VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL Update 10/6/09 - "When you sit down to negotiate on what you
already have, you lose." —Rep. Marie Parente
1. VCDL President to speak at Liberty Gun Rights Symposium
2. Alexandria drops illegal ordinances, just as a VCDL member
prepares to sue
3. Powhatan Wine Festival drops it's "No Guns" policy thanks to
member Ed Levine
4. Another VA-ALERT reader shares his open carry experience
5. Citizens bring truth to Virgina Tech gun panel
6. Gun lobbyists pick candidates - Saxman endorses Pollard!
7. Who needs a gun at the Springfield mall?
8. SCOTUS to hear 2nd amendment incorporation case
9. Who needs a gun in the home at 7:30AM?
10. How DC residents can buy guns without registration
11. Who needs a gun in church?
12. LTE: Consider the consequences of using a firearm
13. Who needs a gun in the shower?
14. Gun advocates predict drop in crime if gun ban is lifted
15. Gray Column: Guns on trains not a good idea
16. Andrew Dysart replied to a thread on Facebook
17. Gary Kleck responds to Chet Szymecki about an anti-gun "study"
18. AZ: Valley bars, eateries get ready for gun-toting patrons
19. After Arizona, Virginia likely next to repeal ban on concealed
carry in restaurants
20. Women buying guns like never before
21. The true citizen soldier
22. Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit
23. Surprise winner of Obama stimulus spending: gun industry
24. Growing number of Detroit pastors wear handguns in pulpit
25. Open house at G3 Security Group
**************************************************
1. VCDL President to speak at Liberty Gun Rights Symposium
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/y8jwvne
2009 Gun Rights Symposium
Hosted by Liberty University School of Law
Sponsored by the Federalist Society
Date: Friday, Oct.16th
Time: 2:30 - 4:00 p.m.
Location: Liberty University School of Law / Supreme Court Room
Address: 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502
On Friday, Oct. 16th, a panel of gun rights experts will discuss the
current state of 2nd Amendment & Concealed Carry rights in the state
of Virginia. The event is open to law students, undergraduate
students, and the community. Food will be provided.
Robert Dowlut is Chief Counsel for the NRA and a member of the D.C.
Bar. Mr. Dowlut is currently involved with numerous cases involving
fallout from the Supreme Court's recent decision in D.C. v. Heller,
544 U.S. (2008) including a suit against the City of Chicago.
Philip Van Cleave is the President of the Virginia Citizens Defense
League (VCDL). He is a leading advocate for the right to carry
concealed firearms in the state of Virginia and recently appeared on
the TV Show 60 Minutes.
To RSVP or for more information, please contact Jeremy Morris at jrmorris2@liberty.edu
Please include this link in your email. It's a link on Facebook to
confirm they are coming. They just need to sign into Facebook and
paste this link in their browser.
http://tinyurl.com/y8jwvne
If they don't have Facebook, they can email me and RSVP that way.
However, Facebook is preferable. Feel free to circulate this to
affiliate groups that might also wish to promote this event. We have
NO limit on the number of guests, so please feel free to invite
everyone.
**************************************************
2. Alexandria drops illegal ordinances, just as a VCDL member prepares
to sue
**************************************************
I talked to the Alexandria City Attorney in early summer and told him
that Alexandria had some preempted firearms ordinances on the books
and that the City needed to remove them. I was told that the City
Council was on hiatus over the summer, but that the City Attorney
would bring the issue up when they reconvened.
Meanwhile VCDL member Ed Levine, using the services of VCDL member and
attorney Mark Matthews, was preparing a lawsuit over that same issue.
I told Ed that the City Attorney was planning on bringing up the
illegal ordinances and they should get struck off the books. However,
it seemed prudent for Ed to proceed just in case Alexandria decided to
play games.
As it turned out, and to the City's credit, they indeed had just voted
to remove the offending ordinances as Mark was getting some FOIA
information together for the suit.
Thanks to Ed and Mark for being in a quick fall back position had it
been needed.
Ed has been a busy boy - see item #3, next.
So another set of bad ordinances are gone. VCDL is on the lookout for
more, so if your locality has any illegal gun ordinances, please get
in touch with us.
**************************************************
3. Powhatan Wine Festival drops it's "No Guns" policy thanks to member
Ed Levine
**************************************************
Ed Levine noticed that the Powhatan Festival of the Grape rules had a
"no guns" policy. As it turns out this was something I thought I had
fixed a few years ago, but alas, it was back.
Ed got in touch with the festival administration and after seeing the
state's preemption laws, they agreed to drop the "no guns" rule.
However, their tickets had already been printed up with that wording,
but they fixed their web site with the change.
Good work, Ed!
Here is the event ticket information, for those who might like to go
on October 24th:
http://www.powhatanwinefestival.com/tickets.htm
**************************************************
4. Another VA-ALERT reader shares his open carry experience
**************************************************
A VCDL member doing some proselytizing.
Hawk Scarbrough emailed me this:
Phillip,
Hey, I'm a pro gun missionary too. You know about my dentist (I
think). To recap, my dentist of long standing is/was a yuppie type
living in a nice neighborhood who had never fired a gun in his life,
however he was always interested in the .45s I wore each time I had an
appointment (he told everyone it was to insure good service : )).
Eventually he asked me if I would teach him to shoot, which of course
I was happy to do. Having good eyes, steady hands and intense
concentration, he became an excellent shot. Then I taught his father,
a former resident of Castro's Cuba, next I taught the majority of his
office staff, including another dentist. One of these ladies took her
oath and became an American citizen (formerly from a South American
dictatorship). She then bought a handgun a few days later. As a side
comment, my dentist preferred shooting my .22s until he discovered the
laser site on my .45. The look on his face as he destroyed the center
of the target at 25 feet is one I will never forget. I guess you could
describe it as "a kid in a candy shop"
A few months ago I met a group of British visitors to the U.S. They
too were fascinated by the fact I was carrying my favored caliber of
sidearm. They asked many questions about the laws here and commented
with some irritation about the laws in their own country. I finally
asked them if they would be interested in learning to shoot. You would
have thought I had offered them a handfull of gold coins. I forgot to
mention that two of the six Brits were women quite some years older
than my 54. They would have looked perfect in a British tea scene in a
movie. Their husbands, a daughter and a son (a little younger than me)
and their American host, completed the group. To make a long story
short, they were estatic over their experience. They said it was the
highlight of their trip to this country.
**************************************************
5. Citizens bring truth to Virgina Tech gun panel
**************************************************
The presence of members of the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus
and the VCDL helped to turn this event into what it should have been
all along. A debate about guns on campus.
http://tinyurl.com/y9pkgvq
http://www.examiner.com
David Codrea
September 26, 2009
There was a fitting response to the stacked panel at Virginia Tech
that we talked about on Wednesday. People who actually knew what they
were talking about showed up:
The group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus showed up as well as
members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League.
This was supposed to be a discussion on violence prevention but it
quickly turned into a gun debate.
Good. That sure beats the one-sided propaganda event the gun grabbers
had planned.
And great. Citizens who are mindful of their unalienable right to keep
and bear arms are watchful and at the ready, at least in Virginia, to
ensure the truth will be heard.
They deserve our thanks, and more importantly, our commitment to
emulate their example whenever the need arises in our communities.
Additional references:
http://concealedcampus.org/
http://www.vcdl.org/
**************************************************
6. Gun lobbyists pick candidates - Saxman endorses Pollard!
**************************************************
GOA Director Larry Pratt defends candidate Catherine Crabill while
members of the VA GOP remain undecided.
http://tinyurl.com/l2mkak
http://www.northernnecknews.com
By Colston Newton
A national gun rights organization was as good as its executive
director's word when it threw its support to GOP House of Delegates
nominee Catherine Crabill last week. Gun Owners of America's executive
director, Larry Pratt, had come to a Northumberland County Republican
County Committee meeting Sept. 10 and voiced his support for Crabill.
A week later, his organization officially came on board.
Pratt, who came from Springfield to support Crabill , told the crowd
that Crabill's now-famous "ballot box/bullet box" speech inspired his
organization and that the state GOP, which has shunned Crabill, would
pay a price if it didn't reverse itself and help her. Unless the state
party switched and came to Crabill's aid, Pratt said his organization
would write its members telling them not to send their donations to
the state party or statewide candidates but to Crabill.
Within a week, Pratt and the GOA had made good on his promise.
