VA-ALERT: VCDL Mini-update 8/15/13
Posted: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 08:27:26
VA-ALERT: VCDL Mini-update 8/15/13
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Delegate Ed Scott explains his anti-gun vote - it really is about money?
2. Article on guns in pubic meetings includes comments by VCDL
3. Victory in Amherst! Gun ranges and hunt clubs safe for now
4. Do you need any VCDL SWAG at the Green Turtle meeting tonight (Thursday)?
5. VCDL President to address Bad Brass Women picnic in Virginia Beach on Saturday
**************************************************************
1. Delegate Ed Scott explains his anti-gun vote - it really is about money?
**************************************************************
A VCDL member emailed his Delegate, Ed Scott, to ask about Scott's anti-gun vote on Delegate Bob Marshall's HB 2340. That bill would have prohibited state and local government employees from aiding the feds in enforcing any new gun control passed after 2012.
(I was openly cc'ed on the email.)
Here was Delegate Scott's response:
Thank you for your e-mail and for sharing your concerns with me. You have been presented one side of a story by the VCDL, and that is unfortunate. I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners and have been for the five terms that I have served in the House of Delegates.
This bill was properly before the House Appropriations Committee as it had the potential to put federal public safety funding that flows to the Commonwealth of Virginia at risk. The extent of that risk could not be determined in the relatively short time that we were in session this year, and so out of an abundance of fiscal caution the bill did not emerge from committee. The concern was exclusively fiscal, and not on policy, which is why a motion to report the bill did not receive a second.
Again, thank you for writing and allowing me to set the record straight.
Ed Scott
Delegate, 30th District
--
Since I was cc'ed, I responded to both the member and Delegate Scott:
Thanks for the cc, Richard. Interpretation: gun owner's rights are up for sale to the Feds for a few pieces of silver. The problem here is that there were NO PRINCIPLES involved, only fiscal policy. We have that niggling Second Amendment that keeps wanting to get in the way and has to brushed aside for such practical matters as federal funding of some police programs.
--
Delegate Scott responds to my comments:
A "few pieces of silver" is a fine sound bite, but the fact remains that nobody, including VCDL, knew whether we were talking about a few dollars or tens of millions of dollars. If VCDL or anyone else had an answer to this very pragmatic concern, I doubt seriously that this motion would have failed due to the lack of a second.
I will gladly hold up my voting record as a defender of the Second Amendment. I would also encourage you both to seek out the views of my opponent when it comes to the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Ed Scott
Delegate, 30th District
--
Let me be crystal clear: I don't care WHAT the cost could have been. It is irrelevant. We are talking about preserving a Constitutional right and affecting the safety of Virginia citizens. Neither are for sale at any price! I can't believe I even have to say this.
Are the normally pro-gun Delegates whose names appear on that anti-gun voting list, such as Delegate Ed Scott, a surprise and a disappointment? Absolutely. Did that particular vote imperil Virginia gun owners by leaving us vulnerable to an overreaching federal government? Yes. Does that vote nullify all the pro-gun votes these Delegates have made in the past? No, of course not. But it is a solid black mark on their record, a self-inflicted wound.
The bottom line is those who did not second the motion to get Marshall's bill out of committee, made an inexcusable anti-gun vote that put Virginia's gun owners in jeopardy under the current circumstances.
Here are the names of those who voted against protecting our rights by not supporting HB 2340. I continue to encourage you to contact your Delegate about his or her vote if he or she is on this list. It's important for them to understand that this IS a big deal and we expect better of them in 2014 if they get reelected:
Voting ANTI-GUN: Putney (Chairman), Tata, Ingram, May, Sherwood, Cox, M.K., Landes, Jones, O'Bannon, Poindexter, Massie, Scott, E.T., Peace, Greason, Scott, J.M., Joannou, Brink, Ware, O., Howell, A.T., BaCote, Dance
**************************************************************
2. Article on guns in pubic meetings includes comments by VCDL
**************************************************************
When I was being interviewed for this article, I wish Courtney had run by me the places she was going to say banned guns entirely. She didn't and she erroneously put "churches" as such a place.
Oh, well, now thousands of people have been misinformed about their gun rights.
