----------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, go to link at bottom of this message
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. VCDL vs Petersburg Clerk in the news!
2. VCDL Bloomberg magazine giveaway a success!
3. Book Review: The Modern Survival manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse
4. Book Review: Control by Glenn Beck
5. Bob Goodlatte is dancing awfully close to the fire on gun control
6. Miller: Bloomberg, Obama and liberal media muzzled about gun crime decline
7. Tone-deaf State Department inflames gun owners' fears
8. Disarming realities: As gun sales soar, gun crimes plummet
9. Congress must respond to gun violence in U.S.
10. LTE: I'm concerned about 'safe' places, too
11. Five reasons the NRA won the recent gun control debate that have nothing to do with politics
12. LTE: Second Amendment rights have nothing to do with hunting
13. Who needs a gun in a Newport News restaurant?
14. Big omission in media coverage of 19 injured in New Orleans Mother's Day parade shooting
15. Why I want high-capacity, military-style weapons
16. Pro-2A speaker at New Jersey hearing hits home run! [Video]
17. Tables turn during home invasion when robbers put son in his dad's gun closet [Video]
18. Wisconsin woman reportedly saves husband from attacking bear
19. Piers Morgan: Say, I guess government can become tyrannical after all [Video]
20. Credit card reader companies discriminate against gun buyers and sellers
21. [MN]Police Chief asks citizens for ammo, gets 1,500 round loan amid strong response [Video]
22. Chicago murder rates for this year
23. 'To regulate, not to prohibit': Limiting the commerce power
24. Biden: Opposing senators 'have seen the Lord' on gun control
25. Obama, Democrats misfire on guns
26. Dems offer gun control bill inspired by latest James Bond movie 'Skyfall'
27. Sen. Boxer: More guns at campsites create 'national security threat'
28. Community service ordered for father who mistakenly brought gun to daughter's school
29. Randolph Elementary School put on brief lockdown
30. Report raises concern about Glock handguns [Video]
**************************************************
1. VCDL vs Petersburg Clerk in the news!
**************************************************
EM John Wilburn sent me this:
From the valawyersweekly.com: http://tinyurl.com/ot8swqd
Clerkâs handgun permit policy challenged
May 23rd, 2013
The clerk of the Petersburg Circuit Court is being taken to court over her procedures for renewing concealed weapons permits.
A member of a Virginia gun rights group has asked the Supreme Court of Virginia to order clerk Shalva J. Braxton to process pistol permit renewals by mail.
Michael McNeill of Petersburg filed a petition for a writ of mandamus May 16 asking the high court to compel Braxton to accept and process his handgun permit application.
The sticking point is the state requirement for a police background check on renewal applicants. Braxtonâs office allegedly required McNeill to go in person to the city police department to get the background check and fingerprints.
A Petersburg ordinance appears to require applicants to be fingerprinted, without any exception for those seeking renewal of an existing permit.
McNeill contends Virginia law allows renewal applicants to apply by mail and requires the clerk to do the legwork for getting a criminal background check from the police department. The Petersburg ordinance should be considered void, McNeill argued.
McNeill is a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League which advocates for citizensâ rights to keep and bear arms. He is represented by Fairfax lawyer Richard E. Gardiner.
A request for comment from Braxton was not immediately returned.
--
Board member Dale Welch sent me this:
From the progress-index.com: http://tinyurl.com/p75vqzg
Gun rights group challenging Petersburg court clerk
By Patrick Kane (Staff Writer)
Published: May 24, 2013
RICHMOND - A gun rights group is asking the Supreme Court of Virginia to step in after they say concealed weapon permits are not being processed correctly in Petersburg.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League is assisting a city resident in filings against Clerk of Circuit Court Shalva Braxton, who says her procedures follow the law.
A member of the organization, Michael McNeill, notified leaders after he was told to apply in person, rather than in the mail, and to deliver separate checks to the police department and clerk of circuit court. Philip Van Cleave, president of the VCDL, says that procedure doesn't follow the Code of Virginia. He says the Virginia law is that one check is given to the clerk of circuit court, who then consults law enforcement for a background check on the applicant.
"The total amount assessed for processing an application for a permit shall not exceed $50, with such fees to be paid in one sum to the person who receives the application," reads the Code of Virginia 18.2-308.
"It's gotta bother everybody when somebody in a position like the clerk is not following the law," Van Cleave said Wednesday.
"I am not breaking the law, and it's clear to me in the code section," Braxton said Thursday. "Everyone does what the law requires them to do. When codes are put in place, we have to have some kind of procedure to follow it which best suits the public."
"We have not had a situation like this before," said Braxton, who has held the position for 25 years. The clerk of court is a constitutional officer who is elected every eight years.
The VCDL decided to cover the costs of petitioning the Supreme Court of Virginia for a writ of mandamus, a judicial remedy from the court to a government official, after attempting to reach a solution with Braxton.
"We'd never had to do it. She's bound and determined she's right, and there's no way," Van Cleave said.
The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over matters with lower courts. Online court records indicate that the writ was filed by Neill and attorney Richard Ernest Gardiner on May 16.
"She's going to be doing this to other people. This is a problem we need to solve," Van Cleave said.
**************************************************
2. VCDL Bloomberg magazine giveaway a success!
**************************************************
We had a nice sized turnout for Thursday's Bloomberg Magazine and Ammo Giveaway. We gave away an AR-15 magazine and an AK-47 magazine, .22 LR, 9 MM, .223 Rem., and 7.62x39 ammunition, some laser bore sighters, a large bottle of Mountain Dew soda (just because NYC Mayor Bloomberg is trying to force
limitations on that, too), a pistol grip for an AR-15 (a donation by a member at the meeting), and a very concealable pistol with a 15-shot capacity! Yes - quite a water pistol!
The magazines were donated by EM Patricia Webb, owner of:
Gadsden Guns
19394 Beaverdam Road
Beaverdam, VA 23015
(804) 449-0091
**************************************************
3. Book Review: The Modern Survival manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse
**************************************************
"The Modern Survival manual: Surviving the Economic Collapse"
by Fernando Aguirre,(C) 2009
A book review by Dave Knight
This is a well-written, concise, yet detailed and easy to read account
of the real life trials and tribulations of someone caught in the 2001
economic collapse in Argentina; a case study of what works, and what
doesn't work, in a world "after the SHTF" (his terminology).
Written in 2008, about 7 years after the 2001 collapse, the author
recounts his experiences with social chaos, hyper-inflation, banks, fiat
currency exchange rates, precious metals as "money", barter, food, water,
vehicles, guns & personal protection skills, street & government thuggery,
types of survivalists, self-sufficiency, and many other salient topics.
While numerous "prepper" publications purport to address these matters,
none that I've read are written with the authority of personal experience
enduring a real-life, total collapse of society and government.
Reading this book has helped improve my understanding of the challenges
we may soon face, prompted me to change some of my self-sufficiency
strategies, solidified a number of others, and made me a little more
optimistic. On the other hand, numerous situations detailed therein
seem eerily prescient of much that is happening right now in the US;
as if an "economic collapse" has already happened!
The epilogue states in part: "I hope I created in you a need for greater
independence and self-reliance. Not running to the hills and having
a cabin roofed with solar panels, but the realistic self-reliance
a free-spirited person can achieve. Not escaping from society, but
understanding how society works in troubled times. I hope you'll prepare
better, distrust, bankers a bit more, and if you ever have to, strike a bit
harder ... take the training I wrote about ... you'll have a good time,
and live a more enjoyable life."
At a time when (according to a recent Fox News survey) 42% of Americans
are unaware that Obamacare is law, I encourage all those who are paying
attention to read this book ASAP!
**************************************************
4. Book Review: Control by Glenn Beck
**************************************************
I just finished reading a brand new book by Glen Beck titled "Control (exposing the truth about guns)."
This is an excellent book for those who want a reference loaded with information debunking the false statistics presented by the "controllers," as Beck calls them. (Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.)
The Table of Contents for the book is broken into the various anti-gun cliches we hear frequently, such as:
* "Guns are lethal"
* "No one wants to take your gun away"
* "But other countries have strict gun control and few murders"
* "No civilian needs a military-style weapon"
So you look up the cliche and go to that page for rebuttal information.
The book has its share of very useful statistics and charts that you can use to debunk the controller's lies and distortions.
It also has a section on the effect that today's very graphic violent games have on their players.
The relationship between mass murders and violent games and movies is something pooh-poohed by the media and Hollywood, but I was shocked to read how these violent games are played. For example, there is a very popular game where you get points each time you kill a police officer or where you get your money back by murdering a prostitute after having sex with her (all of which is extremely graphic in both imagery and sound).
That's just the tip of the iceberg. So many of the mass shooters were addicted to violent games or read violent books, such as Stephen King's "Rage" (about a kid who commits a school shooting) - found in the backpack of a school shooter.
I highly recommend this book and will see if we can have them for sale at the VCDL gun show tables.