Pratt sent a fund-raising alert letter sent to GOA's Virginia members,
entitled "Candidate Under Fire for Being Pro-Second Amendment", urged
that credit-card contributions be sent to Crabill through her
campaign's Internet Website, Crabill's campaign announced Thursday.
The campaign noted that contributions had already started flowing in.
In his letter, Pratt wrote, Crabill is being condemned for this
statement: We have the opportunity to fight this at the ballot box
before we have to resort to the bullet box and asked the recipients
Who would object to that besides an anti-gunner?, according to
Crabill's campaign.
At the Sept. 10 meeting attended by Pratt, there was ample room for
conflict since it was attended by state GOP chairman Pat Mullins, who,
along with the party's three statewide candidates, recently repudiated
Crabill, and the hall was full of Crabill supporters and Crabill
herself was there.
For all the potential for conflict, the local Republicans' ire at the
state leaders didn't emerge until after Mullins had left. Only Ken
Smith managed to get in a confrontational question when he asked
Mullins if any of the state leaders had actually spoken with Crabill
before distancing themselves from her. No, Mullins answered. When
Patrick O'Brien asked if the local leadership had been given a heads
up before the leaders came out against Crabill, Mullins said, I'd
rather not talk about it. It doesn't do us or Catherine any good.
Pratt took the floor in Crabill' favor after Mullions had left.
99th District GOP chairman Allen Webb also rose in Crabill's defense.
He said he was offended that the statewide people had dumped Crabill
without notifying local leaders such as himself. Don't ever do this
again, he said. Don't tread on me. Webb said that he would continue to
support Crabill. The nominee is the nominee, he said.
Crabill herself was moved almost to tears as she thanked the audience
for standing by her. She wasn't backing off from her controversial
comments, either. She noted that Mullins himself had used the Patrick
Henry speech she was using when she made the remarks and, saying she
had received ugly , threatening emails after her speech became widely
known, asked, Is the crime mine or those who incite crime against me
and my family.
Crabill wasn't the only one getting support last week. Incumbent
delegate Albert C. Pollard, Jr., got the endorsement of a Republican
lawmaker Chris Saxman of Staunton.
Del. Saxman said, In an era when partisanship has created a hostile
and unproductive political environment, political leaders must be
willing to work with each other every year - elections included.
Albert truly exemplifies the bi-partisanship and independence that we
should expect from our leaders in Richmond. Having worked with Albert,
he is clearly the best candidate for Delegate in the 99th district. We
don't agree on everything, but that hasn't stopped us from working
together on the things we do agree on.
The National Rifle Association, which the Gun Owners of America views
as weak in its protection of gun owners' rights, has endorsed Pollard
in the past but has not made an endorsement so far this election. It
is expected to do so next week according to informed sources.
**************************************************
7. Who needs a gun at the Springfield mall?
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/yd6j33j
http://www.washingtonpost.com
Tom Jackman
September 30, 2009
Fairfax Man Was Robbed, Stabbed in Springfield Mall
A Fairfax County man was robbed and then stabbed inside Springfield
Mall on Tuesday night, Fairfax police said Wednesday, but his injuries
were not life-threatening.
Police said the man, who lives in the Springfield area, was sitting on
a bench outside a store in the mall about 9:20 p.m. when he was
approached by two men who demanded his wallet. The man handed over the
wallet, and one of the suspects stabbed the man in the upper body. The
victim was taken to Inova Fairfax Hospital.
The man did not know his attackers, Officer Don Gothardt said, and
investigators do not think the attack was gang-related. The suspects
were described as a thin white man and a thin black man, both in their
20s and wearing black clothing.
Springfield Mall has suffered occasional spasms of violence, including
the abduction last year of a woman from the mall parking lot, who was
then driven to Prince William County and killed when her car crashed
into a tree. One of her abductors also died and the other, Keith
Baskerville, is awaiting trial in Prince William on a charge of first-
degree murder.
**************************************************
8. SCOTUS to hear 2nd amendment incorporation case
**************************************************
All eyes will be on the SCOTUS as they hear challenges to Chicago's
outright handgun ban. The Brady Campaign is already signaling that
they are expecting to lose this battle by minimizing any such ruling
in advance in an email to their members.
http://tinyurl.com/yemevwu
http://www.scotusblog.com
Court to rule on gun rights, terrorism law
SNIP
Taking on a major new constitutional dispute over gun rights, the
Supreme Court agreed on Wednesday to decide whether to apply the
Second Amendment to state, county and city government laws. In
another major case among ten new grants, the Court said it will rule
on the constitutionality of one of the government's most-used legal
weapons in the war on terrorism a law that outlaws material support
to terrorist groups.
The Court had three cases from which to choose on the Second Amendment
issue two cases involving a Chicago gun ban, and one case on a New
York ban on a martial-arts weapon. It chose one of the Chicago cases
McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521) a case brought to it by Alan Gura, the
Alexandria, VA. lawyer who won the 2008 decision for the first time
recognizing a constitutional right to have a gun for personal use, at
least in self-defense in the home (District of Columbia v. Heller). A
second appeal on the Chicago dispute had been filed by the National
Rifle Association (NRA v. Chicago, 08-1497). Presumably, the Court
will hold onto that case until it decides McDonald; the same is likely
for the New York case, Maloney v. Rice (08-1592) a case in which
Justice Sonia Sotomayor had participated when she was a judge on the
Second Circuit Court.
----------
(http://tinyurl.com/ye84p93)
http://www.latimes.com
By David G. Savage
September 30, 2009
The justices' ruling on whether state and local laws are subject to
the 2nd Amendment could open the door to legal challenges nationwide.
The ruling on a Chicago handgun ban is expected by summer.
The Supreme Court set the stage for a historic ruling on gun rights
and the 2nd Amendment by agreeing today to hear a challenge to
Chicago's ban on handguns.
At issue is whether state and local gun-control ordinances can be
struck down as violating the "right to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd
Amendment.
A ruling on the issue, due by next summer, could open the door to
legal challenges to various gun control measures in cities and states
across the nation.
The case also will decide whether the 2nd Amendment protects a broad
constitutional right, similar to the 1st Amendment's right to free
speech or the 4th Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
In the past, the Supreme Court had given short shrift to the 2nd
Amendment by saying it applied only to national laws and that its aim
was to preserve "well-regulated militias."
This quite narrow view of the amendment conflicted with the views of
most Americans, according to opinion polls.
Last year, the court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the
amendment by ruling that it protected an individual's right to have a
handgun at home for self-defense. The decision in District of Columbia
vs. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns.
But since the nation's capital is a federal enclave, the court did not
reconsider its 19th century rulings that said the 2nd Amendment
applied only to federal laws and restrictions.
Since then, several gun owners have filed new constitutional
challenges in several cities, including Chicago and the nearby Village
of Oak Park. They lost when judges there said they were bound by the
high court's earlier rulings.
But the Supreme Court today said it had voted to hear the appeals from
gun owners in Chicago and Oak Park and to decide whether the 2nd
Amendment restricts local and state laws as well as national measures.
Lawyers for the gun owners argued that "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms" set out in the 2nd Amendment is "incorporated"
into the 14th Amendment and thereby applies to states and localities.
Lawyers on both sides of the dispute say the gun-rights case revives a
once-fierce debate over how to read the Bill of Rights.
Since the 1st Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no
law respecting" such matters as an "establishment of religion" or
"abridging the freedom of speech," it was understood originally to
limit only Congress and the national government. The same was true of
the other parts of Bill of Rights.
After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution,
and it says a state may not "abridge the privileges and immunities" of
citizens nor deprive any person of "liberty . . . without due process
of law."
In the mid-20th century, the Supreme Court decided, in a step-by-
process, that such fundamental rights as the freedom of speech, the
free exercise of religion and the freedom from "unreasonable searches"
are part of the "liberty" protected by 14th Amendment. These rulings
permit constitutional challenges to state and local laws.
The 2nd Amendment was all but ignored by the Court until recently. In
their appeal, lawyers for the gun owners say the court should rule
either that the right "to keep and bear arms" is a "privilege" of
citizenship or is part of the "liberty" protected by the 14th Amendment.
Lawyers for Chicago had urged the court to reject the appeal. They
said that easily concealed handguns pose a special danger in cities.
"Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns,"
they said, citing a Justice Department study. The city also said that
while nearly all handguns are illegal, residents are permitted to have
rifles or shotguns at home for self-defense.