You cannot prevent a determined, bad person from attacking a government meeting. There have been several cases around the U.S. where state law prohibited guns in certain local government meetings, but a bad guy just shot the guards at the metal detectors and then proceeded to kill the government officials at the meeting. The victims were conveniently disarmed, leaving them all totally helpless.
Bad guys with guns are stopped by good guys with guns - usually the police do the stopping, but citizens stop bad guys, too.
In the crazy world we live in today, when one person is "uncomfortable" with someone else exercising a freedom, we are all supposed to give up that freedom. That's stupid and completely unAmerican. Being free involves some risk and discomfort. The pleasure and fulfillment I get from being free far outweighs the danger and any discomfort. Plus, I mitigate the risk quite nicely by carrying a gun.
Rest assured that if there are any bills put in during the 2014 General Assembly session to ban carry at government meetings and in government buildings, VCDL will be working non-stop to defeat them.
Thanks to Sue Sadler for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/q7sb7xp
or
http://www.vagazette.com/news/va-vg-jcc ... 9680.story
Guns at public meetings invoke uneasy peace
By Cortney Langley, clangley@vagazette.com The Virginia Gazette
7:36 p.m. EDT, August 13, 2013
JAMES CITY Security is on the minds of James City County employees and others in the wake of an Aug. 5 fatal shooting during a supervisors meeting in a rural Pennsylvania township.
Between heated rhetoric and more citizens openly carrying firearms to public meetings, both officials and citizens are pondering the nuances between rhetoric, political statement, intimidation and actual threats. It may also lead to new ways to deliver public comment.
In Pennsylvania, a lone shooter who had been involved in a decade-long zoning dispute with the locality struck during a public meeting. According to news reports he killed three people, including a supervisor, and wounding three more.
"That is distressing," County Administrator Robert Middaugh said of the shooting. "That's a horrible circumstance that could happen anywhere. Unfortunately, it's not an isolated incident."
Middaugh said there is typically at least one law enforcement officer at every Board of Supervisors meeting and more have been scheduled when officials know a particularly controversial group or issue will come up on the agenda.
That was the case this spring when members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun lobby group, showed up to a supervisors meeting in number. They were there to protest the county's decision to remove a pro-Second Amendment statement Sheriff Bob Deeds had posted to his web page. The site is hosted on county servers, and the statement was deemed political.
Many of the members carried firearms at that meeting. It is legal to openly carry in most places, including Virginia government building, but not the General Assembly. To conceal a firearm requires a permit, and all firearms are prohibited in some places, such as schools and churches. [PVC: Churches are not off limits for firearms if a person is not carrying during a service or is carrying for self-defense purposes.]
The issue came up again at the county's two recent rural lands meetings. During one, held at Norge Elementary School, W. Walker Ware IV, a speaker who was asked to summarize his comments about government control, said, "I think we take up muskets and start killing people." [PVC: Probably not my choice of words. I'd have probably said that government is overreaching at all levels and people are getting fed up.]
Another attendee, Wayne Moyer, immediately asked Ware the speaker to back off the suggestion, saying it "bothers me very much."
At a second rural lands meeting held the next morning at the county's Recreation Center, Joseph Swanenburg, who was present at the Norge meeting, carried his firearm openly.
Middaugh confirmed that a number of county staffers returned to their offices later that day visibly shaken and upset by the mixture of anti-government rhetoric and firepower. [PVC: Really? They must be living in a bureaucratic bubble 24 hours a day. Look at the polls - government is not popular right now, not even a little bit. I also suggest they get used to the "firepower" as I predict that more people are going to be carrying as time goes on, not less.]
"When people talk about 'get out the muskets,'" Middaugh said, "it would tend to creep out most people. And staff was no exception in that regard."
More concerning to officials is that other citizens are not participating in public discourse because of the climate. "It takes a significant event for someone to come out, at this point," Middaugh said.
In response, officials are exploring ways to exploit technology, such as setting up virtual town hall meetings. Those would allow people to participate from home. Changes in people's preferences are already pushing government that way, he said.
Reached last Thursday, Ware would not comment on what he was trying to convey during the rural lands meeting and called reporting on it "a cheap shot." He also vehemently denied making the statement.
Swanenburg said carrying a firearm the next morning had nothing to do with Ware's statement, which he interpreted as alluding to the events of 1776 and frustration with government control and abuse.
"I hadn't even thought of it," he said in an interview.
Swanenburg did, however, carry his weapon to the second meeting as a statement.