**************************************************
5. Bob Goodlatte is dancing awfully close to the fire on gun control
**************************************************
I am withholding criticism of Congressman Bob Goodlatte (6th District) as I haven't seen any of the proposed legislation mentioned below. I will say that the safest thing for him to do is to simply walk away from all gun control.
Dave Briggman sent me this:
--
From The Hill: http://tinyurl.com/d3nlkb4
By Molly K. Hooper
May 13, 2013
House Republicans are not ruling out passing gun legislation this year, according to a key GOP lawmaker.
The collapse of gun control in the Senate last month led many on and off Capitol Hill to believe the issue would not be revived in this Congress.
But House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) told The Hill on Friday that he's had "a lot of discussions" with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on guns. Goodlatte suggested the Speaker is more involved in the behind-the-scenes wrangling of how to move a gun bill than the Ohio Republican has let on in public.
"We are trying to improve the system to keep people who are barred under the law from owning firearms, from getting access to them. We don't think the things that were proposed in the Senate do that. So we have not backed away from trying to figure out how to improve that, but we've made no decisions yet about what to do," Goodlatte explained.
Goodlatte, serving his first year as the head of the Judiciary panel, pointed out that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System needs to be reauthorized before year's end. The reauthorization could be the vehicle through which the GOP tackles the highly charged issue. Goodlatte, who has an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA), said earlier this year he wants to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) believes the House will deal with guns this year as well. But the top-ranking Democrat favors the background check bill crafted by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). A House companion bill authored by Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) has 159 co-sponsors.
Pelosi said the high number of co-sponsors, only three of which are GOP lawmakers is "remarkable" because many Democrats in her caucus want a bill that includes an assault weapon ban.
She said Thursday that "some have said in both parties, 'I will vote for [Manchin-Toomey]. I don't want to be a co-sponsor.' But to get 160 on a bill that has all the outside mobilization coming down so strongly from the NRA and Gun Owners of America and the rest, it is pretty remarkable."
Goodlatte will not be moving the Manchin-Toomey bill through his panel. He said a 2010 study showed that U.S. Attorney's offices did not prosecute thousands of background check offenses that were committed by individuals buying a gun who lied about being in jail or being committed to a mental institution.
Since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., last December, Boehner has repeatedly said the Senate would act first on gun reform legislation. The top-ranking House Republican has also told his conference that the GOP needed to have a "conversation" on guns.
Rank-and-file conservatives in the House have said any gun bill that hits the floor must have the support of the majority of the GOP Conference.
But it remains to be seen whether the House will tackle a significant gun bill, especially now that gun control supporters suffered such a stinging defeat last month.
Gun control activists are hopeful that Manchin-Toomey can be tweaked and attract 60 votes. They note the approval ratings of some GOP senators who voted against Manchin-Toomey, including Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), have taken a nosedive since the amendment was defeated.
**************************************************
7. MILLER: Bloomberg, Obama and liberal media muzzled about gun crime decline
**************************************************
Crime committed with guns has been dropping as gun sales are soaring, so (shhhhh) the controllers are laying low right now. This is NOT fitting in well with their view of the world.
From The Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/bllnzan
By Emily Miller
May 9, 2013
New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has not made a peep about gun control since news came out that firearms-related deaths were way down. President Obama has ignored it and continued to pursue more gun-control laws. Their reaction shows how this news screws up their agenda to keep the decline in gun-related homicides a secret from Americans so that they can pass restrictions on the Second Amendment.
The Justice Department released a study Tuesday that showed firearm-related homicides in the U.S. annually declined 39 percent from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011. Nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69 percent from 1.5 million to 467,300 in that time frame.
Mr. Bloomberg, who is usually very vocal on any gun-related news, fell mute. Neither he, nor his usually very active organization Mayors Against Illegal Guns, has said anything gun related this week. A spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg's group did not respond to a request for comment. If the news had been that a bunch of people were shot, you can be assured that Mr. Bloomberg would have been in front of the microphones.
The president has not celebrated the good news. Quite the opposite. After learning that Americans are safer now than ever from criminals with guns, Mr. Obama launched a campaign for more gun laws. He tweeted from his Barack Obama account: "This is big: @OFA volunteers are about to deliver 1.4 million signatures to Congress demanding expanded background checks for gun sales." OFA stands for Organizing for America, which is Mr. Obama's political campaign group.
Mr. Obama followed up to tell followers to watch OFA's account for "more coverage of the gun violence petition delivery to Congress." He used the hashtag #NotBackingDown. By that he means to keep pushing more restrictions on the Second Amendment. On Wednesday, he took House Democrats to dinner to plot how to pass gun-control laws.
The reason they are hiding now is because they don't want the public know that crime has gone down at the same time that gun ownership and carry permits have increased. The have Ë until now Ë been effective in hiding these facts.
On the same day that Justice released its report, Pew Research Center released a new poll that found that 56 percent of Americans believe gun crimes is higher now than 20 years ago and 26 percent thought it was the same. Only 12 percent knew that it was lower. The most dramatic decline was in the mid-1999s, but has steadily decreased since. The survey showed the public wasn't that much more knowledgeable on recent crime data. Asked about trends in firearms crimes "in recent years," 45 percent thought the number had gone up, 39 percent thought it was the same. Just 10 percent were correct that it has gone down 13 percent in the most recent five years.
David Keene, who just stepped down this week after a two-year term as NRA president, called it "amazing" that, despite the evidence, the public continues to believes homicide rates are increasing.
"Lincoln said you can't fool all the people all the time," Mr. Keene told me Thursday. "But Obama, his friends and their allies in the media are counting on a phony narrative to fool people long enough to force through their 'solutions' to 'an epidemic of violence' that simply doesn't exist."
The media is largely to blame for this misconception. The old saying about TV news Ë "If it bleeds, it leads" Ë explains the hyper-coverage of any gun-related death compared to other news events. The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December was horrific because the victims were innocent school children, but it was a very rare event and not a sign of an increased in mass shootings. Nevertheless, the media went wall-to-wall coverage for weeks and Mr. Obama and his money man, Mr. Bloomberg, used the terrible crime to launch his second-term agenda for an "assault weapon" ban.
There is also an anti-gun bias in the mainstream media. While those of us who cover Second Amendment issues know that homicide by firearm has decreased steadily from looking at the FBI's annual data, most don't take the time to do that. It took a study specifically putting that data together combined with a new poll on the topic to get even print media to report it. The evening news shows ignored the news.
The gun grabbers use scare tactics to push their agenda. The American people should know that they are safer now than ever and have fellow gun owners to thank for that.
**************************************************
7. Tone-deaf State Department inflames gun owners' fears
**************************************************
Jim Durso sent me this:
--
It reminds me of the expression, "The State Department understands the politics of every country except America."
From The American Interest: http://tinyurl.com/bnvpc2n
By Walter Russell Mead
May 10, 2013
Last weekend we wrote about the first fully 3-D printed gun, noting that it pointed to a whole generation of up-and-coming tech that will disrupt existing industries and challenge economic and political monopolies. Now it appears that the State Department has ordered Defense Distributed, which designed the gun, to take all traces of the gun's blueprint off the internet.
Forbes:
On Thursday, Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson received a letter from the State Department Office of Defense Trade Controls Compliance demanding that he take down the online blueprints for the 3D-printable "Liberator" handgun that his group released Monday, along with nine other 3D-printable firearms components hosted on the group's website Defcad.org. The government says it wants to review the files for compliance with arms export control laws known as the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR. By uploading the weapons files to the Internet and allowing them to be downloaded abroad, the letter implies Wilson's high-tech gun group may have violated those export controls.
This directive will set off huge waves of paranoia out there in Gunlandia, raising all sorts of anxious questions in gun owners' minds. Why is the State Department involved here? Is this some kind of crypto UN-Bilderberger plot to disarm the American people or prevent them from accessing information? If it gets wide enough play, the domestic opposition to arms trade treaties will go into overdrive. Overall, it's an excellent example of the way a failure to understand the internal dynamics of American politics can leave Foggy Bottom out in the cold.
**************************************************
8. Disarming realities: As gun sales soar, gun crimes plummet
**************************************************
From Forbes: http://tinyurl.com/b55pvoq
By Larry Bell
May 14, 2013
A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters' worst nightmare...more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center.
According to DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s.
And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show "loopholes" responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source.
While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates.
The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. More than 8 in 10 gun homicide victims in 2010 were men and boys. Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population.
Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is "strikingly down" from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were "equal to those not seen since the early 1960s." Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn't know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower.
The Pew survey found that while women and elderly were actually less likely to become crime victims, they were more likely to believe gun crime had increased in recent years. On the other hand, men, who were more likely to become victims, were more likely know that the gun rate had dropped.
Those gun crime rates certainly aren't diminishing for lack of supply...at least not for law-abiding legal buyers. Last December, the FBI recorded a record number of 2.78 million background checks for purchases that month, surpassing a 2.01 million mark set the month before by about 39 percent. That December 2012 figure, in turn, was up 49 percent from a previous record on that month the year before. FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record, and an increase of 19 percent over 2011.