It is not clear whether the court will rule squarely on whether the
Chicago ordinance is constitutional. Lawyers for the city proposed
that if the justices take up the issue, they rule only on whether the
ordinance can be challenged under the 2nd Amendment, and then send the
dispute back to Chicago for a trial.
The court said it will set arguments in the Chicago cases for January
or February. The cases is McDonald vs. Chicago.
**************************************************
9. Who needs a gun in the home at 7:30AM?
**************************************************
Still don't think you need a gun on you when you answer the door in
the morning?
http://tinyurl.com/yesqzsd
hamptonroads.com
Cindy Clayton
September 25, 2009
Police question man after morning home invasion in Portsmouth
Police are questioning one person after a home invasion this morning
in the 1500 block of Maple Ave., a department spokesman said.
A woman was inside her home about 7:30 a.m. when she heard a knock on
the door, said Lt. Scott Burke, a police spokesman. When the woman
opened the door, two armed men forced their way inside and stole an
unknown amount of property.
The woman wasn't hurt, Burke said.
After the robbery, the men fled in a car and the woman called police,
Burke said.
A Portsmouth officer who had just finished a night shift was on his
way home in his own car when he heard a police radio message about the
crime, Burke said. The officer spotted the vehicle and followed it.
The vehicle headed to South Norfolk while the officer communicated by
radio with other officers from Portsmouth, Norfolk and Chesapeake,
Burke said.
A short while later, a Norfolk officer located and stopped the vehicle
and detained the driver, Burke said.
**************************************************
10. How DC residents can buy guns without registration
**************************************************
In spite of this "loophole", the odds of a D.C. citizen being allowed
to have a gun for self defense is just slightly better than that of
winning the lottery.
http://tinyurl.com/yasuwah
http://www.examiner.com
Mike Stollenwerk
September 24, 2009
SNIP
Last February I explained how, counter intuitively, the DC City
Council's 2008 action to repeal the DC Police Chief's power to issue
handgun carry permits made it possible for DC residents to apply by
mail for handgun carry permits from Pennsylvania Sheriffs
Such applications can be made by filling out a simple form, no
fingerprints, social security numbers, or training required. And
these permits are accepted by many states too.
But while applying for gun carry permits is now easy for DC residents,
DC's onerous gun registration laws makes it hard to acquire a gun. If
you don't believe me, read Christian Davenport's recent article in the
Washington Post about his gun acquisition odyssey as a DC resident.
. . .
So how can DC residents legally acquire guns without jumping through
all the hoops erected by the DC City Council? It turns out it's
pretty simple - you must either maintain a second residence in another
state, temporarily become a "resident" of another state, or inherit
the firearm(s) by bequest or intestate succession. But just don't
bring your gun into DC unless you go through all the registration
steps. . . .
**************************************************
11. Who needs a gun in church?
**************************************************
Deborah Jane Anderson emailed me this:
--
From today's Washington Post: Who needs a gun in church? You -- even
IF your church has armed security!
http://tinyurl.com/yfx9omp
http://www.washingtonpost.com
William Wan
September 30, 2009
Sense of Sanctuary Lost As Church Attacks Spike
The youth choir belted out "O Happy Day" as folks trickled in through
the church doors. Few noticed the accountant sitting in the back pew,
his eyes flickering over each latecomer.
In one hand, he held a Bible. In the other, tucked inside his coat
pocket, he gripped a .38 caliber revolver.
He had come to People's Community Baptist Church in Silver Spring
looking for his estranged wife. And once she arrived and began arguing
with him outside, the Bible would be forgotten. The gun would be
raised. And in a matter of seconds, the congregation's sense of
sanctuary would be shattered.
What happened that Sunday morning at People's Church was just one in a
string of fatal shootings at houses of worship across the country. The
most high-profile incidents -- a Kansas abortion doctor gunned down in
May, an Illinois pastor shot mid-sermon in March, a Tennessee church
attacked during a children's play in 2008 -- have begun to alter the
way many churches operate.
Sanctuaries that once left their doors open all day now employ armed
guards, off-duty police officers, surveillance cameras and even
undercover plainclothes guards who mingle with the congregation.
A small cottage industry of faith-specialized security firms has
sprung up almost overnight, offering nervous churches, synagogues and
mosques vulnerability assessments, security systems and emergency
planning. Many were already on alert for the kind of crimes that have
plagued religious institutions for years: churches being burned,
synagogues and mosques being desecrated.
People's Church, in fact, had a security plan in place for its 3,000-
member congregation that included off-duty officers hired for traffic
and protection. But none of it stopped Kevin Kelly from firing five
bullets into Patricia Simmons Kelly's chest Feb. 22.
And now, like other places of worship shaken by violence, its members
are grappling with deep wounds -- psychological and spiritual -- that
have lingered long after the police cars and ambulances pulled away.
'Will I Be Able to Save Her?'
Nathaniel Fuller sees the shooting today as clearly as he did seven
months ago.
At the time, it seemed like fate that Fuller, a doctor with emergency
room experience, had arrived late to church. From across the parking
lot, he saw Patricia Kelly talking to her husband, who had just moved
out of their home in Rockville.
Tight finances had strained their marriage of nine years, court
testimony would later reveal, and Kevin Kelly, 53, suspected there was
another man, something Patricia's family adamantly denies.
All of it led to their argument in the parking lot -- and then gunshots.
In the seconds that followed, an off-duty police officer subdued Kevin
while Fuller ran to help Patricia. He heard her take what sounded like
three shallow, fading breaths. As he began performing CPR, the doctor
silently asked God: "Will this be the difference? Will I be able to
save her?"
Months later -- long after the ambulance rushed her to a hospital,
long after the 52-year-old legal secretary was pronounced dead --
Fuller found himself constantly replaying this scene in his head. He
had lost patients before, but this was different.
He had known this woman, exchanged greetings with her at services for
years before her blood came to be smeared on his hands, mouth and suit.
Plagued by the vision, Fuller asked God to restore peace at his church
and in his heart. But just as peace seemed within grasp, Kelly's trial
and conviction this month and his approaching sentencing this week
have stirred everything back up.
The doctor still doesn't understand why God let Patricia die, why He
had placed Fuller so nearby if not to save her.
"I've prayed and asked," Fuller said. "I haven't received an answer
yet. I don't know if I ever will."
'We Lost Our Innocence'
Although no federal agency or law enforcement group keeps track of
killings at houses of worship, some people recording cases on their
own believe that there has been a disturbing uptick in recent years.
One of those keeping count is Carl Chinn, who started compiling a
database of such attacks shortly after a gunman burst into the
Christian organization Focus on the Family where he was working in
1996 and took hostages. Eleven years later, Chinn was working security
for the New Life Church in Colorado when another gunman appeared and
killed two people.
By Chinn's count, fatal attacks at houses of worship have grown from a
handful a decade ago to at least 32 last year -- a number that
includes people killed inside the buildings as well as homicides that
take place on church steps and in parking lots. But he acknowledges
that it's become easier to track police reports and news stories
online in recent years, which could partly account for the perceived
increase.
Randy McAlister, a police sergeant in Minnesota doing similar research
at Concordia University, also thinks church violence is increasing and
likens it to school shootings a decade ago: on its way to becoming a
persistent phenomenon.
One reason might be that in an increasingly high-alert world, churches
remain an easy target. In cases of domestic violence, such as the
incident at People's Church, perpetrators know that once a week, their
victim will show up at a specific time, perhaps even park in a certain
spot or sit in a certain section.
Compounding the problem is the prominent role many houses of worship
occupy in today's volatile culture wars.
"You see the language being thrown around . . . people demonizing each
other," said the Rev. Chris Buice, whose liberal Unitarian church in
Knoxville, Tenn., was attacked by a right-wing gunman last year. The
shooter walked into the sanctuary in the middle of a production of
"Annie" and pulled a 12-gauge shotgun out of a guitar case, killing
two people and injuring seven.
But many cases remain enigmas.
The killings at New Life Church in 2007, for example, were carried out
by a gunman with no direct ties to the church. Matthew Murray killed
two people and wounded three before a church security guard shot him.
He then turned the gun on himself.
"I don't know if we'll ever know why Matthew Murray attacked us," the
Rev. Brady Boyd said.
The gunman's impact, however, remains. Even now, two years later,
parishioners arriving for Sunday worship pass police cars stationed at
the entrance.