He was reacting to the fact that the county had scheduled the first meeting in a location where he couldn't legally carry concealed (a school), so he responded by carrying openly the next morning.
"First of all, I don't necessarily agree with open carry," he said. "Very seldom do I do it. I did it because the night before, I wasn't allowed." [PVC: Best way to get someone to exercise a right is to try to take away or restrict that right. Senator Feinstein learned that lesson yet again earlier this year when she tried to ban assault weapons and sales exploded.]
He believes in the value of criminals never really knowing who can protect themselves and who can't. "I would venture to go so far as to say that there's far more people carrying in (public meetings) that you would ever know." [PVC: Agreed!]
For him, it's a protective measure against someone like the Pennsylvania shooter. "It's personal safety," he said. "I'm not going to be a victim." [PVC: And he realistically realizes that the police are not going to concentrate on protecting him more than anybody else. The best bet is always self-defense. No one will protect YOU and your loved ones like YOU. Nobody.]
He said others shouldn't feel uncomfortable just because someone with a firearm is in the same room. Lawful gun owners aren't the people committing violent crimes, he said.
Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip VanCleave echoed the same. "The bad guys You won't see their guns until it's too late," he said. "If some nut did come into a room full of people with guns, he's not going to get very far."
VanCleave said that when members rally to a meeting, the organization doesn't advise them to carry one way or another, although it will advise about relevant carry laws. "We leave it up to them whether to carry open or concealed. We don't encourage it or discourage it."
More to the point, he added: "We don't have open-carry picnics or concealed-carry picnics. We just have picnics."
Motivations vary for carrying to public meetings. Members might be making political statements about their right to do so, might be carrying for protection or might carry openly for ease of access and comfort. "It's going to vary individually," VanCleave said.
Supervisor Mary Jones said the night that the Virginia Citizens Defense League showed up "was probably the safest I've ever felt in a board meeting. I do not have a problem with law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Citizens, from my perspective, should feel safer."
If an incident were to occur, armed citizens can protect themselves and others, she said. "I don't know why anyone should be concerned about that." [PVC: Gotta love Supervisor Mary Jones and her firm grasp on liberty.]
There was concern a few years ago when she and other supervisors were dealing with persistent personal attacks and she said many people at that time also felt uncomfortable attending meetings.
"We do try to make sure that meetings are safe places for the public and when we know there's a controversial matter or personality, there have been special efforts to provide additional security," Chair John McGlennon said.
He said he hasn't personally felt threatened, but understands the concern. "Yes, I think we've all heard enough comments at one place or another, where people have suggested in the heat of the moment that a resort to violence is necessary. It would have to cause you concern."
"I think that everyone in the room, or most people in the room, were taken aback" by Ware's comment at the rural lands meeting, he said. "And it was an important moment for recognition that some things are outside the bounds of civil discourse."
As far as carrying firearms, he said, "It is certainly done to make a statement, but I'm not sure I would be able to tell you what a person who brings a gun to a meeting is trying to say.
"If the notion is that it makes them feel safer, then okay. But how do other people in the audience feel? [PVC: Truth is only the hoplophobes get concerned at the mere sight of a citizen with a holstered gun on their hip.] If it's done to suggest 'You won't be able to take my guns away from me,' well, I don't think anyone's trying to take guns away from people.
"Then I think it does become more a matter of trying to suggest maybe the speaker, or person, is making a more aggressive statement." [PVC: Huh? I thought he was in the room when VCDL was there. I don't recall anyone swaggering to the microphone or acting aggressively.]
Supervisor Jim Icenhour agreed. "People are making political statements, and that's their right to make those political statements," he said.
Icenhour supports the individual right to bear arms, "but I've always been disturbed by the trend of people who feel they have to carry their weapons in public," he said. [PVC: We are talking about someone exercising a CIVIL RIGHT. I flash back to the 1950s and 60s. Would Icenhour be disturbed by the trend of black people who wanted to sit in the front of a public bus?]
"I think it's rhetoric, and I think it's more intimidation. Why do you put a gun on your hip and walk around, if you're not a police officer? What motivates you to do that?" [PVC: Liberty? Responsibility? Are those terms really that unknown to Mr. Icenhour?]
Ultimately, Icenhour said, laws on where and how citizens carry firearms might affect how comfortable people feel, but don't make public meetings safer or less safe.