Firearms sellers can thank the gun-control legislation lobbies for much of this business windfall. Marked demand increases have been witnessed over the past five years thanks to the 2008 and 2012 elections of U.S. history's most successful, if unintentional, gun salesman as president. The firearms market got a huge added boost after the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut activated a renewed legislative frenzy.
If that gun-purchasing fervor has abated with the defeat of several congressional regulation proposals, as I'm sure it has, you surely wouldn't have known it by witnessing the overwhelmingly enormous annual NRA convention in Houston earlier this month. Attendance was estimated to be more than 70,000 people from all over the country.
Those attendees weren't all guys either...not by a long shot. Last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reported that participation by women increased both in target shooting (46.5%) and hunting (36.6%) over the past decade. Also, 61% of firearm retailers responding to a NSSF survey reported an increase in female customers. A 2009 NSSF survey indicated that the number of women purchasing guns for personal defense increased a whopping 83 percent.
Is John Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime" right? Does the rapid growth of gun ownership and armed citizens have anything to do with a diminishing gun violence trend? His expansive research concludes that state "shall issue" laws which allow citizens to carry concealed weapons do produce a steady decrease in violent crime. He explains that this is logical because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed target, so as more citizens arm themselves, danger to the criminals increases.
Whether or not you buy that reasoning, and it does make sense to me, what about the notion that tougher gun laws have or would make any difference? With the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw homicides jump to 513 in 2012, a 15% hike in a single year. The city's murder rate is 15.65 per 100,000 people, compared with 4.5 for the Midwest, and 5.6 for Illinois.
Up to 80 percent of Chicago murders and non-fatal shootings are gang- related, primarily young black and Hispanic men killed by other black and Hispanic men. Would tightening gun laws even more, or "requiring" background checks, change these conditions?
Gwainevere Catchings Hess, president of the Black Women's Agenda (BWA), Inc., an organization that strongly advocates strict gun-control legislation, rightly points out that "In 2009, black males ages 15-19 were eight times as likely as white males the same age, and 2.5 times as likely as their Hispanic peers to be killed in a gun homicide."
Those are terrible statistics, but here are some others. Today, 72% of black children are born out of wedlock, as are 53% of Hispanic children and 36% of white children. Back in 1965, 25% of black children were born out of wedlock, nearly one-third fewer. As a result, promiscuous rappers, prosperous dope peddlers and street gang leaders are becoming ever more influential role models. It's probably no big stretch of imagination to correlate such grossly disproportionate crime and victimization rates with comparably staggering rates of single-parent families, those without fathers in particular.
Yet in the general population, and although the agenda-driven media hasn't noticed, we can be grateful that gun violence has been trending downward since 1993 when it hit its last peak. Don't want to credit a rise in gun ownership and concealed carry by law-abiding citizens for this good news? Fine. But then, don't imagine that gun legislation is the reason or answer either. Leave that illusion to gun-control cheerleaders in the media.
**************************************************
9. Congress must respond to gun violence in U.S.
**************************************************
Actually Congress does NOT need to respond to the declining violence where guns are used. Representative Richmond might want to read item #8, above.
Dave Hicks sent me this:
--
From politic365.com: http://tinyurl.com/c55k8qj
By Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA)
May 12, 2013
In 1651, political theorist Thomas Hobbes wrote that life in a nation without reasonable governance and regulation would be "nasty, brutish and short."
He was the first person to articulate the democratic concept of the social contract in which citizens in a society cede some small measure of absolute freedom in return for a servant government that protects their interests in a complex and at times dangerous world. As Americans, we deplore the potential of ceding our hard-won freedoms to any entity, man or state. Yet, all Americans have ceded some of their freedoms in the interests of public safety.
By driving on our roads, subject to their rules, we forgo the right to recklessly operate our cars and possibly injure others. By boarding a plane, we give up the right to smoke cigarettes and stand up during take-offs. Furthermore, before we can even approach the gate, we give the Transportation Security Administration the right to search our person and possessions. We suffer these discomforts for the greater good. Efforts in Congress to address the horrific level of gun violence in this country reflect common-sense principles such as these. We can live in a free society and still possess guns for protection and sport without having access to every conceivable high-capacity magazine. We are still a free people if we agree to reasonable background checks before acquiring a weapon. We are still free to pursue our dreams if we agree to reasonable rules that will keep guns out of the hands of criminal organizations.
The naysayers argue that we should not try to regulate guns because the effort will be fruitless to prevent violence. I agree. Nothing we do will eradicate violence in this country or prevent an unbalanced individual from engaging in hateful and tragic behavior. But if we try something, we can make a difference. If we try nothing and shrug our shoulders, I am positive that more innocent daughters, sons, sisters and brothers will die. I know I can't look into the eyes of a family that lost a child to a stray bullet and tell them that nothing can be done.
According to FBI data, 1,464 people were killed by firearms in New Orleans between 2008-2011. That's 1,464 families who will never see their loved ones again. If we were to have passed the entirety of President Obama's proposed reforms, sadly, many of those victims would probably have still been killed because violence is a pervasive and complex problem with a diverse set of causes. Economic insecurity, poor mental health treatment options, inferior education options and the scarcity of positive opportunities are all contributors, which one regulation alone cannot eliminate. That being said, if we only acted on just a few of the president's proposals, we could decrease the supply of guns used in the homicides by reducing the supply of illegally purchased guns via universal background checks. This would decrease the use of guns in violent crime and keep a few more families from having to bury a loved one.
While I was serving as a member of the Louisiana House of Representatives, I introduced an assault weapons ban bill on numerous occasions. I took on the National Rifle Association in these battles not because I have a grudge against gun owners, but because I could find no reasonable defense of having these weapons of mass destruction on our streets. As a resident of Sportsman's Paradise, I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment.
However, I do not ascribe to the belief that Congress has no role in responding to the gun violence epidemic plaguing communities like New Orleans, Chicago and Detroit.
I support the Democratic Gun Violence Prevention Task Force principles for reducing gun violence because they would make our cities safer than they are today. Even incremental progress in this area would mean a few less heartbroken families. I don't want to see another Hadiya Pendleton fall victim to our selfish efforts to preserve what obviously needs to change. We must listen to the 362-year-old wisdom of Hobbes so as to avoid perpetuating a dysfunctional system that sentences our innocent youth to an existence that is "nasty, brutish and short."
**************************************************
10. LTE: I'm concerned about 'safe' places, too
**************************************************
Board member Bruce Jackson sent me this LTE he had published:
--
From Fredericksburg.com: http://tinyurl.com/aq4mfqo
May 13, 2013
I'm concerned about 'safe' places, too
I am saddened that George D. Paxson was more focused on the power of my holstered firearm than he was on my words ["Are guns at public meetings necessary?" April 25].
I do not feel it necessary to justify my actions to anyone, but I would like it understood that my firearm does not afford me the ability to go into unsafe places. My firearm affords me the ability to defend myself if the safe place I am in becomes unsafe.
Anyone who does not understand that should take my firearm safety class.
Bruce Jackson
Stafford
**************************************************
11. Five reasons the NRA won the recent gun control debate that have nothing to do with politics
**************************************************
Dean Marky sent me this:
--
From Forbes: http://tinyurl.com/a45nscd
By Amy Showalter
May 16, 2013
No matter one's position on gun control, there are lessons we can learn from the recent battle on background checks. According to Gallup, Over 90% of the public supports background checks for all gun purchases, yet the measure failed to pass the U.S. Senate.
According to most published sources, the reason is simple: the NRA has tons of money and threatened to "primary" those who voted against their will in the next election. If only it were that simple. As my colleague Dr. Kelton Rhoads, reminds us: "People are generally unable to distinguish a successful tactic in a failed campaign, or a failed tactic in a winning campaign. People over generalize, and assume any tactic used in a failed campaign is a bad one. Whereas a successful campaign blesses every tactic used."
I'm going to share with you 5 reasons why the NRA won, and they have nothing to do with the often reported reasons like their PAC funds, their ability to turn out pro-gun voters in every legislative district, and the abundance of their skilled in-house and external lobbyists, although those are all true.
They simply execute the basics extremely well. As NRA volunteer Robert in Arizona told his fellow members about the basics, "Thanks for emailing your U.S. Senator, but you have to also write a letter or send a hand written postcard. No one ever tripped on a bag of email." The good news is the tactics the NRA employed that no one is talking about are things that you can implement in your next persuasion battle. In addition, there were some mistakes made by gun control advocates that unwittingly aided the NRA.
1. Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership
As an NRA leader who's worked there for over two decades told me, "I think our volunteers' passion and intensity cannot be matched. You can't pull a switch; your grassroots has to have sustainability and you have to train people. We might be happy with a recent legislative victory, but we examine why we won, we evaluate what we need to do better, and get our volunteers geared up for the next battle." But how do they foster that culture, that fervor?