"We've begun to heal. We've even grown," Boyd said. "But in some ways,
New Life is never going to be the same. We lost our innocence."
'God Has Called Us to Love'
In the days that followed Patricia Kelly's shooting, People's Church
also struggled with trauma. Its leaders convened a meeting with
counselors and psychologists that more than 150 members attended. A
prayer team walked through the church with anointing oil, asking God
to break the spirit of fear.
At the next Sunday service, the Rev. Haywood Robinson III spoke about
how Christians are tested and the importance of faith in such trying
times. He also preached forgiveness for the shooter, telling the
congregation he had offered to meet and pray with Kevin Kelly.
"There's probably people here who hate him for what he did," Robinson
said. "But God has called us to love and forgive."
Some weren't ready for that, including Lefern Brooks, one of
Patricia's closest friends. She had taken in Patricia's only child,
Iesha Jennings, 17, in the days after the shooting.
For a while, Brooks simply stopped attending People's Church.
"I just couldn't go near the place," she said. She couldn't help
looking for bloodstains or chalk outlines -- any outward sign of the
trauma she still felt inside.
So for two months, she and her daughter Chelsea, 16, tried other
churches, but in the end, they found themselves returning to People's.
"As painful as it was, it was also the place where we had experienced
the most outpouring of love and support," she said.
Brooks was the only church member who sat through all three days of
Kelly's trial this month. She spent most of it studying Kelly's face
for any shred of remorse. She found none.
And now that Kelly has been convicted of first-degree murder, Brooks
has to prepare a statement to the judge for his sentencing Friday. She
has prayed and struggled over what to say about this man and how his
actions have affected her faith, her church and the daughter of her
closest friend.
"I've been trying to work it all out," she said. "I've prayed that I
could forgive this man. But I'll be honest; I haven't yet. I don't
know how long it will take before I can."
**************************************************
12. LTE: Consider the consequences of using a firearm
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/y8rvm7w
http://www.roanoke.com
Consider the consequences of using a firearm
I have had healthy respect for firearms since the age of 8. My father
taught me well, with the emphasis on gun safety. The Marine Corps took
my shooting skills to a higher level, and I became a certified
firearms instructor.
Even so, when I decided to get my concealed-carry permit, I took a
refresher course in pistol safety and ethics. What an eye-opener!
Anybody can shoot a gun, but are you prepared for the consequences?
Have you thought about what it would be like to kill someone in self-
defense?
If not, you better take a couple of days off to try and wrap your mind
around that concept. If you have doubts, leave the gun at home. When
you pull that gun out of your pocket, you are committed. Use it or it
will be used against you.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six -- and that's what will
happen. Expensive litigation. Even a justified shooting will cost a
bunch of time and money. And don't rule out the possibility of
retaliation; kin is kin. These issues are part of concealed carry
responsibility. I hope you and I never have to face them. [PVC: At
least you will do so alive.]
JACK REAU
CLAYTOR LAKE
**************************************************
13. Who needs a gun in the shower?
**************************************************
I recently got a piece of sarcastic email from an unidentified source
asking tongue-in-cheek how best to conceal a gun in the shower.
If you think that just because you are in the shower, you can't find
yourself in a life-and-death struggle, I suggest you think twice.
There's nothing magical about a shower. In fact, in the shower you
may not hear the doorbell or knocking, leaving the bad guys with the
impression that nobody is home as they kick in your door.
Having the gun in the shower is not really feasible, but having it
within reach, with the bathroom door locked is quite workable.
Bob Culver emailed me this:
--
Who needs a gun while in the shower? It had a good ending, too.
http://tinyurl.com/ydbpz4o
http://www.wsmv.com
September 24, 2009
MOUNT JULIET, Tenn. A woman in Mount Juliet got a scare this week when
a man broke into her home while she was in the shower.
The intruder quickly ran out, but the woman grabbed her gun and shot
at his car.
Police arrested Franklin Fish a short time later. The woman identified
him as the burglar.
Detectives believe Fish is wanted for several other home break ins.
**************************************************
14. Gun advocates predict drop in crime if gun ban is lifted
**************************************************
While Chicago did miss out on the chance to host the 2016 Olympics,
they still have a chance to win something they desperately need. The
right to use a handgun to defend themselves from thieves, thugs and
other criminals.
http://tinyurl.com/yad5sdq
http://www.suntimes.com
By Abdon M. Pallasch & Fran Spielman
September 30, 2009
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to hear a challenge to
Chicago's strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban likely means the other
holster is ready to fall on the ban, advocates on both sides of the
issue seemed to agree Wednesday.
A year from now there will not be a Chicago handgun ban, said Alan
Gura, the attorney representing the gun owners fighting the ban.
The high court's five-member conservative majority last year threw out
Washington, D.C.'s gun ban in the District of Columbia v. Heller case,
but stopped short of invalidating the rest of the country's handgun
bans because that case dealt with federal bans, not local ones.
But gun control advocates and even city of Chicago officials have been
bracing for the high court's firmer embrace of the Second Amendment,
which includes a right to bear arms.
It's going to be very difficult for Chicago not to have to make the
adjustments D.C. had to make, said Paul Heimke, president of the
Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.
At a news conference in Chicago Wednesday, Gura predicted the crime
rate will drop in Chicago if handguns are legalized again, because, he
said, would-be burglars would opt not to break into homes for fear
owners could be armed.
I want to be able to protect myself in my own home. This is a right
that we have that has been moved away from us, and we should have it
back, said Otis McDonald, 76, a plaintiff in the case against the
city's ban and a retired janitor. He says his neighborhood of Morgan
Park has gotten rougher in recent years. I don't have any intention
of going out there and shooting up anybody. The people who want to
control me these are the people I want to protect myself from.
Even though she was not harmed, Colleen Dawson said she wishes she had
a handgun when some men tried to break into her Northwest Side home
last year.
Dawson, 51, said the court's action should be a message to Mayor Daley
and other gun-control advocates to begin looking at a handgun as a
tool given to us as a birthright by the constitution to defend
ourselves.
Growing up in Englewood, Dawson said her grandmother always kept a
handgun in her apron pocket. [PVC: Good for her - she gets the
"carry a gun at home" concept.] She'd like the same right.
Chicago Police scoff at the notion that more handguns will lower the
city's crime rate.
The logic they are using, that homeowners' homes will not get
burglarized, is ridiculous. You usually do not burglarize a home that
is occupied, said Mark Donohue, president of the Fraternal Order of
Police.
A 1988 Emory University study, Heimke said, showed if you keep a gun
in your home, it's 21 times more likely to injure you or your family
than a bad guy. It gets used by a depressed teen to commit suicide, or
you think it's a burglar but it turns out to be a neighbor or a
brother-in-law. [PVC: It bugs me to see a grown man whining and
wringing his hands like this. What's hilarious is that he thinks WE
are paranoid.]
Ever since last year's Heller decision, which Mayor Daley called a
frightening decision that changed the rules of inner-city policing,
city attorneys have been preparing for the Supreme Court to revisit
the issue.
Law Department spokeswoman Jenny Hoyle said Wednesday that city
officials are obviously concerned about what a final decision could
mean for Chicago. But Hoyle said city attorneys remain encouraged
by some of the language the Supreme Court used in overturning
Washington's ban.
The Heller decision didn't say there has to be unrestricted access and
ownership [of] handguns. They allowed for the possibility that some
restrictions might be appropriate, she said.
In December, the D.C. Council replaced its overturned law with new
regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety
training and register their firearms every three years. Gun owners
would face criminal background checks every six years.
At the time, Daley hinted strongly that he intended to use the city's
home-rule power to mimic the D.C. changes.
Of the 511 murders that happened in Chicago last year, 402 happened
outdoors and the vast majority involved one gang member shooting
another gang member, according to police statistics.
Gura admitted local governments have more rights to restrict gun
possession outdoors.
But Richard Pearson of the illinois State Rifle Association noted the
state legislature has four bills pending to legalize concealed carry
laws, and he thinks passing them would likewise lower the crime rate
in Chicago.
They have turned Chicago into a crime capital, Pearson said.
Gura and Pearson said other cities with less restrictive gun laws such
as New York and L.A. have lower crime rates.