"If somebody has fried their neurons and is going to take it out on someone, I don't think it makes a difference, open carry or not." [PVC: On that we agree. And the only way to stop that person is for others to be armed and prepared.]
**************************************************************
3. Victory in Amherst! Gun ranges and hunt clubs safe for now
**************************************************************
Last Tuesday I drove up the attend the Amherst Board of Supervisors meeting in the early afternoon. They were going to vote on an ordinance that would make it more difficult for someone to open up a shooting range or a small hunt club in the County.
It was a long day, but after a few hours the issue came up. Board of Supervisors member Claudia Tucker said that she thought that current law covered any issue that could come up with shooting ranges and hunt clubs and made a motion to defeat the proposed ordinance. After a short discussion the Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to table the ordinance! Thank, you Claudia for leading the fight on this one.
If you live in Amherst, be sure to contact your Board of Supervisors member and thank him or her for their vote on that ordinance.
**************************************************************
4. Do you need any VCDL SWAG at the Green Turtle meeting tonight (Thursday)?
**************************************************************
Never before seen at a VCDL event! Did you know we have a new Minute Man Logo mouse pad and lapel pin?
Board member Bruce Jackson will be at the meeting Thursday. If you need any supplies such as cards or brochures or desire shirts or mouse pads etc. just drop him a line and let him know. His address is bruce@vcdl.org
Remember, this is not a government building so we can actually SELL things there!
Did you know we have a new Minute Man Logo mouse pad and lapel pin?
BTW, we are expecting a very large turnout! See you there!
**************************************************************
5. VCDL President to address Bad Brass Women picnic in Virginia Beach on Saturday
**************************************************************
I will be saying a few words at this Saturday's Bad Brass Women picnic being held at Mount Trashmore in Virginia Beach from 1 pm to 4 pm.
The picnic is open to the public and this would be a great opportunity for some of you to meet the members of this women's shooting group, have some fun and good food, too!
The picnic is entirely pot-luck, so bring a dish to share!
(VCDL will be having its own picnic down in southeast Virginia soon, so stay tuned for that. )
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
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/]
***************************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Delegate Ed Scott explains his anti-gun vote - it really is about money?
2. Article on guns in pubic meetings includes comments by VCDL
3. Victory in Amherst! Gun ranges and hunt clubs safe for now
4. Do you need any VCDL SWAG at the Green Turtle meeting tonight (Thursday)?
5. VCDL President to address Bad Brass Women picnic in Virginia Beach on Saturday
**************************************************************
1. Delegate Ed Scott explains his anti-gun vote - it really is about money?
**************************************************************
A VCDL member emailed his Delegate, Ed Scott, to ask about Scott's anti-gun vote on Delegate Bob Marshall's HB 2340. That bill would have prohibited state and local government employees from aiding the feds in enforcing any new gun control passed after 2012.
(I was openly cc'ed on the email.)
Here was Delegate Scott's response:
Thank you for your e-mail and for sharing your concerns with me. You have been presented one side of a story by the VCDL, and that is unfortunate. I am a strong supporter of the rights of law-abiding gun owners and have been for the five terms that I have served in the House of Delegates.
This bill was properly before the House Appropriations Committee as it had the potential to put federal public safety funding that flows to the Commonwealth of Virginia at risk. The extent of that risk could not be determined in the relatively short time that we were in session this year, and so out of an abundance of fiscal caution the bill did not emerge from committee. The concern was exclusively fiscal, and not on policy, which is why a motion to report the bill did not receive a second.
Again, thank you for writing and allowing me to set the record straight.
Ed Scott
Delegate, 30th District
--
Since I was cc'ed, I responded to both the member and Delegate Scott:
Thanks for the cc, Richard. Interpretation: gun owner's rights are up for sale to the Feds for a few pieces of silver. The problem here is that there were NO PRINCIPLES involved, only fiscal policy. We have that niggling Second Amendment that keeps wanting to get in the way and has to brushed aside for such practical matters as federal funding of some police programs.
--
Delegate Scott responds to my comments:
A "few pieces of silver" is a fine sound bite, but the fact remains that nobody, including VCDL, knew whether we were talking about a few dollars or tens of millions of dollars. If VCDL or anyone else had an answer to this very pragmatic concern, I doubt seriously that this motion would have failed due to the lack of a second.