When we look at the grassroots effectiveness of the NRA, a big part of it has do with their volunteer leadership. According to one of my annual grassroots conference faculty members, Dr. Brad Sagarin of Northern Illinois University, there are two kinds of leadership styles: transactional and transformational. "Transactional leadership rewards people for accomplishing goals, and interventions typically occur when problems arise. Transformational leadership, on the other hand, motivates followers through appeals to ideals and values, and instills volunteers with their leader's vision and direction." From what I have seen over two decades of researching grassroots best practices, the NRA (and many unions) practice transformational leadership.
One of their long-time volunteer organizers told me, "At NRA, we believe in true grassroots. We don't think that volunteers are 'customers.' These people are our friends. I've been in their homes, I've met their children, I've sat at their kitchen table, I've met their grandchildren. In addition, we on staff do all the things that we ask volunteers to do. We walk neighborhoods and pass out literature, we get on the phones, we raise money, we volunteer for campaigns. We consider ourselves peers with our volunteers." Remember, this is an "inside the beltway" professional speaking-trust me, it's very atypical.
At an annual conference I sponsor for political involvement professionals, I was reading some of the materials that attendees brought to share with their colleagues. One was a regional NRA newsletter. There was the typical legislative update and election news, but there also was a full page dedicated to volunteers in this particular region. In fact, the staff member took the time to mention each volunteer by name, mentioned the activities and events they attended together during his recent trip to the region (many of which had nothing to do with the NRA), described much fun he had with these people, what good friends they were, etc. I had never before or since seen that kind of personal recognition of volunteers. There is a core of collegiality that is unmatched in many grassroots organizations.
The Bottom Line: What is your ratio of transactional vs. transformational leadership behaviors? Share your vision and give your volunteers meaningful responsibilities.
2. Superior Grassroots Volunteer Quality
Several years ago, National Journal conducted one of their "insider" informal polls, where they asked D.C. insiders and congressional staff to name the most effective lobbying groups. The NRA of course made the list (along with the Heritage Foundation, The Credit Union National Association, AARP, The Teamsters, The American Israel Political Action Committee, and others). What was revealing were the reasons why these groups were effective. The answers included: "foot power and financial power," "their allies respect them, their opponents fear them," and what I think is the most telling: "Their constituents back home are head and shoulders above other interest groups." Having taught citizens at all income and education levels how to get powerful legislators on their side, I have seen the good and the mediocre among sincere citizen advocates. I've never worked for the NRA, but from what I know of their volunteers and volunteer leadership, they would be in the "head and shoulders above" category.
I know from the interviews I conducted with these volunteers as well as the volunteer leadership practices of the NRA, they take great care to train, equip, and motivate their volunteers. And their volunteers are willing to show up and do the work.
I interviewed three NRA volunteers for The Underdog Edge. These were rank and file NRA members who changed the mind of a (or several) legislators. However, I could not use their stories in the book. Why? They were so much more advanced and adept at persuasion compared to the other "underdogs" I interviewed. Because I was looking for a pattern of influence behaviors practiced a majority of the ordinary people I interviewed, I could not include them in my book -- they were that unique. What did they do?
3. Volunteers Who are Intrepid in "Showing They Know"
As I reviewed their interview notes for this blog post, I came across something startling. In each and every one of the interviews, with Shaun, Mike, and David -- they exhibited the same behaviors when influencing up that none of my other interview subjects did. It's as if they had their own "code," their own methodology for advocating with lawmakers. They knew more about current gun laws, and the constitutionality of them, than the legislators and in one case the law enforcement officials they were trying to persuade (and they did persuade them, by the way).
One of them took on a committee of state senators, a majority of them who were against a proposal. He received a call from his state lobbyist about a half-hour before a major piece of legislation was to be debated in Austin. He immediately headed to the State House to testify. As he told me, "I was able to refute, point by point, 9 aspects of a proposed state law which showed it was unconstitutional and only aimed at law abiding gun owners. I could tell I was successful when I saw how angry my own representative was with me. The key is, Amy, we know the law better than the legislators." Whether you like it or not, the NRA volunteers know their stuff. They are well trained and intrepid when it comes to explaining their point of view.
As former Congressman Jim Ross Lightfoot told me when I interviewed him for The Underdog Edge, "Amy, we talk and listen to people all day. We get pretty good at telling who is truly committed and sincere and who is not."
In the recent debate on background checks, one of the NRA's top volunteers, Sean from Ohio, took the initiative to approach like-minded organizations and volunteered to speak at their upcoming meetings about the pending legislation. For two months he was giving at least three speeches per week to local groups. Two things stand out about this: 1) he is willing to give three speeches a week; 2) he knows his stuff enough to do this. I wonder how many organizations have volunteers capable and willing to do the same for their cause.
The Bottom Line: Do you equip your team to not just regurgitate talking points, but to practice intrepid advocacy for your cause? How would they do when they are challenged by someone up the food chain? Do you even trust them to carry important messages?
4. Investment in the Power of FTF
"FTF" in my world is "Face To Face," as in FTF influence. I was excoriated by some for an opinion piece I wrote for Roll Call several years ago where I stated that many interest groups are relying too much on email advocacy. Amazingly, grassroots leaders were aghast that I dare state that while a vital part of the persuasion toolbox, online advocacy is but one of many tactics, and that you have to integrate all tactics to win. Some grassroots leaders called me and said their regional staff saw the article and ranted to them about my view and how they were concerned that I indeed was correct, because all of their resources were invested in online advocacy.
Two people called me after the article was published: an AFL-CIO staffer and an NRA staffer. The AFL-CIO person told me, "Amy you are right, so many people in this town push a button and think it is real grassroots. It takes real people." This from a leader whose membership occupies less and less of the private sector workforce, yet still wields great influence. The other call was from the NRA. "Amy, I liked your article, but hey, if these groups keep doing online advocacy, that's fine with me. Let them keep doing that, because we'll keep doing what we do, and we will win."
Remember what Congressman Jim Lightfoot said-legislators are pretty good at judging the credibility and sincerity of each and every constituent lobbying for a cause. Being face to face communicates that you are willing to make an effort; it increases your sincerity quotient.
I've seen this exemplified as well with one of my pharmaceutical clients. They have a very active structure of patient networks that advocate for legislation at the state level. These groups regularly convene offline for social and education events; there is a true offline community. They expressed concern to me that other pharmaceutical companies are now trying to copy their model. However, these copycat companies are creating online-only networks. I predict that the groups that have strong online and offline interaction will prosper while those that are only online will have persuasion challenges. There's just no substitution for face-to-face interaction and the scientific literature hasn't changed to date about its power. The NRA understands this and invests in it.
The Bottom Line: Online advocacy certainly is here to stay and plays a role in moving your message. However, online advocacy is the lowest form of commitment. What are you doing to equip your team to show up offline?
5. Narrative Goes Both Ways
Many have asked why the compelling stories of families affected by gun violence, particularly the Newtown victims, didn't have more of an impact on this debate. Their stories of course had an impact; the Congress would not have considered gun legislation without them. But, as Brad Fitch of the Congressional Management Foundation wrote recently in his Roll Call article entitled "Power of the Personal Story Is Not New to Congress," "In a survey of House chiefs of staff conducted last fall, when asked how frequently personal stories are used in meetings with their member of Congress, 88 percent said somewhat or very frequently."
Stories are not new. It's the combination of the story, the context of the debate, and the political accountability of the group telling the story that can move a lawmaker. I would never counsel someone to refrain from using narrative to make a point; we are hard-wired to respond to story. But the other side has stories, too.
While it seems like the NRA is portrayed as caring only about their guns, their rights, etc., there is a great deal of concern for the rights of others - for the underdog. As I reviewed my interview notes, each one, again, had a story of an underdog, an ordinary person, who would have benefited from their position -- people they often do not know or have relationships with, so they also effectively argue for the interests of others.
Mike told me the story of a local proposal to limit the number of guns one could buy per month. A woman who purchased a gun to protect herself from her estranged husband (against whom she obtained a restraining order) was attacked by him; her gun malfunctioned, but she survived the attack. However, due to the proposed law, she would not have been able to purchase another gun because it fell within the restricted time frame.
Another member reminded a local legislator who was fighting the location of a gun range near his church that a 90 year old church member who was gunned down at a local restaurant was killed by those who illegally obtained guns, and that that issue was more important to address than the location of a practice range.
The Bottom Line: How can you advocate for others you do not represent? Remember, legislators expect you to talk about how you benefit; when you look out for others, you increase your persuasion quotient.
So, agree or disagree with the NRA, there are factors besides the "money and power" theme to to their effectiveness, but it's not as predictable or malignant as the "money and power" theme, is it?
And, like any other group, they benefited from the mistakes of their opponents. Here's a few of them for your consideration.
Rahm Emmanuel's Recruiting of Pro Gun Democrats
Something Democrats who favored the background check legislation have failed to remember (and few in the media are reporting) is that many of their colleagues were recruited to run for office precisely because they were "pro gun democrats."