That's because New York state and California have better gun
restrictions at the state level, Heimke said. He said if more local
communities had laws as strict as Chicago's that would have lowered
Chicago's crime rate. [PVC: Yeah, and if people stopped eating
cheese the moon would be bigger, too.]
I know a lot of the bad guys in Chicago come over to Indiana to get
their guns, Heimke said. Every time I drive from Indiana to Chicago,
nobody sees what I'm bringing in. If other communities took the same
approach as Chicago, we would be even safer.
But McDonald said the current law only protects criminals.
We worked all our lives, paid taxes, did the right thing in life and
here we are vulnerable to somebody who never went to school, is never
going to go to school, and is living off of what they can get out of
us that's what it's all about, McDonald said.
**************************************************
15. Gray Column: Guns on trains not a good idea
**************************************************
I think Mr Gray has completely missed the point on this one. If a
terrorist thought that he might be confronted by a group of armed
citizens on a train, he would think twice about his actions. What
could be safer than that?
http://tinyurl.com/y96j5ow
www2.insidenova.com
Davon Gray
September 28, 2009
When I think of guns, I think of hunting or protecting myself, my
family or my property. The last thing I think of is the Virginia Rail
Express (VRE).
Last week the VRE's operation board ruled that riders will be able to
carry firearms aboard their trains.
This ruling was to comply with Virginia's Code on firearms. Basically
the Virginia law allows citizens, who have no criminal record, to
carry weapons in plain view and those with a permit to carry a
concealed weapon.
Obviously, due to the restrictions on firearms in the District, you
can't take the weapon there if you are on the train.
Which brings me to a question: Why did this have to be passed now?
Yes, I know it puts the VRE in compliance with state law. But
considering most folks are riding the VRE system going to work or
heading into the District, I can't see the need for this one. [PVC:
I'll bet if terrorists took over the train or some nutcase decided to
start murdering people on that train you would change your mind really
quick.]
I'm sure someone will write in and enlighten me but for the life of me
right now I just can't see it.
I do find it strange, or just ironic, that during the same week the
federal government issues a watch warning for terrorism on mass
transit, the VRE allows guns on its trains. The timing is only
coincidental but still, it is ironic.
Now I seriously don't think the VRE board is trying to put lives in
danger. They are just staying compliant with state law. But I have to
wonder what is the rush to compliance right now? [PVC: Er, because
they were banning guns illegally, perhaps?]
Nevertheless, the real problem here should be addressed within the
Virginia General Assembly. When the next session begins, a member of
the House of Delegates or State Senate needs to introduce legislation
that excludes the VRE from this law. [PVC: And VCDL will be there to
fight such a thing every step of the way.]
The General Assembly should do this because they are the only ones who
can. State law prohibits localities from making their own laws
pertaining to purchase, carrying, transfer, ownership, storage or
transport of firearms or ammunition.
I can only imagine the nightmare scenario of someone getting on the
train and forgetting to get off before entering Washington, D.C. They
basically go from carrying a firearm legally to doing so illegally,
punishable by D.C. law.
Also there are some specifics that need to be known about how you
carry the firearm. Virginia law requires that a person have their
firearm holstered on the side or with a shoulder holster. [PVC:
There is no such law. Nothing like just making stuff up.]
So you can't just walk around with the gun in your back pocket, tucked
in your waist (however I believe you can use a waistband) or in your
hand. That would be brandishing a firearm, which is illegal. [PVC:
Wrong again. Brandishing is when a gun is used to intentionally
induce fear in another. I would suggest you should always carry a gun
in a holster, but it isn't required by law.]
So before you go and grab a gun and go on the VRE, you might want to
take a look at Virginia law on carrying those firearms. [PVC: Too
bad this guy didn't take his own advice!]
Other than knowing how to carry a gun, we all need to consider the
insane idea of wanting to do so in the first place on public trains.
The idea of a crowded train and random people carrying guns should
make you feel less safe rather than more so.
There are too many threats on our transit system as it is. [PVC: If
there are threats, then people need to be able to protect themselves.
Nice way to ruin your own argument!]
Fortunately, I doubt a lot of people will take advantage of this
ruling. I have a hard time imagining a train full of gun toting
commuters. But it is possible. [PVC: Well, there are 203,000 CHP
holders alone.]
It's just another one of those things that make you say, Hmmm. I don't
think the people making the laws thought this one all the way through,
at least not the idea of guns on trains. [PVC: You sure have a lot
of nerve to lecture someone else on not thinking their position
through, Mr. Gray.]
Davon Gray works in Washington, D.C., and resides in Woodbridge.
Contact him at davongray@verizon.net
**************************************************
16. Andrew Dysart replied to a thread on Facebook
**************************************************
This is a great analysis by Andrew Dysart of a new "study" 'that
having a gun doesn't really help much in not getting shot. He really
nailed this one in a Facebook post:
At first glance it looks like this study only analyzes cases where a
shooting actually occurred. This means they left out the millions
(potentially nationwide) of cases that involved a self-defense
situation which didn't end in a shooting! From what I can remember,
in the vast majority of self-defense cases with a firearm, the mere
presentation of a firearm by the victim will normally scare off an
assailant without any shots fired.
They also didn't look at the legality of the gun possession itself;
are these criminals shooting other criminals (that happen to possess a
firearm)?
As I see it, this study really shows that if you are shot in
Philadelphia, you are likely to have a gun on you. Which doesn't tell
you anything about the number of people who actually defend themselves
with a firearm.
I quickly skimmed this "study," so I could be misstating a few of its
methods and findings. By that I mean, don't quote me...
[PVC: Sorry, Andrew, I think you need to be quoted on this one.]
---------------
Here is the original article that Andrew Dysart was analyzing.
--
http://tinyurl.com/yed5p9t
(PhysOrg.com) -- In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the
University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average,
guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an
assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times
more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun.
The study was released online this month in the American Journal of
Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009.
"This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns
are protective or perilous," notes study author Charles C. Branas,
PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. "Will possessing a firearm
always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of
security?"
What Penn researchers found was alarming - almost five Philadelphians
were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these
5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful
defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of
success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at
least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety
countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary,
especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense
against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully
reconsidered.
A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue
to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or
the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the
relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home,
purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn
study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might
create for a person at the time of a shooting.
Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an
assault and a person's possession of a gun at the time of the
shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly
selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an
assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in
possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or
vehicle) when they were shot.
These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted
as the study's controls. To identify the controls, trained phone
canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting
and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting.
These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do
with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have
historically used to establish links between such things as smoking
and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes.
"The US has at least one gun for every adult," notes Branas. "Learning
how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies
such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better
investment in gun injury research through various government and
private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the
past have not been legally permitted to fund research 'designed to
affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation
intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.'"
Source: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
-------------
Here's another good analysis. It makes a good point concerning the
study's assumption that everyone over 21 is a law-abiding gun owner:
"It's legitimate to exclude people under 21 who carry guns, but why is
it assumed that anyone over the age of 21 was a legal gun owner? It's
illegal to carry a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia without a
License to Carry firearms. Why did the study not exclude people who
were carrying firearms illegally? Could it be because you needed
people involved in dangerous illegal activity to get the results you
wanted? Why exclude people who are not residents of Philadelphia? They
are more likely to carry a legal firearm. Why the racial exclusion?"
Sebastian also believes that the study was funded by the Joyce
foundation. Which would explain a lot, as they have been know for
these "studies":
(http://tinyurl.com/ydqpvyv)
**************************************************
17. Gary Kleck responds to Chet Szymecki about an anti-gun "study"
**************************************************
More on the article in item #16, above.
Chet Szymecki Jr. emailed me this:
--
I emailed Professor Gark Kleck (College of Criminology and Criminal
Justice, Florida State University) to solicit his opinion on the
aforementioned article - here is his reply:
http://tinyurl.com/ye96rgn
Comments on forthcoming article by Branas et al., AJPH 2009
Gary Kleck, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State
University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127 (850) 894-1628, gkleck@fsu.edu.
September 28, 2009.
The article by Branas and his colleagues (forthcoming in the American
Journal of Public Health) is the very epitome of junk science in the
guns-and-violence field - poor quality research designed to arrive at
an ideologically predetermined conclusion. Like all articles in on
this topic published in the AJPH, it concludes that guns (no matter
who possesses or uses them) invariably raise the risks of violence.
This is not what competent research indicates, but it is certainly
what the peculiar body of poor quality research appearing in medical
and public health journals almost always concludes.