I will gladly hold up my voting record as a defender of the Second Amendment. I would also encourage you both to seek out the views of my opponent when it comes to the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Ed Scott
Delegate, 30th District
--
Let me be crystal clear: I don't care WHAT the cost could have been. It is irrelevant. We are talking about preserving a Constitutional right and affecting the safety of Virginia citizens. Neither are for sale at any price! I can't believe I even have to say this.
Are the normally pro-gun Delegates whose names appear on that anti-gun voting list, such as Delegate Ed Scott, a surprise and a disappointment? Absolutely. Did that particular vote imperil Virginia gun owners by leaving us vulnerable to an overreaching federal government? Yes. Does that vote nullify all the pro-gun votes these Delegates have made in the past? No, of course not. But it is a solid black mark on their record, a self-inflicted wound.
The bottom line is those who did not second the motion to get Marshall's bill out of committee, made an inexcusable anti-gun vote that put Virginia's gun owners in jeopardy under the current circumstances.
Here are the names of those who voted against protecting our rights by not supporting HB 2340. I continue to encourage you to contact your Delegate about his or her vote if he or she is on this list. It's important for them to understand that this IS a big deal and we expect better of them in 2014 if they get reelected:
Voting ANTI-GUN: Putney (Chairman), Tata, Ingram, May, Sherwood, Cox, M.K., Landes, Jones, O'Bannon, Poindexter, Massie, Scott, E.T., Peace, Greason, Scott, J.M., Joannou, Brink, Ware, O., Howell, A.T., BaCote, Dance
**************************************************************
2. Article on guns in pubic meetings includes comments by VCDL
**************************************************************
When I was being interviewed for this article, I wish Courtney had run by me the places she was going to say banned guns entirely. She didn't and she erroneously put "churches" as such a place.
Oh, well, now thousands of people have been misinformed about their gun rights.You cannot prevent a determined, bad person from attacking a government meeting. There have been several cases around the U.S. where state law prohibited guns in certain local government meetings, but a bad guy just shot the guards at the metal detectors and then proceeded to kill the government officials at the meeting. The victims were conveniently disarmed, leaving them all totally helpless.
Bad guys with guns are stopped by good guys with guns - usually the police do the stopping, but citizens stop bad guys, too.
In the crazy world we live in today, when one person is "uncomfortable" with someone else exercising a freedom, we are all supposed to give up that freedom. That's stupid and completely unAmerican. Being free involves some risk and discomfort. The pleasure and fulfillment I get from being free far outweighs the danger and any discomfort. Plus, I mitigate the risk quite nicely by carrying a gun.
Rest assured that if there are any bills put in during the 2014 General Assembly session to ban carry at government meetings and in government buildings, VCDL will be working non-stop to defeat them.
Thanks to Sue Sadler for the link:
http://tinyurl.com/q7sb7xp
or
http://www.vagazette.com/news/va-vg-jcc ... 9680.story
Guns at public meetings invoke uneasy peace
By Cortney Langley, clangley@vagazette.com The Virginia Gazette
7:36 p.m. EDT, August 13, 2013
JAMES CITY Security is on the minds of James City County employees and others in the wake of an Aug. 5 fatal shooting during a supervisors meeting in a rural Pennsylvania township.
Between heated rhetoric and more citizens openly carrying firearms to public meetings, both officials and citizens are pondering the nuances between rhetoric, political statement, intimidation and actual threats. It may also lead to new ways to deliver public comment.
In Pennsylvania, a lone shooter who had been involved in a decade-long zoning dispute with the locality struck during a public meeting. According to news reports he killed three people, including a supervisor, and wounding three more.
"That is distressing," County Administrator Robert Middaugh said of the shooting. "That's a horrible circumstance that could happen anywhere. Unfortunately, it's not an isolated incident."
Middaugh said there is typically at least one law enforcement officer at every Board of Supervisors meeting and more have been scheduled when officials know a particularly controversial group or issue will come up on the agenda.
That was the case this spring when members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a pro-gun lobby group, showed up to a supervisors meeting in number. They were there to protest the county's decision to remove a pro-Second Amendment statement Sheriff Bob Deeds had posted to his web page. The site is hosted on county servers, and the statement was deemed political.