That's right, back in 2006, an element of Rahm Emmanel's strategy to win back the House in 2006 was to recruit candidates who supported gun rights. There was a reason Rahm Emanuel recruited them all those years ago-he felt that they would be less threatened at the polls because of the NRA's ability to impact elections.
The Bottom Line: The philosophy and campaign platform of an elected official of any level still matters. Legislators who ran in pro-gun districts and included their support for gun rights are going to generally maintain that commitment and philosophy.
Leveraging Your Opponent's Mistakes
Michael Bloomberg has tons of money and holds himself in high regard. He has created the Mayors Against Illegal Guns Group which will impact this debate. He has already spent $12 million of his own money for advertisements against the NRA's position in key states. However, I believe it backfired in this recent debate.
His group ran ads over the last congressional recess in places like Arkansas and Arizona. Instead of winning over Arkansas and Arizona voters, it gave Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) the ability to say that "New York City didn't tell them how to vote."
Many gun safety advocates will press on and continue to run ads, which is a standard tactic and is perfectly acceptable. However, we know how just running TV ads worked for Karl Rove's Super PAC efforts to elect Mitt Romney. You've got to have several tactics at the ready and not throw money at a couple obvious tactics.
The Bottom Line: Sometimes your opponent makes a miscalculation which benefits you. Be ready and unafraid to leverage it to your advantage.
**************************************************
12. LTE: Second Amendment rights have nothing to do with hunting
**************************************************
Duncan Campbell sent me this:
--
From Fauquier.com: http://tinyurl.com/b7z68uf
May 12, 2013
I am writing in response to Dorothy Hughes' letter in the April 24 issue, "Don't forget, come Election Day."
She offers the same old rhetoric about automatic weapons not being needed for deer hunting. She is making the same mistake that only emotionally thinking people make. The Second Amendment to the Constitution has nothing to do with deer hunting.
Through history, we can see that all the greatest tyrants and mass murderers were the governments that took away the means of self-defense.
No neighbor, private citizen or company has inflicted on innocent people more bloodshed than governments in the 20th century. The one thing that all of them had in common was that they took away the citizens' means of defense, their guns.
The communist government in the USSR between 1917 and 1987 murdered almost 62 million people. Mao's communist China killed 77 million. Nazi Germany killed 21 million people. Pol Pot's communist government killed more than 2 million.
The common policy denominator of all those regimes was gun confiscation. In Hitler's case, he first had gun registration, then confiscation. No lone serial gunman can inflict that kind of carnage.
Our founding fathers knew about gun confiscation. Britain's King George tried to confiscate the guns and ammo that the colonists used to free this country. That is why they wrote into the Constitution an amendment to restrict the federal government's ability to take weapons.
It was not so we could go deer hunting. It was to enable the citizens to be able to defend the rights that are enumerated in that Constitution.
In fact, our right to bear arms enforces all other rights that are listed in the Constitution.
The means to secure our persons and our property from thugs and murderers has to be an armed people. No police officer, no security guard, no government will be able to keep you perfectly safe at all times.
As a free people, we have to take that responsibility for ourselves.
I am sympathetic with the families that have been touched by gun violence. But the only way that we can minimize this type of thing from happening is to have more law-abiding citizens carrying guns to intervene when someone tries to hurt us.
Federal involvement does nothing but put more restrictions on law-abiding citizens and too much power in the hands of government. Just remember the statistics of the killing by governments, and weigh them against the stats of individual shooters in a free country.
Governments that have taken away gun rights have killed 162 million people, contrasted to mass murder by individual shoots of 156.
I will take my chances with my gun any day.
Philip Payne
Warrenton
**************************************************
13. Who needs a gun in a Newport News restaurant?
**************************************************
Bill Watkins sent me this:
--
From The Daily Press: http://tinyurl.com/aqkdqr5
By Tyra M. Vaughn
May 16, 2013
Police: Man robbed at gunpoint inside Newport News restaurant
NEWPORT NEWS - A man was robbed at gunpoint while sitting at a bar at a Jefferson Avenue restaurant, police said.
The incident occurred shortly before 10 p.m. at the Pondo Lounge in the 5800 block of Jefferson Avenue. Police said the victim was sitting at the bar having drinks with a woman he knew when they were approached by a man.
The victim had seen the man in the bar earlier playing pool with another person before they exited the establishment through a back door, according to a Newport News Police Department news release. The man came back inside the restaurant shortly after leaving and pointed a gun at the victim and demanded the money he had on the counter.
The assailant then grabbed the money and then ran out of the front door of the restaurant, the news release.
**************************************************
14. Big omission in media coverage of 19 injured in New Orleans Mother's Day parade shooting
**************************************************
Walter Jackson sent me this:
--
From John Lott's blog: http://tinyurl.com/bohzsef
By John Lott
May 13, 2013
I have been looking at the media coverage of the shooting on Fox News, USA Today, New York Daily News, and others ignore a crucial part of the story: the shooting was likely gang warfare, most likely drug gang warfare. As the Associated Press notes: "Police say gang turf wars often are the root cause." The surprise is that these other stories often relied on the AP report, but still left out this important fact.
**************************************************
15. Why I want high-capacity, military-style weapons
**************************************************
Charlie Meyer sent me this:
--
From fff.org: http://tinyurl.com/d9tkepy
By Benedict D. LaRose
April 24, 2013
During testimony at a legislative hearing in Hartford, Connecticut, on January 28, 2013, Neil Heslin, father of a Sandy Hook victim, asked, "I ask if there's anybody in this room that can give me one reason or challenge this question: Why anybody in this room needs to have one of these assault-style weapons or military weapons or high-capacity clips.... Not one person can answer that question."
I would like to answer that question.
Because high-capacity, military-style firearms are designed for conflict, and when I need to protect myself and my freedom, I want the most reliable, durable, combat-proven, highest-capacity weapon available.
Because attempts to infringe my right to own and possess such arms makes me suspicious of the motive.
Because I distrust people in government, as they have consistently proven themselves untrustworthy, attracting people who prefer to rule rather than to govern, to be served rather than to serve.
Because any type of gun control among peaceful people is a violent act which must be resisted.
Because under the Fast & Furious program, this administration has facilitated the transfer of the same type of weapons illegally to Mexican drug dealers, and then used the violence attributed to these weapons as a pretext for more gun control.
Because it makes politicians and bureaucrats nervous and cautious, and I like nervous, cautious public servants.
Because I prefer to have those in government fear me rather than to fear them.
Because banning such weapons from civilian hands concentrates power rather than diffuses it, and concentrated power is dangerous.
Because I refuse to be a subject, and a disarmed or poorly armed populace is no longer sovereign.
Because a populace armed with the latest small arms is a credible threat to tyrannical government.
Because I may have to enforce my rights some day against an invader, criminals, or a tyrannical government.
Because only prisoners and slaves have their needs determined by government, and I'm neither.
Because I operate from rights, not privileges, and my rights are not subject to anyone's vote.
Because criminals, disturbed people, and would-be tyrants fear us only as long as they need to, and they need to only as long as we are armed with powerful-enough weapons.
Because, since no one may tell me not to publish a book for fear someone may libel another, or not to purchase a car because of possible accidents, then no one can tell me I can't own a certain type of weapon because it may be misused by someone else.
Because I want a better chance to defend myself, my loved ones, and anyone else I choose from those who would harm us.
Because I'm alarmed that civil agencies of the federal government are stockpiling an unprecedented amount of ammunition, weapons, mine-resistant armored vehicles, and bulletproof traffic-stop booths beyond any legitimate need.
Because, like insurance, it is better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.
Because I alone will determine what weapons are essential for my own defense.
Because banning or registering them is beyond the lawful authority of government.
Because I feel safer possessing them.
Because only fools limit their firepower.
Because of the ever-present potential for lawlessness following riots, as happened in Los Angeles in 1993, and natural disasters, as in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina (2005) and along the New Jersey-New York coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy (2012).
Because they are more dependable than calling 911.
Because government has often proved itself unreliable in an emergency, or dangerous, as at Ruby Ridge in 1992 and Waco in 1993.
Because unless I possess such arms, I am outgunned by Mexican drug smugglers and other gang members armed with the latest weaponry.
Because I don't know what perils the future will bring.
Because they deter criminal behavior better than anti-gun slogans, laws, signs, or lesser arms.
Because if police need such weapons to defend us, so do we as the first ones at the scene of a crime.
Because I may have to confront more than one heavily armed antagonist over an extended period of time.
Because the servant is not greater than his master, and we didn't hire the police or politicians to disarm or limit our armaments.
Because bad guys have them and will continue to get them regardless of what laws foolish or treasonous legislators pass.
Because I'm a member of the unorganized militia, and such weapons are appropriate to the militia.
Because they make up better than other weapons for my old age, infirmities, and other limitations.
Because I prefer to speak softly, but carry a big, bad gun with plenty of ammunition.