The authors conclude that "on average, guns did not protect those who
possessed them from being shot in an assault" and that successful
defensive gun uses are unlikely. In fact, none of the evidence
presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of
the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at
no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively
with victims who did not. Instead, they made only the essentially
irrelevant comparison between people who were shot in assaults with
the rest of the population, noting whether gun possession was more
common among the former than among the latter. Not surprisingly,
after controlling for a handful of (badly chosen) control variables,
they found that gun possession is more common among gunshot victims.
This pattern, however, says nothing about the effectiveness of
defensive gun use, but rather is merely a reflection of the fact that
the same factors that place people at greater risk of becoming assault
victims also motivate many people to acquire, and in some cases carry
away from home, guns for self-protection. In sum, this is what
researchers refer to as a "spurious" association - a non-causal
statistical pattern due to the influence of some third factor(s) on
the purported cause (gun possession) and the effect (gunshot
victimization). For example, being a drug dealer or member of a
street gang puts one at much higher risk of being shot, but also makes
it far more likely one will acquire a gun for protection.
Previous published research, however, has directly compared crime
victims who used guns with victims who used other self-protective
strategies (including doing nothing to resist), and reached precisely
the opposite conclusions from those at which Branas et al. arrived
(Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Southwick 2000; Tark and Kleck
2004). Significantly, Branas et al. ignore all but one of these
studies, and do not share with readers the main finding of the one
study they do mention in passing (Kleck and DeLone 1993) - victims who
resisted with guns were less likely to be injured that those who did
not. Indeed, all published research to make such direct comparisons
has yielded the same conclusion.
The most authoritative study (Tark and Kleck 2004) used data from
large-scale surveys conducted by the federal government (the National
Crime Victimization Survey), covering large samples that were
representative of the entire U.S. population, compared 18 different
self-protection victim strategies, and controlled for far more
confounding variables than Branas et al. did. The results indicated
that the probability of success in defensive uses of guns approaches
100% - it is virtually unheard of for a crime victim to be injured
after using a gun for self-protection. More specifically, only 2% of
gun-wielding victims were injured after using a gun for self-
protection (p. 878). On the rare occasions that gun-using victims
were hurt, it was almost always injury that came first, followed by
armed resistance - i.e., injury provoked previously reluctant victims
into finally using their guns.
Strictly speaking, the results of Banas and his colleagues do not
conflict with those of prior researchers; rather, they are simply
irrelevant, and do not actually bear on the use of how effective
defensive gun use is. The authors draw a non sequitur conclusion from
irrelevant evidence. They find that gun shot victimization is more
common among those who have guns, and conclude that gun possession
raises one's risks of being shot. It is precisely as if medical
researchers found that insulin use is more common among persons who
suffer from diabetes than among those who are not diabetic (something
that is most assuredly true), and concluded that insulin use raises
one's risk of diabetes. This silly conclusions would certainly come
as a surprise to medical researchers, and is obviously wrong. So is
the conclusion drawn by Branas et al.
Cited Studies
Kleck, Gary
1988 "Crime control through the private use of armed force." Social
Problems 35:1-21.
Kleck, Gary and Miriam A. Delone
1993 "Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery."
Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 9:55-81.
Southwick, Lawrence
2000 "Self-defense with guns." Journal of Criminal Justice 28:
351-370.
Tark, Jongyeon, and Gary Kleck. 2004. "Resisting Crime." Criminology
42:861-909.
**************************************************
18. AZ: Valley bars, eateries get ready for gun-toting patrons
**************************************************
The "No Guns Allowed" sign in the window of a bar or restaurant sends
a completely different message to a would be robber. It might as well
say "The patrons here have been disarmed for your convenience." Now,
which establishment would you rather visit?.
http://tinyurl.com/ycxbla9
http://www.azcentral.com
Amy B Wang
September 29, 2009
Starting Wednesday, those carrying concealed weapons are allowed to
enter Arizona's roughly 5,300 establishments licensed to sell alcohol,
as long as they don't drink. If those bar and restaurant owners don't
want guns on the property, they must post a sign indicating that they
are not allowed.
The law only requires one sign be posted in a "conspicuous" place,
near the establishment's liquor license. But Al McCarthy, owner of
Duke's Sports Bar & Grill in Scottsdale, put up three signs - one for
each entrance to his property - "as soon as the bill passed" nearly
three months ago.
"I want to make sure there's no confusion as to where this business
stands on the issue," McCarthy said. "I have yet to have a customer to
tell me they wish I hadn't put up the sign."
About a thousand official, laminated signs have been requested since
they became available in mid-August, according to the Arizona
Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, with the average
establishment requesting four signs.
Business owners also have been able to download and print their own
signs from the department's Web site.
Janie Riddle, co-owner of the local chain Valle Luna, decided not to
post any signs banning firearms, saying that it would be "business as
usual" at the family's three Mexican restaurants.
"We've never had a problem in 26-plus years," said Riddle, whose
husband, grown children and various relatives also work at Valle Luna.
"We basically talked about it as a family and as a business and just
decided it was in the best interest to not prohibit law-abiding
citizens from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment."
Riddle also said they felt the presence of those carrying guns legally
could deter trouble from those carrying guns illegally. "I think it
would get them to think twice, big time," she said.
Proponents of the bill argue that concealed-weapons permit holders -
who are required to undergo a background check, be fingerprinted and
take an eight-hour training course - are among the most responsible
gun owners.
There were 138,348 concealed-weapons permit holders in Arizona as of
Sept. 1.
Opponents are concerned that the law could create unnecessarily
dangerous situations or harm the local and state tourism industry.
"I'm not anti-firearm. I honestly don't think that firearms, drinking
and dining are a match," said Don Carson, who has owned Don &
Charlie's Steakhouse in Scottsdale for 28 years. "I don't know that
I'm looking for a gentleman with a permit for a firearm to defend me
against a person who has a firearm illegally, because maybe the person
with the legal firearm isn't such a good shot."
Thirty-nine other states have "restaurant carry" laws that allow guns
inside dining establishments.
Various incarnations of the bill that ultimately passed this session
have appeared in the state Legislature for years. Gov. Jan Brewer
signed the bill into law on July 13.
"We fought it, but we didn't have any partners in the industry to rely
on," said Bill Weigele, president of the Arizona Licensed Beverage
Association, which originally opposed the bill.
The Arizona Restaurant Association and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce
and Industry were neutral on the bill, and no law-enforcement groups
opposed it, according to Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, the bill's
sponsor.
Weigele said the new law was an eventual compromise between those who
wanted to preserve business owners' rights and those concerned with
gun-carry rights. Rather than allowing "open carries," the law
restricts the gun owner to concealed weapons. The gun owner also is
not allowed to drink.
Those who do drink while carrying - or who bring concealed weapons
into establishments that have posted bans - could face Class 3
misdemeanor charges, punishable by 30 days' jail time and a fine of up
to $500, according to Steve Duffy, an attorney who represented the
beverage association. They also risk loss of their concealed-carry
permits.
"We made what we thought was the best deal," Weigele said. "If we had
to die on the vine, we were going to die on the vine with some good."
High demand, as well as laminating and postage costs, forced the
liquor- licenses department to stop mailing signs to licensees, who
can still obtain the free, approved sign in person from the Arizona
Restaurant Association or online at azliquor.gov.
Todd Rathner, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, said he
did not think the law would make a huge difference after it takes
effect.
"I think that ultimately restaurant owners will make an economic
decision to allow those 138,000 law-abiding citizens to come in and
have a meal," Rathner said, "whether they're carrying a concealed
weapon or not."
**************************************************
19. After Arizona, Virginia likely next to repeal ban on concealed
carry in restaurants
**************************************************
Just this year, we've seen Tennessee and Arizona added to the list of
states where citizens can conceal carry into an establishment that
serves alcohol. Next year, Virginia will likely be added as well. I
can't wait, but we must all do our part to make sure the bill ends up
on the next Governor's desk.
The October 17th Freedom Rally is going to play a part in the
restaurant ban repeal, by showing on a large scale that restaurants
have no problems with law abiding citizens being armed for self-defense.
http://tinyurl.com/yf8nqnw
http://www.examiner.com
Mike Stollenwerk
September 30, 2009
And then there were eight.