Many of the members carried firearms at that meeting. It is legal to openly carry in most places, including Virginia government building, but not the General Assembly. To conceal a firearm requires a permit, and all firearms are prohibited in some places, such as schools and churches. [PVC: Churches are not off limits for firearms if a person is not carrying during a service or is carrying for self-defense purposes.]
The issue came up again at the county's two recent rural lands meetings. During one, held at Norge Elementary School, W. Walker Ware IV, a speaker who was asked to summarize his comments about government control, said, "I think we take up muskets and start killing people." [PVC: Probably not my choice of words. I'd have probably said that government is overreaching at all levels and people are getting fed up.]
Another attendee, Wayne Moyer, immediately asked Ware the speaker to back off the suggestion, saying it "bothers me very much."
At a second rural lands meeting held the next morning at the county's Recreation Center, Joseph Swanenburg, who was present at the Norge meeting, carried his firearm openly.
Middaugh confirmed that a number of county staffers returned to their offices later that day visibly shaken and upset by the mixture of anti-government rhetoric and firepower. [PVC: Really? They must be living in a bureaucratic bubble 24 hours a day. Look at the polls - government is not popular right now, not even a little bit. I also suggest they get used to the "firepower" as I predict that more people are going to be carrying as time goes on, not less.]
"When people talk about 'get out the muskets,'" Middaugh said, "it would tend to creep out most people. And staff was no exception in that regard."
More concerning to officials is that other citizens are not participating in public discourse because of the climate. "It takes a significant event for someone to come out, at this point," Middaugh said.
In response, officials are exploring ways to exploit technology, such as setting up virtual town hall meetings. Those would allow people to participate from home. Changes in people's preferences are already pushing government that way, he said.
Reached last Thursday, Ware would not comment on what he was trying to convey during the rural lands meeting and called reporting on it "a cheap shot." He also vehemently denied making the statement.
Swanenburg said carrying a firearm the next morning had nothing to do with Ware's statement, which he interpreted as alluding to the events of 1776 and frustration with government control and abuse.
"I hadn't even thought of it," he said in an interview.
Swanenburg did, however, carry his weapon to the second meeting as a statement.
He was reacting to the fact that the county had scheduled the first meeting in a location where he couldn't legally carry concealed (a school), so he responded by carrying openly the next morning.
"First of all, I don't necessarily agree with open carry," he said. "Very seldom do I do it. I did it because the night before, I wasn't allowed." [PVC: Best way to get someone to exercise a right is to try to take away or restrict that right. Senator Feinstein learned that lesson yet again earlier this year when she tried to ban assault weapons and sales exploded.]
He believes in the value of criminals never really knowing who can protect themselves and who can't. "I would venture to go so far as to say that there's far more people carrying in (public meetings) that you would ever know." [PVC: Agreed!]
For him, it's a protective measure against someone like the Pennsylvania shooter. "It's personal safety," he said. "I'm not going to be a victim." [PVC: And he realistically realizes that the police are not going to concentrate on protecting him more than anybody else. The best bet is always self-defense. No one will protect YOU and your loved ones like YOU. Nobody.]
He said others shouldn't feel uncomfortable just because someone with a firearm is in the same room. Lawful gun owners aren't the people committing violent crimes, he said.
Virginia Citizens Defense League President Philip VanCleave echoed the same. "The bad guys You won't see their guns until it's too late," he said. "If some nut did come into a room full of people with guns, he's not going to get very far."
VanCleave said that when members rally to a meeting, the organization doesn't advise them to carry one way or another, although it will advise about relevant carry laws. "We leave it up to them whether to carry open or concealed. We don't encourage it or discourage it."
More to the point, he added: "We don't have open-carry picnics or concealed-carry picnics. We just have picnics."
Motivations vary for carrying to public meetings. Members might be making political statements about their right to do so, might be carrying for protection or might carry openly for ease of access and comfort. "It's going to vary individually," VanCleave said.
Supervisor Mary Jones said the night that the Virginia Citizens Defense League showed up "was probably the safest I've ever felt in a board meeting. I do not have a problem with law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. Citizens, from my perspective, should feel safer."
If an incident were to occur, armed citizens can protect themselves and others, she said. "I don't know why anyone should be concerned about that." [PVC: Gotta love Supervisor Mary Jones and her firm grasp on liberty.]
