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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to Chuck Young and Brandy Polinowski for compiling this update. We are getting caught up still.
1. Gun video is backfiring on hapless Michael Bloomberg
2. Gun controllers hoping to use “domestic violence” as an excuse to disarm citizens
3. Kaine believes U.N. Treaty no threat to gun rights
4. Police: Cab driver shoots man that threatened him with a knife in Roanoke
5. Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment guards 'Right of Resistance'
6. 7 reasons women struggle with firearms training
7. The Long View: Gun control being decimated on state level
8. Openly gay NRA commentator looks to break gun owner stereotype
9. Bogus gun control numbers
10. Juan Williams wife robbed, wishes she had gun
11. Bloomberg gun control spokesman defends her boss' armed escort
12. Dana Loesch confronts one of Bloomberg's partners [VIDEO]
13. NRA to Michael Bloomberg 'Let's see who crushes who'
14. The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
15. Gun controller stepping down
16. Sandy Hook victim's mother: Schools need emergency plan [AUDIO]
17. [MT] More bad reporting
18. [TX] Armed good Samaritan comes to the aid of purse-snatching victim
19. In California a fevered rush for gun permits
20. Law of self defense- UC Berkeley debate [VIDEO]
21. [CA] Smart gun in search of somebody, anybody, wanting one
**************************************************
1. Gun video is backfiring on hapless Michael Bloomberg
**************************************************
Michael Bloomberg is running a commercial around domestic violence meant to scare people into wanting more gun control. But what the video really shows is just how helpless an unarmed mother is in protecting not only herself, but her children.
I never thought I’d be thanking Mr. Bloomberg for spreading the “guns save lives” message far-and-wide, but here I am.
Even on the television show The View, THREE OUT OF FOUR of the hosts on the show support mothers being armed to protect their children!
Think I’m kidding? Oh, no I’m not. Here’s the video of the show, which includes the Bloomberg commercial showing the importance of being armed, even at home (thanks to member Diane Weber for the link):
From newsbusters.org: http://tinyurl.com/preyj9b [VIDEO]
Perhaps the Second Amendment Foundation will convey the honored “Gun Rights Activist of the Year” award to Michael Bloomberg at this year’s Gun Rights Policy Conference?
**************************************************
2. Gun controllers hoping to use “domestic violence” as an excuse to disarm citizens
**************************************************
EM Dave Hicks sent this:
From edition.cnn.com: http://tinyurl.com/mrfpmo3
Domestic violence: The next front in gun control fight
By Leigh Ann Caldwell, CNN
July 30, 2014 -- Updated 1533 GMT (2333 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
* Advocates are pushing for gun control legislation through the issue of
domestic violence
* Everytown for Gun Safety's new ad ties together guns and domestic abuse [PVC: And makes the point that guns save lives unintentionally.]
* "Women's lives are at stake," Gabrielle Giffords writes in opinion piece [PVC: And is why they need to be armed. Also, let’s not forget that women can be abusers, too.]
* Senate committee holds first hearing on the issue
SNIP
**************************************************
3. Kaine believes U.N. Treaty no threat to gun rights
**************************************************
Yeah and the Tooth Fairy puts money under your pillow and the "assault weapon" ban was about machine guns.
From fredericksburg.com: http://tinyurl.com/mf9zlve
Kaine: Treaty doesn't infringe on gun rights
April 30, 2014
Carl Grenn Sr. of Fredericksburg recently wrote a letter, published elsewhere, challenging a vote I cast related to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
While the U.S. Senate has yet to vote on ratification of the international treaty, on April 2, 2013, I voted against an amendment to the Senate budget that would have prevented the Senate from considering the measure altogether.
The treaty, which in no way affects our Second Amendment rights or domestic gun sales, establishes common, worldwide guidelines to keep weapons out of the hands of human rights abusers and criminals who fuel violent conflicts around the world, like in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Plainly speaking, the treaty attempts to create an international standard for weapons sales that matches our own existing U.S. standards, which are the best in the world.
The treaty does not change or restrict any right or liberty guaranteed to American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
In fact, the U.S. Constitution strictly prohibits the U.N. or any other international entity from infringing on our national sovereignty or individual rights.
The treaty would also protect U.S. commercial interests by ensuring our country can still export defense equipment to reliable partners.
As a gun owner and strong believer in Second Amendment rights, I am confident this treaty does not infringe on these rights, and that it also ensures that the U.S. remains in control of its own arms export arrangements.
Sen. Tim Kaine, Richmond
**************************************************
4. Police: Cab driver shoots man that threatened him with a knife in Roanoke
**************************************************
Being a cab driver can be dangerous. As a matter of fact, Richmond used to prohibit cabbies from carrying a firearm for self-defense (which makes about as much sense as any other gun control law does). Fortunately, when VCDL fought to get full preemption passed in 2004, that prohibition went away.