Because it makes me happy to collect, shoot, and hunt with such weapons, and I have a right to pursue my happiness to the extent of not infringing on the equal rights of others.
Because there are occasional mass shootings that require an in-kind response.
Because, like Theodore Roosevelt, I may not know how to shoot well, but I know how to shoot often.
Because I need to be as well armed as any potential attacker to have a chance at survival.
Because they give me confidence in dangerous situations.
Because such guns make a stronger statement than I can without them.
Because it's primarily my responsibility to defend myself, my loved ones, and a free government.
Because tyrants, criminals, and ignorant people don't want me to have them.
Because it's foolish to get into a fight without more ammunition and a better weapon than your opponent.
Because being stripped of the ability to defend myself adequately doesn't make me safe; it makes me vulnerable.
Because in some parts of the country, bears, mountain lions, wolves, feral hogs, and other wild animals, some of whom roam in packs, threaten people and domesticated animals, even in residential areas.
Because a few hits may not incapacitate attackers sufficiently to stop them.
Because 75 percent-80 percent of rounds fired by police in lethal-force encounters miss the intended target, and I can expect the same results under the stress of an attack.
Finally, because it's my God-given right to do so, guaranteed by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, in which no power is granted to Congress to regulate weapons; and further secured by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, with an equivalent provision in most state constitutions, purchased at a high cost and paid in full by the lives and limbs of countless Americans from 1775 to the present.
**************************************************
16. Pro-2A speaker at New Jersey hearing hits home run! [Video]
**************************************************
Mike Irvin sent me this:
--
Smart Lady! These don't make the local tv news. You can see and hear why.
From thegunwire.com: http://tinyurl.com/d4mj2fk
**************************************************
17. Tables turn during home invasion when robbers put son in his dad's gun closet [Video]
**************************************************
Ah, those stupid criminals and their antics!
Mark Shinn sent me this:
--
From Youtube: http://tinyurl.com/a7hj2dr
**************************************************
18. Wisconsin woman reportedly saves husband from attacking bear
**************************************************
It is useful to have all responsible members of your household trained in firearm usage for emergencies, like this one.
Bill Watkins sent me this:
--
From Fox News: http://tinyurl.com/c9u72x3
May 17, 2013
A Wisconsin woman saved her husband from an attacking black bear outside of their cabin by hitting the animal with a gun, authorities said.
Fox 11 reports that Gerre Ninnemann initially saw the bear running after his dog, Maddy, on Wednesday. He then went outside the Silver Cliff cabin to summon the 8-year-old yellow lab inside, but the bear chased and tackled Ninnemann, biting and clawing at his back.
"I came running out into the yard here, shouting, waving my arms at the bear, thinking that would care him away," the retired financial planner told the station. "But it didn't. All it did was leave the dog and come right for me."
Ninnemann briefly escaped and ran to the corner of the cabin, but the bear mauled him again. Ninnemann's wife, Marie, then found a shotgun in the cabin's basement, but she didn't know how to load it properly. She instead took the weapon outside the struck the bear on its head, allowing her husband to escape. The couple then backtracked into the cabin with the gun pointed at the bear.
"Now the bear is right at the front door and at the windows," Gerre Ninneman said.
The bear, which was only a year old, then continued to circle the cabin and looked into its windows. A responding deputy later shot and killed the animal with "one shot," Gerre Ninneman said.
Ninneman suffered bite marks from his waist to the back of his head and required staples to close some wounds. He was hospitalized but is expected to recover, as is the couple's dog.
The bear, meanwhile, was being checked for rabies in Madison during a necropsy to determine what may have prompted the attack, Department of Natural Resources supervisor John Huff said.
"Generally, bears avoid encounters," Huff told the station. "We're not really sure why the bear made the decision it did. It was a bad decision."
Bear attacks are extremely rare in the area. There have only been a few attacks in Wisconsin in recent decades, Huff told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Ninneman said he'll now teach his wife how to properly load and fire a shotgun.
"I owe her my life," he said.
**************************************************
19. Piers Morgan: Say, I guess government can become tyrannical after all [Video]
**************************************************
I'm glad I wasn't drinking milk over the keyboard when I read this one.
Jim Durso sent me this:
Well, I'll be damned...
--
From Hot Air: http://tinyurl.com/abhyxcc
By Ed Morrissey
May 17, 2013
Via NRO's Andrew Johnson, Joe Scarborough isn't the only TV show host rethinking his scorn of gun-rights advocates this week. Piers Morgan, who engaged in some of the worst demagoguery outside of the White House and Capitol Hill over the last six months on that issue, routinely derided the idea that the American government couldn't be trusted to abide by the law and tell the truth. Now, after watching what happened at the IRS - and to the Associated Press - the CNN host admits to Penn Jillette that maybe people had a point about creeping tyranny after all:
"I've had some of the pro-gun lobbyists on here, saying to me, 'Well, the reason we need to be armed is because of tyranny from our own government,' and I've always laughed at them," Morgan said last night. "But, actually, this is vaguely tyrannical behavior by the American government."
Guest Penn Jillette agreed with his assessment: "I think that it shows you that how much we can trust the government and just sit back, which is not very much at all."
Vaguely?
I'd guess that these scandals have put an end to any notion of reviving gun control in this session of Congress. In light of the revelations at the IRS and the Department of Justice over the last few days, which red-state Senators of either party are going to sign up to expand federal oversight of guns? Obama and his team couldn't get a gun-control bill out of the Senate, let alone the House, even with the media not just cheerleading every step of the way but conducting its own full-court press on behalf of Obama. With the media irate over the raid on the Associated Press (and asking tough questions about the IRS), I doubt that the White House is going to be able to put the band back together for a long time, if ever.
**************************************************
20. Credit card reader companies discriminate against gun buyers and sellers
**************************************************
Walter Jackson sent me this:
--
From Examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/atc4a8m
By David Codrea
May 13, 2013
[SNIP]
A change to the Square seller's agreement now forbids "payments in connection with sales of (i) firearms, firearm parts or hardware, and ammunition; or (ii) weapons and other devices designed to cause physical injury," the iOS/Android payment processing device company announced on its website last week.
"Before the change, Square was happy as a clam to be used for face-to-face firearms sales," The Truth About Guns blog noted. "But now, they don't even want to be used if all you're buying is something as innocuous as a new pair of grips for your 1911. All deals involving firearms are no longer allowed to be processed through Square."
**************************************************
21. [MN]Police Chief asks citizens for ammo, gets 1,500 round loan amid strong response [Video]
**************************************************
So many gun owners are great Americans with big hearts. I've seen it over and over. Here's another example.
Walter Jackson sent me this:
--
From cnsnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/csevl5g
By Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.
May 16, 2013
As the "Great Ammunition Shortage" continues, police departments across the country are struggling to supply their arsenals. One police chief turned to the community for help, and citizens stepped up.
In Proctor, Minnesota, police chief Walter Wobig says that his suppliers have told him he'll have to wait "months" for the 1,000 rounds he's requested.
When Wobig turned to the residents of Proctor by putting out a call for help meeting his department's ammo needs, citizens contacted his office, eager to help.
"The citizens were like, 'If you need something, we got plenty here,'" said Wobig.
One resident and a Proctor police officer loaned 1,500 rounds from their personal stockpile to the department.
The Chief says others offered to help too. "I had several other calls from other citizens that said, 'Hey, if you need more ammunition we have plenty,'" said Wobig.
The Chief says that when his ammunition order is filled, he will be repaying the citizens for their contributions.
**************************************************
22. Chicago murder rates for this year
**************************************************
Eric Kasten sent me this. He's been tracking the murder rates in the gun-control capital of the U.S. - Chicago:
--
Jan Feb Mar April
Chicago Murder Rate 43 14 15 24
Cumulative Total 43 57 72 96
For comparison, some selected tragedies from history...
2012 Sandy Hook: 26
1993 Waco: 76
1927 Bath Michigan (school bombing): 45
Thank you,
Eric Kasten
http://www.kasteneric.com/
**************************************************
23. 'To regulate, not to prohibit': Limiting the commerce power
**************************************************
Very, very interesting. This makes a great deal of sense when one looks at the purpose for the commerce clause in the Constitution.
Dave Hicks sent me this:
--
From ssrn.com: http://tinyurl.com/dxoy27g
By Barry Friedman & Genevieve Lakier
April 3, 2013
[SNIP]
Abstract:
Today it is taken for granted that Congress's power "to regulate . . . Commerce among the several States" includes the power to shut interstate markets down. That is why, for example, Congress is understood to have the power to ban the possession and use of marijuana, even though twenty states have expressed contrary preferences, either for the medicinal or recreational use of the drug. This Article argues that as a matter of constitutional history and theory both, this familiar assumption about congressional power is wrong. First, the Article demonstrates that the original understanding, which prevailed for over one hundred years, did not grant Congress the power to ban markets. Congress could pass "helper" statutes to facilitate state choices, and it could even ban particular goods (such as diseased cattle) "in service" of the interstate market; but it could not simply prohibit all commerce in products of which it disapproved.
