put them back in the hands of the people for whom they were formed to defend in the first place.

Getting organized locally can be as simple as two people gathering around a table for a preliminary meeting, going to the range to responsibly exercise their rights as firearms owners, or organizing a firearms safety course through local law enforcement. It seems like a small step to take, one that will not make much of a difference, but a single viable model can provide an example for others to replicate across the country, in parallel and to great effect. Those groups that aim on being balanced, responsible, inclusive, representative of all who live in their community, objective, and attempt to reach out to everyone, especially those who stand against the right to bear arms, will be amongst the most successful.

Additionally, such organizations must by necessity address the actual causes of violence through improving education, infrastructure, and economic prospects on a local level - as is the duty of all responsible, well-informed citizens. Having weapons is not enough if you have no means of sustaining yourself socially, economically, or logistically. Building a strong, self-reliant community, and a nation built up of such communities is the other necessary ingredient needed to sustainably preserve freedom.

The first county that actually reduces crime by addressing its causes rather than endlessly fighting its symptoms, and is able to successfully communicate that success, will have erected a mile-high brick wall for "gun control" advocates to climb over.

It is likely that even opponents of gun ownership will see activism addressing many of their own political causes, including poverty, education, and economic disparity, and realize the best option is not animosity and endless debate, but pragmatism and cooperation in the streets.

Such organizations expanding in parallel across the country will have an incremental effect on reversing the tide that has been set in motion by special interests posing as "progressives" and manipulating the minds of the well-intentioned the world over.

It was through slow, incremental regression that got America to where it is today - and it will take lots of hard, patient work to progress forward.

The corporate-financier driven mass-media - be they faux "left" and anti-gun, or faux "right" and pro-gun, are here to ensure we chase our tails endlessly in debate while the government pragmatically eliminates our ability to arm ourselves, all while the violence continues unabated. The purpose is to prevent us from stepping back, and actually doing something constructive to both protect our rights and improve the conditions our communities are suffering from. We are subconsciously preparing for a confrontation we will never win, because it is one that will be "pushed back" indefinitely until all the weapons have been banned, confiscated, or sufficiently regulated out of practical use.

Heed the words of Sun Tzu - stop holding your breath for a battle you should not want to fight in the first place, and instead, begin building locally the organizational capacity and deterrence to render moot gun control advocacy and the insidious greed of special interests that drive it.

Get organized, and end the "gun debate" forever.





-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************