From wset.com: http://tinyurl.com/n8qqbgk
Police: Cab Driver Shoots Man That Threatened Him With a Knife in Roanoke
April 26, 2014
Roanoke, VA – Roanoke Police say a man was shot early Saturday morning by a cab driver.
The 34-year-old man driving the cab called police to say he had shot a man at 3:20 a.m. Saturday in the area of Campbell Avenue SE and Williamson Road SE.
The driver told police the man had a knife and had become combative and threatening with the cable driver after asking him for a cigarette.
Police say Antwan Stancil, 33, lunged at the cab driver with a knife when the driver shot him once.
The cab driver was cooperative with officers and detectives following the shooting, police say.
The case is still under investigation.
**************************************************
5. Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment guards 'Right of Resistance'
**************************************************
Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:
--
From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/l6z2cta
SUPREME COURT: 2ND AMENDMENT GUARDS 'RIGHT OF RESISTANCE AND SELF-PRESERVATION'
by AWR HAWKINS
April 27, 2014
In the majority opinion for the Supreme Court's District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia quoted Sir William Blackstone to show that the Second Amendment guards "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation."
Blackstone clarified: "The right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense."
In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is a right grounded in resisting tyranny, preserving our lives, and defending our property.
From the moment of its ratification in 1791, the Second Amendment was not about hunting or shooting sports. Instead, the Second Amendment revolves around a defensive use of firearms to protect life, liberty, and property.
And this is extremely apropos at a time when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is not hiding its plans to seize privately deeded land on the Texas/Oklahoma border.
**************************************************
6. 7 reasons women struggle with firearms training
**************************************************
EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
From policeone.com: http://tinyurl.com/kl4cn4e
7 reasons women struggle with firearms training (and how to overcome them)
by Loraine Burger
April 30, 2014
There are good reasons why women and men should be trained differently in firearms
Law enforcement has made great strides toward equal treatment for women, but there’s at least one place that women are at a disadvantage when treated ‘the same’ as men: the firing range.
While it varies drastically from one department to the next, many firearms instructors agree that they have a harder time teaching some women to be confident with their firearms training. It’s not because they are less capable or because women don’t possess the same inherent skills as men. In fact, most firearms instructors agree there are plenty of instances that women are a better shot than men in their department.
So what is preventing the average female officer from excelling as quickly at the range as her male counterpart? At the 2014 ILEETA conference, firearms instructor Vicki Farnam told her “Women’s Firearms Training” class about some of the main barriers, and provided tips for how to get around them:
1. Women learn differently from men
It’s no secret that male and female brains differ in key ways. Generally speaking, men have spatial relationships, which means they can easily understand multiple shapes within a given space. Women have verbal relationships, which suggests that women use different strategies for spatial visualization tasks, namely through conversation.
In short, women take directions very literally.
Farnam said that when asking women where they aligned their front sight when shooting a target, 85 percent answered that they put it above the target’s shoulder, and most couldn’t explain why.
In most cases, women weren’t taught their line of sight needed to line up with the front and back sights of the firearm and the target.
‘Watch the front sight,’ for example, taken literally means just that. She’s watching the front sight, and not the target through the front sight.
When giving instructions, think carefully about how you word directions, making sure that you’re speaking clearly and literally.
2. Guns are not one-size-fits all
How many departments are given a choice of which handgun you carry? Not too many. Both men and women with smaller hands are often handed a gun simply too large for them to comfortably grip.
Members of Farnam’s class who either switched to or had the option of using 9mm versus .40 caliber handguns saw drastic improvements among women and some men because of the decrease in the recoil.
“Adjustable and interchangeable grips can also make a huge difference for women,” said Farnam. “Also, switching to a youth stock when you’re using shotguns is helpful. Mossberg has an adjustable stock that can be made very short.”
When the firearm is so large that the female officer is adjusting her grip to reach the trigger, she’s no longer able to provide backstop for the recoil energy. If pulling the trigger each time is causing physical pain, her focus may shift from remembering what she’s learned, to pulling the trigger as quickly as possible to get the pain over with. As a result, shooting isn’t viewed as an enjoyable experience and it’s not something she’ll be eager to keep doing (especially on her own time).
If the gun is too big, the slide often fails to cycle because of that left over energy from reaching for the trigger. When this happens, instructors often assume it’s caused by limp-wristing, when that’s not necessarily the case.
3. Male instructors fear getting “hands-on”
Firearms training is tactical in the most literal sense. Sometimes, you need to be physically moving your trainee. Male firearms instructors are often too timid to do this with women because they fear invading a woman’s space and making her uncomfortable.