Second, the Article demonstrates that although this understanding changed following the 1903 Supreme Court decision in Champion v. Ames, none of the reasons supporting the change justify Congress possessing the power today. Finally, this Article examines theoretical justifications for congressional power grounded in law and economics and constitutional theory to suggest that the power "to regulate" interstate commerce should not be understood to include the power to prohibit it. The argument has implications for national bans on articles and activities such as interstate gambling, drugs, raw milk products and assault weapons.
Full paper can be downloaded at the site listed above.
**************************************************
24. Biden: Opposing senators 'have seen the Lord' on gun control
**************************************************
It's Biden who seems blind to the light of truth and the coming backlash by gun owners at the polls.
From The Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/a6lyjzk
By Dave Boyer
May 10, 2013
Vice President Joseph R. Biden said in a wide-ranging magazine interview that gun-control legislation will pass eventually because several senators who voted against it are experiencing a public backlash.
"To use the vernacular, there's suddenly a lot of senators out there who have seen the Lord," Mr. Biden told Rolling Stone magazine. "You find out that the senator from New Hampshire [Republican Kelly Ayotte] is in trouble; she voted no. I can name you four senators who called me and said, "Jesus, I guess you were right maybe we can find some other way of doing this. Can we bring this back up?"
He said four senators who voted against expanded background checks of gun purchases in April have since approached him to say they've changed their minds.
In the hour-long interview, Mr. Biden also sounded like a candidate for the presidency in 2016, explaining at great length how much time he spends with President Obama on major decisions. He said he spends four or five hours each day with the president.
"It's been a really good relationship, and everybody knows that around here and around the world," Mr. Biden said. "I speak for the president because of the relationship. And the only way that works is if you're around all the time. Literally, every meeting he has, I'm in."
Some other highlights from the interview:
On Mr. Biden declaring his support for gay marriage last year before Mr. Obama did:
"I got blowback from everybody but the president. I walked in that Monday, he had a big grin on his face, he put his arms around me and said, 'Well, Joe, God love you, you say what you think.' I knew he agreed with me. It wasn't like he was in a different place."
On not taking direct military action against Syria following reports that the regime has used chemical-weapons:
"With all the credibility we've gained in the world, we don't want to blow it like the last administration did in Iraq, saying 'weapons of mass destruction.' We know that there have been traces found of what are probably chemical weapons. What we don't know yet and we're drilling down on it as hard as we can is whether they were accidentally released in an exchange of gunfire or artillery fire, or blown up or something. It's probable, but we don't know for certain, that they were used by the regime."
On his speech in which he called the accused Boston Marathon bombers "cowardly, knock-off jihadis":
"I wanted to communicate two things: first, to make it clear that there is not this sort of gigantic, coordinated network run by al Qaeda that has cells all around the country and, second, that the republic is not in jeopardy and there's no reason for us to jettison the Constitution and erect a police state in order to protect people. The moment we change, they win."
**************************************************
25. Obama, Democrats misfire on guns
**************************************************
Walter Jackson sent me this:
--
From Real Clear Politics: http://tinyurl.com/d6463vw
By Salena Zito
May 12, 2013
BELLE VERNON, Pa. -- The owner of a small gun shop here sits on a wooden stool behind a glass-topped counter filled with handguns. The only thing folks talk about when they come into this store is what Washington will do next to attack gun owners, says the man, dressed in a crisp white shirt, dark blue pants and a ballcap from a local paint store.
"The story that is not being told is how afraid folks really are," he says, refusing to have his name published. He has lived through the turbulent '60s and '70s and served in Vietnam, he says, but none of that compares to the fear he sees in today's customers.
"When you have not one, not two, but dozens of women well over 70 come in here to buy a gun, something is going wrong out there," he says. "It's not just little old white women - it's young people, white and black, affluent and struggling, who are worrying about the (government's) overreach and the need to protect themselves."
As if on cue, a middle-aged black man walks in and is greeted with a hearty handshake. The man says he came in to pick up a gun he ordered the week before.
The 65-year-old shopkeeper says everyone who walks through his door is concerned that the latest push for stricter gun laws will return to the congressional agenda, perhaps within weeks, despite his belief that Americans do not support the legislation as much as the Obama administration claims they do.
His newest customer nods in agreement.
President Obama made gun control a priority after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. After months of speeches that demonized the National Rifle Association, the gun bill failed in the U.S. Senate last month.
Obama called that defeat "a pretty shameful day for Washington." Yet the overwhelming public outrage that he anticipated simply never materialized.
A poll released by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center one week later showed only 47 percent of respondents were "disappointed" that the Senate failed to advance a bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales.
Part of the problem is how the bill was pushed by Obama and his political arm, Organizing for America: People who own guns were condemned in shrill, strident terms that puzzled people who own guns, and even those who don't.
One of the bill's sponsors, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., insists he hasn't given up; he does near-daily cable news interviews, hoping to bring a gun bill back up for a vote.
And Michael Bloomberg, New York's billionaire mayor, is dumping money into Pennsylvania for a television ad pressing folks to "demand" that their legislators support such a bill.
Yet, last week, when Bloomberg's Mayors Against Guns organization held a rally in Beaver County, fewer than 20 people attended; most were organizers of the event.
It's not unusual for members of Congress to misread public opinion, either from personal bias or a simple cultural lag. Obama and the Senate's majority Democrats clearly did on this issue, for both of those reasons.
Among history's more spectacular examples of this phenomenon was the repeal of Prohibition, according to historian David Pietrusza.
"The 'driest' Congress ever was elected very late in the game, in 1928," he recalled, "but within two years, the tide had turned dramatically ... by November 1932, 98 'dry' House members and seven 'dry' senators met defeat."
Christopher Kelley, a Miami University of Ohio political scientist, theorized that it is in Republicans' interest to keep the gun issue alive for its potential value as a wedge issue in 2014 "and maybe even 2016."
The gun shop's door opens to another customer, filling the air with the blare of an oncoming freight train's sequenced horn - long, long, short, long blasts, warning motorists of a train crossing Belle Vernon's Main Street, a few blocks away.
Customers come and go from different walks of life, different ages, different genders, different ethnicities - a virtual social melting pot passing through one small gun shop, all echoing the same concern: fear that their way of life will be under attack again, and soon.
**************************************************
26. Dems offer gun control bill inspired by latest James Bond movie 'Skyfall'
**************************************************
Let's see if the police and military want to adopt such technology. I'll bet they don't!
Jim Durso sent me this:
--
From The Hill: http://tinyurl.com/cd37ejr
By Pete Kasperowicz
May 16, 2013
A House Democrat inspired by the last James Bond movie has offered legislation to produce handguns with "personalization technology."
The idea is to produce guns that can only be used by the gun's owners. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) cited the latest James Bond movie, "Skyfall," as inspiration for the bill.
"In the most recent James Bond film, Bond escapes death when his handgun, which is equipped with technology that recognizes him as its owner, becomes inoperable when it gets into the wrong hands," Tierney's office said in a statement introducing the bill. "This technology, however, isn't just for the movies it's a reality."
Tierney said his Personalized Handgun Safety Act, H.R. 2005, would help prevent accidental deaths, like the case in New Jersey last month when a six-year old accidentally shot and killed a four-year-old child.
"Accidents like this are not as rare as we want to believe, and they are preventable. Whether a gun owner or not, a NRA member or not, we should be able to agree on gun safety measures that will make our families and communities safer. This technology needs to be put into action."
Under his bill, guns made in the United States would have to be built with this technology two years after the bill becomes law. Older guns being sold by a business or individual would have to be retrofitted with this technology after three years.
The bill says the cost of retrofitting these older guns would be paid out of the Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Fund, where confiscated assets from criminal investigations are placed.
Gunmakers who do not comply with these requirements could be held if they don't meet the new federal standards, which would be developed by the Consumer Protect Safety Commission.
Tierney's bill is supported by the Children's Defense Fund Action Council, and is co-sponsored by 13 House Democrats, including five other Massachusetts Democrats.
In 'Skyfall,' a villain picks up Bond's gun and tries to use it against him. It fails, however, and Bond then watches as the villain is eaten by a Komodo dragon. Bond then retrieves his gun.
**************************************************
27. Sen. Boxer: More guns at campsites create 'national security threat'
**************************************************
More total baloney. Is there nothing Senator Boxer won't say, or any tale too tall she won't tell, in order to get more gun control passed?
From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/a425wuc
By AWR Hawkins
May 16, 2013
On May 15, the Senate rejected a bill to loosen firearm regulations on campsites and other lands managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) opposed the bill, claiming that allowing more guns would set "up a national security threat" that "endangers people."
The bill, sponsored by by Senator Tom Corburn (R-OK), garnered 56 votes--just four shy of the 60 needed to pass.
It would have loosened firearms restrictions on "12 million acres that abound in lakes, rivers, campsites, and hiking trails."