SNIP
In the famous Agatha Cristie novel And Then There Were None a group of
people on an island mysteriously begins to die off due to accident or
foul play. This plot is playing out in real life today with state bans
on carrying handgun for lawful purposes in alcohol serving restaurants
- these bans are rapidly dieing off.
. . .
And today, September 30, 2009, Arizona's ban on concealed carry in
alcohol serving restaurants is no more. . . .
Virginia is widely expected to repeal its "restaurant ban" on
concealed carry in 2010 - the Old Dominion's legislature has passed
such legislation twice in the past 2 years only to be vetoed by
Governor Tim Kaine (D). But both the Republican and Democratic party
Gubernatorial nominees in Virginia, Bob McDonnell and Creigh Deeds,
support repeal of the ban on concealed carry in alcohol serving
restaurants, and are expected to sign the bill when it passes in 2010.
**************************************************
20. Women buying guns like never before
**************************************************
Yes! This is music to my ears. In the next Update we will have a
link to photos of a an all-women handgun training event held in
Richmond, with lots and lots of members of the fairer sex learning to
shoot.
http://tinyurl.com/y8cf6k2
http://www.outdoorlife.com
by J.R. Absher
September 28, 2009
Gals and guns
The ten-month surge in the sale of firearms and the accompanying
increase in applications for concealed carry permits in the U.S. have
been well documented by the pro-gun media. But a relatively under-
reported related gun-sales story has everything to do with sex.
Did that get your attention?
By all accounts, women are buying guns for personal protection like
never before and seeking firearms training and education in increasing
numbers.
Last week it was reported that in 2009 nearly 12,000 new pistol
permits were issued in Connecticut, a state with one of the
historically lowest gun-ownership rates in the country. Between
January and May the state saw a 90 percent increase in the number of
pistol permits over the previous year, with retailers and safety
instructors reporting a spike in first-time gun purchases,
particularly by women.
I think that the percentage that you'd see of women coming for the
first time has quadrupled,John Petricone, a staffer at Tactical Arms
in Torrington, told the Danbury Republican-American. Pistol safety
classes that once drew about nine men for every woman are now evenly
split, Petricone said.
That contention was all but confirmed by survey results released this
week from the National Shooting Sports Foundation's First Shots program.
First Shots is just what the name implies: a program that introduces
people to handgun shooting for their first time along with expert
coaching and safety instruction.
Of the 3,106 participant surveys tabulated from handgun events as of
this June, a total of 1,498 participants (48 percent) identified
themselves as female. In addition, 64 percent of the female
participants indicated the First Shots seminar marked their first-ever
experience shooting a handgun.
In a follow-up survey conducted six months after attending the
seminar, 20 percent of the female participants said they went on to
take formal handgun training such as basic handgun, concealed carry,
defensive handgun, NRA safety instruction and other formal programs.
Further, nearly half of the responding female First Shots participants
reported to have met their state's requirement to own or purchase a
handgun.
**************************************************
21. The true citizen soldier
**************************************************
A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this:
--
And this is from a guy based in Maryland, where the average law-
abiding citizen cannot get the state credential to carry a concealed
weapon. Yes, Frank is an ex-cop and trains mostly cops, but I
honestly do not believe for a moment he has an "only one" attitude.
I'm thinking this might be useful educational material. I'm going to
write Frank and ask permission to make reprints.
http://tinyurl.com/yezr3r6
http://www.newamericantruth.com
Frank Borelli
SNIP
If one out of every thirty Americans is armed, that means out of 100
citizens on the street, at least three have a gun with which to shoot
and disable / kill a terrorist who makes himself known by presenting
any kind of threat. And he has no way of identifying which three out
of a hundred. How can they prepare for that?
I'm reminded of the story of the Homicide Bomber that opened her robes
in an Israeli market place. A house wife out shopping drew her pistol
and, with a single headshot, prevented the bomber from detonating.
THAT is the power of an armed citizenry. It's a power we need to
leverage instead of arguing about whether or not carrying guns is
Constitutionally protected.
As a police officer I'm not bothered at all by the number of citizens
who are legally armed and licensed to carry. I welcome them. They are
the good guys. They are the kind of Americans who fought and bled for
our freedom two centuries ago. They are the hard working, often
veteran, culturally mixed people who simply want the chance to pursue
peace, liberty and justice. They work hard and want to earn a fair
wage. They don't ask for handouts. They often give more help than they
can afford. As Garth Brooks says, "We don't reach for handouts; we
reach for those who are down."
This country has built a great reputation fighting for... defending
the underdogs of the world. It's made us strong and that ethos is one
that we have to continue to build and develop. America of the future
can be even stronger - but we have to quit the internal squabbling.
I'll step down off my soap box... Read the numbers. Recognize that our
armed citizens represent a greater defense force - our citizen
soldiers - than our law enforcement or military. AMERICANS are what
makes America strong - and the whole world knows it.
BE SAFE!
**************************************************
22. Alamogordo police pay $21,000 to settle open carry lawsuit
**************************************************
This is a followup to an article in VA-ALERT Update 9/15/09, #2
"Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying
guns."
http://tinyurl.com/ydpo6n4
http://www.examiner.com
Mike Stollenwerk
September 29, 2009
SNIP
As reported in the Alamogordo Daily News today, the Alamogordo, NM
Police have paid $21,000 to settle with Matthew A. St. John whom
police detained for open carrying a holstered handgun at a movie
theater.
This settlement follows a host of settlements by police departments
around the country with plaintiffs who were detained by police for
openly carrying a holstered handgun, including Pennsylvania,
Louisiana, Virginia, and Georgia. More cases are still pending in . . .
**************************************************
23. Surprise winner of Obama stimulus spending: gun industry
**************************************************
Police departments are using some of the stimulus money to arm up,
helping to make Obama "gun salesman of the century."
http://tinyurl.com/lc2qwq
http://www.csmonitor.com
Patrik Jonsson
September 11, 2009
Atlanta
Many gun-loving Americans are convinved that President Obama and the
Democratic-controlled Congress are bent on ripping rifles from their
"cold, dead hands," as actor Charlton Heston once declared at a
National Rifle Association meeting.
But from the perspective of police departments, not to mention
gunmakers, the Obama administration may go down as one of the most gun-
friendly in history. Across America, police departments are using the
taxpayer-funded stimulus bill to boost their arsenals with shotguns,
handguns, and assault rifles.
Among the general public, a record 1 million guns were sold across the
United States in August alone, rebuffing expectations that, after 10
months, the post-Obama election gun-buying spree would abate. US
gunmaker Smith & Wesson on Wednesday reported a 30 percent rise in
sales in the first quarter, leading to unexpected profits and a rising
stock price.
But as police departments order new firearms using stimulus funds,
there's more than a little irony in the fact that a president whom the
gun industry looked upon with suspicion has put forward a federal
program from which gunmakers are benefiting.
"Gun culture magazines in the '90s named [President] Clinton 'gun
salesman of the year,' but I think Obama, without even trying, has
become gun salesman of the century," says Brian Anse Patrick, a gun
culture expert at the University of Toledo, and author of the
forthcoming book "Rise of the Anti-Media."
"One of the largest concerns has been that consumer firearms demand
might slow dramatically from Obama-led frenzy levels," Eric Wold, a
Merriman Curhan Ford analyst, told the Associated Press this week.
"However, not only did consumer sales increase 29 percent, but law-
enforcement and international sales jumped 32 percent and 12 percent,
respectively."
Take the city of Jeffersonville, Ind. Police there are spending
$63,000 of their stimulus bill money to buy 74 new assault rifles for
their police cruisers.
The Barre, Vt., police department used stimulus money to buy six new
handguns, 21 Taser guns, and five new shotguns, including one
nonlethal version that shoots bean bags.
As part of its request for stimulus funds, Arlington, Texas, included
$56,000 for military-grade carbines.
And in a neat twist, Smyrna, Ga.-based gunmaker Glock recently
received $960 in stimulus funds to equip three federal Recovery Act
antifraud officers in Washington with new sidearms. They might come in
handy, as Washington is increasingly worried about scams and fraud
involving stimulus bill dispersals.
Of course, the biggest chunk of the $4 billion in stimulus money
intended for law enforcement is to hold onto officers and hire an
estimated 5,600 new officers across the US. Most extra funds are being
used not for guns but for other equipment including cruisers and
computers.
But Andy Molchan, director of the Professional Gun Retailers
Association in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., says part of the growing profit
statements from gunmakers such as Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Sig come
courtesy of the American taxpayer by way of some of America's 14,000
police jurisdictions.