The solution? Talk to them about it. Women can see that you’re also physically moving men’s bodies into position. It’s a necessary part of the job that can and should be done in a professional manner and without having to jump thought hoops or fearing retaliation.
4. Many women just have less interest in shooting
This by no means applies to all women, but some simply don’t find the concept of shooting interesting or comfortable. But if you can get down to the bottom of why it doesn’t pique her interest, it may be a simple fix.
First, try explaining exactly how a firearm works. As mentioned before, women are verbal and literal. If they know all the moving parts to a firearm and what makes it function and dysfunction, she’s more apt to take an interest in it.
Telling her things like “If you line up your eyes, your sights, the target, and pull the trigger smoothly, you will hit your target every single time” is going to build her confidence and push her to keep at it.
5. Trainers don’t adjust their approach
This isn’t to say that the flaw lies within the instructor, but all parties and the approach must be examined when determining what is keeping the trainee from excelling.
One issue that Farnam discussed was the discontinuity that happens when there are multiple firearms instructors. Hopefully your methods are uniform, but is your language? Again, women are verbal, so saying the same thing two different ways can come across as hearing two different things.
The easiest solution to prevent this is to train with other instructors to ensure your instructions are equal and you’re using the same terminology.
If you’re a male firearms instructor used to teaching other men, who learn like you do, teaching a woman who requires different teaching methods can get frustrating. But exhibiting that frustration is going to do several things: It’s going to make her frustrated, it’s going to crush her self-confidence, and it may cause her to decide this is never something she’s going to be good at.
Learning doesn’t always mean retaining. If you have to start instructions at step one each time she comes to the range, then you haven’t taught her anything. Reinforce what you’ve told her by having her repeat it back to you.
Make a checklist of steps and have her repeat them:
1) Adjust your grip
2) Get your sights lined up with your eyes and the target
3) Press the trigger straight and flat back
4) Trigger reset (if you teach trigger reset)
5) Bring the sights back into view
6. Some are intimidated by the overwhelming man-to-woman ratio
Ever wonder why there are “just for women” gyms? This might come as a shock to you, but being surrounded by hyped-up men, especially in a situation where you already feel inferior, is a less-than-ideal situation. It may even be downright terrifying.
Why not host a “ladies’ night” at the range? Officers who said their departments or their local gun ranges had women-only nights saw a great turnout, the women didn’t feel the pressure, and they actually performed better.
7. There’s a lack of female camaraderie
Women are competitive by nature, and that’s not a bad thing. It’s competition that pushes us to be better. But what happens when your firearms instructor is a female, and sees you as competition rather than as a teammate? PoliceOne columnists Nancy Fatura discusses this cutthroat environment and how to overcome it in her column “How not to sabotage your sisters in blue.”
Female leaders need to remember that as members of law enforcement, you’re all on the same side, fighting the same evil. Use your peers as motivation to improve but hold yourself as your greatest competitor.
Most importantly, as you rise up the ranks, remember what it felt like to have (or not have) a female role model to look up to, and inhibit the characteristics you think will most help your trainees.
If all this sounds like a generalization, it’s because it is. Of course there are women who excel in firearms training as fast or faster than men, and there are men that take more time than others. In fact, in the test in which Farnam said 85 percent of women aimed above the target’s shoulder, 15 percent of men asked the same question gave the same answer.
**************************************************
7. The Long View: Gun control being decimated on state level
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/m9wofhb
THE LONG VIEW: GUN CONTROL BEING DECIMATED ON STATE LEVEL
by AWR HAWKINS
April 24, 2014
Gun control is being decimated at the state level, as more and more state legislatures pass laws nullifying gun ordinances, expanding concealed carry, instituting open carry, and legalizing campus carry, among other things.
During the first week of January 2014 Breitbart News Sunday reported that the closer you get to the people, the less support you find for gun control. In truth, the closer you get to the people the more support you find for loosening if not repealing gun control.
Thus while federal officeholders like President Obama, Vice president Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) continue to push gun control in a top down effort, state governors and legislatures are listening to the people and pushing back--and winning.
Consider these examples from January 2014--April 2014 alone:
1. On January 18 Breitbart News reported Florida colleges and universities were changing their policies to allow students to keep guns in their cars on campus for self-defense.
2. On February 13 Breitbart News reported Mississippi passed legislation protecting concealed carry rights and preventing firearms from being seized from law abiding citizens during an "emergency or natural disaster."
3. On March 14 Breitbart News reported that Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter (R) signed legislation making campus carry legal in that state. Thereby recognizing that 2nd Amendment rights do not end at the campus' edge.
4. On March 25 Breitbart News reported that West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin (D) signed legislation eliminating city and county gun ordinances in an effort to open up the entire state to concealed carry.