Currently, guns are allowed in these areas for hunting and target shooting, but the guns have to be unloaded while in transport to these activities. Corbun's bill would have allowed guns on such lands for "any legal purpose."
According to Fox News, Boxer said allowing more guns on Corps property "would increase danger to dams, flood control systems, and other crucial water projects." She added, "This critical infrastructure is a target for terrorists," and loosening firearm restrictions on it "sets up a national security threat."
Corburn said he will keep reintroducing the bill until it passes.
**************************************************
28. Community service ordered for father who mistakenly brought gun to daughter's school
**************************************************
This gun owner was very lucky to have a judge with this strong sense of fairness. Too many would have just destroyed his life with a felony conviction.
And this is exactly why we need to fix our laws on guns on K-12 school property, making it a crime only if there is evil intent.
EM Ed Levine sent me this:
--
From Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/bzkr8xb
By Mark Bowes
May 16, 2013
A Chesterfield County father charged with openly carrying a handgun into his daughter's elementary school while picking her up will have the offense dismissed if he completes 100 hours of community service and stays out of trouble for a year.
Michael S. O'Berry, 33, forgot about the 9mm semiautomatic pistol he carries for protection while working as a pizza delivery driver when he arrived at A.M. Davis Elementary School on Feb. 7 to fetch his sick daughter, said his attorney, Russell Bowles.
"She called him from school and told him she was ill and needed to be picked up," Bowles explained. O'Berry "just dropped his (delivery) rounds to pick her up, forgets to take the gun off his hip and inadvertently walks onto school property."
A Chesterfield judge on Monday ordered O'Berry to perform the community service and then deferred disposition of the felony case until May 13, 2014. The charge will be dismissed then if O'Berry completes the service and causes no further problems, Bowles said.
O'Berry's gun was confiscated by police but likely will be returned to him once the case is dismissed, Bowles said.
Although O'Berry didn't intentionally break the law, Bowles said authorities felt compelled to seek a charge against him because of the school division's zero tolerance for firearms on school property.
"He knows it's illegal to carry a gun on school property," Bowles said. "This was just a completely inadvertent act."
Virginia law allows citizens to openly carry firearms in public, but there are restrictions. With a few exceptions, Virginia prohibits firearms in courthouses, air carrier airport terminals and schools. The owners of private property, including businesses, also may prohibit firearms.
**************************************************
29. Randolph Elementary School put on brief lockdown
**************************************************
EM Greg Trojan sent me this:
--
Even in rural Goochland county, the "sheeple" are well trained: as taught, they panic at the mere sight of a gun and wait behind locked door for the government to come to protect them.
From Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/aqj2p76
By Ken Odor
May 1, 2013
School buses bound for Randolph Elementary School were re-routed to Goochland Elementary School this morning after a report of a person with a firearm within a mile of Randolph was received.
Randolph was put on lockdown, said Assistant Superintendent of Schools Peter M. Gretz.
Goochland Sheriff James Agnew said his office received a call at 7:34 a.m. from the school system reporting a person dressed in camouflage carrying a rifle walking on Cardwell Road heading toward Route 6.
"The schools did the right thing," said Agnew, who said no one was located in the vicinity matching the description.
Agnew noted that it is spring gobbler season and that turkey hunters typically pursue their prey in the early morning hours.
The Sheriff's Office notified the schools that it was safe to resume normal operations at 8:05 a.m. according to Agnew and Randolph students began to return to their normal routine, said Gretz.
**************************************************
30. Report raises concern about Glock handguns [Video]
**************************************************
I checked the firing pin on my 4th generation Glock .40 S&W and saw no issue, but you might want to look at your Glock firing pins.
From miami.cbslocal.com: http://tinyurl.com/bh7g7s9
By Jim DeFede
May 13, 2013
MIAMI (CBS4) - A never before released report by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office raises questions about the reliability of the Glock semi-automatic handgun used by its deputies.
Obtained by CBS4 News, the confidential sheriff's department document outlines a series of incidents in which problems with the Glock firing pin caused the gun to malfunction and not fire.
Issued by the department's armorer, or gun expert, the March 13 report is titled simply: Firing Pin Issue. In each case where there was a misfire, the gun was taken apart and the firing pin was found to be cracked or chipped.
The report includes photos of the failed firing pins.
The problems were found primarily in the Glock 40 caliber, but also showed up in the 9 mm. So far all of the incidents occurred during training exercises. There have been no reports of the firing pin failing in the field.
A spokeswoman for the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department confirmed the agency was working with both Glock officials and representatives of its ammunition supplier to address the problem.
Glock officials refused repeated requests from CBS4 News for comment.
Glock's relationship to law enforcement is one of the company's most prized possessions. Today no gun is more identifiable with law enforcement than the Glock. By the company's own estimate, 65 percent of all police officers in the United States carry a Glock handgun.
The company's website showcases videos touting this close bond with police.
Approximately 7,500 law enforcement agencies use the Glock, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the New York Police Department.
Locally, Glocks are used by the Broward Sheriff's Office and the Miami Dade Police Department, as well as police departments in Fort Lauderdale, Hialeah, Miami, and Coral Gables.
CBS4 News found that many of those South Florida departments were aware of the concerns being raised by the Palm Beach Sheriff's Office.
The Miami Dade Police Department even went so far as to produce a five minute video warning officers about the possible problem.
CBS4 News was provided a copy of the video, which opens with ominous music and a warning about the firing pins and instructs the officers how to inspect their firing pins for signs of a problem.
A Miami Dade Police spokesman told CBS4 News: "We have randomly inspected numerous Glock 17s (9mm) and have seen no issues to date. However, we will continue to inspect throughout the year and replace any firing pin with an issue."
The Miami Police Department was having every firing pin inspected. The Coral Gables Police Department took the preemptive step of asking Glock to replace all of the firing pins in their guns. Glock immediately sent Coral Gables a box of new firing pins.
CBS4 News has learned that representatives from Glock's headquarters in Georgia flew in last month to meet with Palm Beach Sheriff's officials. Sources tell CBS4 News that Glock is focusing the blame on the type of ammo being used by the Sheriff's
A spokesman for Speer Ammunition, the company that provides ammunition to the PBSO, told CBS4 News:
"We are committed to providing our customers with the best ammunition available to meet their needs. We have been working directly and swiftly with the Palm Beach Sheriff's Department and their firearms manufacturer to determine a solution for their concerns about premature firing pin erosion. We are confident that we've jointly addressed their concern."
Asked to elaborate on how the PBSO's "concern" was addressed, the company declined to say.
CBS4 News showed the Palm Beach report to local gunsmiths and armorers, including Robert Hasmi, president of Absolute Tactical Solutions in Miami Lakes and a police officer in South Florida for more than 20 years.
"Remember these are all working metal parts rubbing against each other constantly, that's how a gun works," said Hasmi. "The slide rubs against the frame, the barrel rubs against the slide when it, when you form its actions. It's metal rubbing against metal."
Hasmi said the possible culprit is the type of metal Glock uses in its firing pin.
"If the metal is too soft that the manufacturer uses, that could also be an issue," he said.
Glock refuses to say what type of metal they use - arguing it's a trade secret.
CBS4 News spoke to other gunsmiths and armorer who agreed the quality of the metal used in the firing pin could be the key to understanding the problem. But they declined to make their concerns public for fear of alienating the gun giant.
Hasmi said after CBS4 News first sent him the report, he took apart his own Glock weapon - the one he carries when he is on duty. He said he found unusual chips on the head of his firing pin
Asked if it concerned him, he replied: "Yes it did. I wasn't aware of this issue that's going on [until I read the report]. I mean I don't put an excessive amount of rounds through my gun. I fire maybe five to six hundred rounds a year out of it."
Hasmi said while his gun has never failed, he wasn't going to take a chance and planned on replacing the firing pin immediately.
This is not the first time questions have been raised about Glock firing pins and so-called "light strikes" - a problem where the firing pin fails to properly strike a bullet's primer.
In 2005, the Los Angeles Police Department took the unusual step of temporarily ordering its officers to stop using the Glock .45 caliber over the same issue.
Retired cop Wally Philbrick is the owner of the 911 Store - a gun store and firing range in Hollywood.
Although he is not authorized to speak on behalf of Glock, Philbrick is a certified Glock armorer. He has nothing but praise for the firearm.
"I carried Glock for 30 years in SWAT, it's a great gun," he said. "It functions, it's light weight, its inexpensive, it works dirty, it works clean, it works under water, it's a fine firearm."
He said he suspected the problem could be with the ammunition. He explained that some rounds are hotter - packed with more powder - than others which could damage the pins.
If the police are their number one consumer, and the type of ammo police use was the issue, then why shouldn't Glock simply design and build a firing pin that can withstand the type ammo officers use?
"Well Glock's been in business a long, long time," he said. "And the issue as far as I know is with one department only and it's not nationwide and it's not worldwide."
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
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/]
***************************************************************************