"If there's money there, an agency is going to try to spend it," says
Mr. Molchan. "They like to upgrade when they can."
But the interests of the gun industry aren't always the same as those
of civil libertarians, many of whom are gun owners, says Mr. Patrick.
The issue of police militarization is of particular concern, he says.
"There's been a sort of creeping sociological phenomenon out there,
where people are wondering, 'How many guns do the police need?' "
The fact that the stimulus package is helping to prop up gunmakers is
proof to some even within the gun industry that fears about major gun-
control legislation in the US are, at least for now, unfounded.
"The gun industry is always worried, but it's basically kind of a
collection of worry warts as far as firearms legislation goes," says
Mr. Molchar. "I think the Democrats have realized that for a long time
they were the victims of their own [antigun] propaganda."
**************************************************
24. Growing number of Detroit pastors wear handguns in pulpit
**************************************************
One Detroit pastor addresses the question "Who needs a gun in church?"
http://tinyurl.com/y8zbfjo
http://www.foxnews.com
Associated Press
October 1, 2009
DETROIT
The Rev. Lawrence Adams teaches his flock at the Westside Bible Church
to turn the other cheek. Just in case, though, the 54-year-old retired
police lieutenant also wears a handgun under his robe.
Adams is one of several Detroit clergymen who have taken to packing
heat in the pulpit. They have committed their lives to a man who
preached nonviolence and told followers to love their enemies. But
they also say it's up to them to protect their parishioners in church.
"As a pastor, I'm referred to as a shepherd," Adams said. "Shepherds
have the responsibility of watching over their flock. Do I want to
hurt somebody? Absolutely not!"
Responding to a break-in at his church Sunday evening, Adams surprised
a burglar carrying out a bag of loot and shot the man in the abdomen
after the man swung the bag at him.
The burglar survived for which Adams is grateful but the reverend said
he could have been hurt or killed if he had not been armed.
Detroit had the nation's highest homicide rate last year among cities
of at least 500,000 residents. The city has been losing manufacturing
jobs for decades, and these days about one in four working-age
residents is without a job.
The northwest Detroit neighborhood surrounding Adams' church isn't one
of the city's most dangerous. But there have been many recent reports
of crimes in the area, including four burglaries, three auto thefts,
one armed robbery and four assaults, including one with intent to
murder.
"It's getting worse because of the economy," Adams said. "People are
out of work and feel they have to provide for their families."
Prior to 2000, anyone who wanted to carry a concealed weapon in
Michigan had to show a need to do so. Now, gun owners simply have to
pass a stringent background check and complete eight hours of handgun
training.
"I get people from all walks of life, including pastors," said Rick
Ector, owner of Rick's Firearm Academy in Detroit. "But it's not
anything specific to pastors. Detroit is not a very safe place."
Michigan allows pastors to decide if someone registered to carry a
handgun can do so for protection inside churches.
The clergy in Detroit who arm themselves say they do so because of the
high overall crime rate. But churchgoers elsewhere have been the
target of violent attacks several times in recent years:
Last year in a New Jersey church, a man fatally shot his estranged
wife and a man who intervened in the attack.
A pastor was found stabbed to death in August in an Oklahoma church.
A Maryville, Ill., preacher was gunned down during his Sunday sermon
in March.
In December 2007, a gunman killed two people at a Christian youth
mission center near Denver and two others at a megachurch in Colorado
Springs.
Near Detroit, a man was shot to death in 2003 while worshipping in a
Catholic church. And an attacker fatally shot a woman and wounded a
child inside another Detroit church three years ago because of a
domestic dispute.
"I don't know what kind of issues people are bringing with them. You
could be running from estranged husband, boyfriend," said Bishop
Charles Ellis III, pastor of the 6,500-member Greater Grace Temple in
Detroit.
Ellis said he sometimes carries a gun, but never in the pulpit. His
church has a "ministry of defense" for Sunday services made up of
about 18 armed congregants who are off-duty law enforcement officers.
Clergy are adjusting to society, said the Rev. Kenneth J. Flowers,
pastor of Greater New Mt. Moriah Baptist Church in Detroit.
"In addition to their faith, they are carrying weapons," said Flowers,
who does not carry a gun. "There used to be a time when everybody
respected a pastor. Even a drunk would straighten up if a preacher
came by."
Many people are uncomfortable with the idea of an armed clergy,
because Christ preached against violence and taught people they should
love their enemies.
"But the scriptures also are clear that civil authority is part of
God's plan," said Claude Wiggins, a former pastor and current
assistant at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary.
"In our country, it says in due process that you may bear arms to
protect yourself. While we should be committed to trusting God, that
doesn't prevent us or command us to be totally passive," Wiggins said.
Al Meredith, pastor of the Wedgwood church in Fort Worth, said some
off-duty police officers who are deacons at his church carry guns, but
he's uncomfortable with the idea of an armed congregation.
"It discourages the crazies from acts of violence if they see uniforms
around, but I don't want everybody bringing guns," Meredith said. "My
ultimate conviction is what does the word of God say and what would
Jesus do? Can you in your wildest imagination ever see Jesus packing
a .38? I can't imagine Peter and Paul carrying .45s."
The Rev. William Revely, who sometimes wears his .357-caliber handgun
while preaching at the Holy Hope Heritage Church in Detroit, does not
worry whether it might be wrong for a man of God to carry a firearm in
church.
"I've always felt that the only way to handle a bear in a bear meeting
is to have something you can handle a bear with," said the 68-year-old
pastor, who practices at a gun range with another pastor. "We have to
be realistic. I know too many people who've been shot, carjacked."
Adams said most if not all of Westside's 50 members have supported his
actions after encountering the burglar.
"People want to look at Christians and the church as believers in God
and ask 'Why doesn't God protect you?" Adams said. "The reality is God
has given man free will. We have to use our God-given talents and
protect ourselves."
**************************************************
25. Open house at G3 Security Group
**************************************************
Greg Stone of G3 Security Group emailed me this. They are also going
to have VCDL literature and other items at G3:
--
Hello All:
As some of you know, I have a new business venture, G3 Security Group
Inc, and would like to invite you to our Open House on Friday October
23rd.
When : Friday, October 23rd
Time: Anytime between 6 and 8:30 pm
Where: 15 Douglas Court, Suite 2A ( Second Floor ), Sterling, VA 20166
G3 Security Group will be providing NRA Certified Firearms
Instruction. We will be teaching courses developed by the NRA, as well
as those developed by G3 geared toward concealed carry of a firearm.
All courses will emphasize proper firearms handling, safety, shooting
fundamentals and the responsibilities of gun ownership and use.
Some of you have expressed an interest in taking one of our courses.
Discounted course fees will be offered to all of you to include
family, friends and business associates. Contact us for details.
Here are the courses set for October and November.
Friday October 9th- NRA Basic Pistol
Friday October 16th- NRA Basic Pistol
Wednesday October 21st- NRA First Steps Pistol
Friday October 30th- NRA Basic Pistol
Thursday November 5th- NRA First Steps Pistol
Friday November 13th- NRA Basic Pistol
Tuesday November 17th- NRA First Steps Pistol
Thursday November 19th- NRA Basic Pistol
Tuesday November 24th- NRA Basic Pistol
Friday November 27th- NRA Basic Pistol
All courses are conducted in our new classroom facility in Sterling.
Classes meet at 6:00 pm with live fire range time by appointment.
Personalized one-on-one, private and corporate instruction is also
available.
Completion of either of the above courses demonstrates proficiency
with a handgun and meets the mandated training requirements for a
permit to carry a concealed handgun in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
We have also partnered with the NRA-ILA in a program that I am both
excited and proud to be a part. G3 Security Group Inc has volunteered
to become a Second Amendment Activist Center in order to Help Spread
The Truth & Promote Activism regarding our gun rights. Now, more than
ever, the Second Amendment community needs to unite in defense of
freedom, and this project will pay huge dividends for gun owners and
the pro-freedom business community. NRA-ILA materials such information
sheets, bumper stickers , pins and election information are available
for pick-up during regular business hours.
If you have any questions call or email at your convenience.
We hope to see all of you on October 23rd.
Yours in Freedom
Greg
--
Greg Stone
G3 Security Group, Inc
Firearms Training and Consultation
703-437-8111
***************************************************************************
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