There was concern a few years ago when she and other supervisors were dealing with persistent personal attacks and she said many people at that time also felt uncomfortable attending meetings.
"We do try to make sure that meetings are safe places for the public and when we know there's a controversial matter or personality, there have been special efforts to provide additional security," Chair John McGlennon said.
He said he hasn't personally felt threatened, but understands the concern. "Yes, I think we've all heard enough comments at one place or another, where people have suggested in the heat of the moment that a resort to violence is necessary. It would have to cause you concern."
"I think that everyone in the room, or most people in the room, were taken aback" by Ware's comment at the rural lands meeting, he said. "And it was an important moment for recognition that some things are outside the bounds of civil discourse."
As far as carrying firearms, he said, "It is certainly done to make a statement, but I'm not sure I would be able to tell you what a person who brings a gun to a meeting is trying to say.
"If the notion is that it makes them feel safer, then okay. But how do other people in the audience feel? [PVC: Truth is only the hoplophobes get concerned at the mere sight of a citizen with a holstered gun on their hip.] If it's done to suggest 'You won't be able to take my guns away from me,' well, I don't think anyone's trying to take guns away from people.
"Then I think it does become more a matter of trying to suggest maybe the speaker, or person, is making a more aggressive statement." [PVC: Huh? I thought he was in the room when VCDL was there. I don't recall anyone swaggering to the microphone or acting aggressively.]
Supervisor Jim Icenhour agreed. "People are making political statements, and that's their right to make those political statements," he said.
Icenhour supports the individual right to bear arms, "but I've always been disturbed by the trend of people who feel they have to carry their weapons in public," he said. [PVC: We are talking about someone exercising a CIVIL RIGHT. I flash back to the 1950s and 60s. Would Icenhour be disturbed by the trend of black people who wanted to sit in the front of a public bus?]
"I think it's rhetoric, and I think it's more intimidation. Why do you put a gun on your hip and walk around, if you're not a police officer? What motivates you to do that?" [PVC: Liberty? Responsibility? Are those terms really that unknown to Mr. Icenhour?]
Ultimately, Icenhour said, laws on where and how citizens carry firearms might affect how comfortable people feel, but don't make public meetings safer or less safe.
"If somebody has fried their neurons and is going to take it out on someone, I don't think it makes a difference, open carry or not." [PVC: On that we agree. And the only way to stop that person is for others to be armed and prepared.]
**************************************************************
3. Victory in Amherst! Gun ranges and hunt clubs safe for now
**************************************************************
Last Tuesday I drove up the attend the Amherst Board of Supervisors meeting in the early afternoon. They were going to vote on an ordinance that would make it more difficult for someone to open up a shooting range or a small hunt club in the County.
It was a long day, but after a few hours the issue came up. Board of Supervisors member Claudia Tucker said that she thought that current law covered any issue that could come up with shooting ranges and hunt clubs and made a motion to defeat the proposed ordinance. After a short discussion the Board voted UNANIMOUSLY to table the ordinance! Thank, you Claudia for leading the fight on this one.
If you live in Amherst, be sure to contact your Board of Supervisors member and thank him or her for their vote on that ordinance.
**************************************************************
4. Do you need any VCDL SWAG at the Green Turtle meeting tonight (Thursday)?
**************************************************************
Never before seen at a VCDL event! Did you know we have a new Minute Man Logo mouse pad and lapel pin?
Board member Bruce Jackson will be at the meeting Thursday. If you need any supplies such as cards or brochures or desire shirts or mouse pads etc. just drop him a line and let him know. His address is bruce@vcdl.org
Remember, this is not a government building so we can actually SELL things there!
Did you know we have a new Minute Man Logo mouse pad and lapel pin?
BTW, we are expecting a very large turnout! See you there!
**************************************************************
5. VCDL President to address Bad Brass Women picnic in Virginia Beach on Saturday
**************************************************************
I will be saying a few words at this Saturday's Bad Brass Women picnic being held at Mount Trashmore in Virginia Beach from 1 pm to 4 pm.
The picnic is open to the public and this would be a great opportunity for some of you to meet the members of this women's shooting group, have some fun and good food, too!
The picnic is entirely pot-luck, so bring a dish to share!
(VCDL will be having its own picnic down in southeast Virginia soon, so stay tuned for that.
)-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
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/]
***************************************************************************