5. On March 27 Breitbart News reported that Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) signed legislation allowing loaded guns to be kept in cars on school campuses. This was to protect concealed carry holders who had a gun on them when they drove up to get their children after school and to provide a way for teachers with concealed carry licenses to keep guns in their cars for self-defense.
6. On April 1--amid concerted federal efforts to demagogue Stand Your Ground laws--Breitbart News reported that Florida was expanding Stand Your Ground to include the ability to fire a warning shot.
7. On April 3 Breitbart News reported the Missouri state house passed legislation aimed at nullifying federal guns laws within that state.
8. On April 23 Breibart News reported that Kansas Governor Sam Brownback (R) signed legislation nullifying city and county gun ordinances to ensure that citizens can openly carry guns throughout the state.
9. Also on April 23 Breitbart News reported that Georgia Governor Nathan Deal (R) signed the Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, which lessens the number of gun free zones in the state by opening up more bars, unsecured portions of airports, certain government buildings, and churches for concealed carry.
These examples are not the only pieces of pro-gun legislation that have made their way through state legislatures in the last four months, but they suffice to make the point that the people are winning the battle for gun rights at the state level.
The people are decimating the gun control crowd one state at a time.
**************************************************
8. Openly gay NRA commentator looks to break gun owner stereotype
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/mgawgao
OPENLY GAY NRA COMMENTATOR LOOKS TO BREAK GUN OWNER STEREOTYPES
by AWR HAWKINS
April 29, 2014
Chris Cheng is one of the National Rifle Association's (NRA) newest commentators, and he is going to give the left fits. He is gay, pro-gun, and intent on breaking the stereotypes which are commonly thrust on gun owners in America.
According to the NRA, Cheng is a shooting enthusiast and former Google employee "who won the History Channel's Top Shot season 4 in 2012." He now competes on "the Bass Pro Shops [shooting] team in USPSA, IDPA and 3-gun."
The NRA Blog reports that Cheng received $100,000 for winning Top Shot, and the first thing he did with the money was upgrade his yearly NRA membership to a lifetime membership. Cheng wrote directly to NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre to say he was now a life member.
Cheng is openly gay and according to Guns.com, he said, "I am not ashamed of being gay or being a gun owner."
He added: "There are plenty of people who try to shame and blame responsible gun owners every time there's some crazy person who decides to shoot people, and I simply will not give up my Second Amendment rights for the actions of crazy people.”
**************************************************
9. Bogus gun control numbers
**************************************************
The Violence Policy Center lying about the numbers it uses in statistics? Oh, say it isn’t so!
From nationalreview.com: http://tinyurl.com/k76ueto
Bogus Gun-Control Numbers
To prove that concealed handguns are dangerous, the Violence Policy Center cooks the books.
by John R. Lott Jr.
April 29, 2014
People walking the streets armed with guns are dangerous, right? With all 50 states finally allowing concealed handguns to at least some degree and with over 11 million Americans now having permits to carry them, this question ought to have been settled. In fact, despite continued attacks by gun-control organizations, permit holders almost never commit violent crimes with their guns.
Nonetheless, this past week, just in time for the NRA convention, gun-control advocates were at it again, touting ridiculous charges that concealed-carry permits were responsible for 636 deaths nationwide over the seven years from May 2007 to March 2014.
The Violence Policy Center regularly puts out these bogus charges in a report called “Concealed Carry Killers.” But how does it claim to arrive at these numbers?
The VPC collects cases of permit holders’ abusing their permitted concealed handguns for each state. For Michigan, for example, it cites state-police reports on permit holders indicating that 185 died from suicide during the period 2007 through 2012. Surely some alarm bells should have gone off, with Michigan suicides supposedly making up 29 percent of all 636 deaths nationwide the VPC attributed to permitted concealed handguns.
But more importantly, the suicides are not in any meaningful way linked to the issue of carrying a permitted concealed handgun outside of one’s home. If you look at page 2 in the latest report from the Michigan State Police, you will see that in the listing of suicides, there is no indication of specific cause of death. The report merely notes that 56 permit holders committed suicide, without saying whether any or all of them used a gun. Interestingly, the suicide rate among permit holders in Michigan in 2010 (13.3 per 100,000 permit holders) is lower than the rate in the general adult population (16.30). But typically suicides — with or without guns — take place at home. So, again, what would these numbers have to do with the concealed-carry debate?
Now a look at the murder and manslaughter statistics as presented by the Violence Policy Center report. These cases would surely be relevant, but they are not counted correctly. This is how the Michigan State Police report the numbers:
2007–08: Pending 5, Convicted 0
2008–09: Pending 0, Convicted 1
2009–10: Pending 1, Convicted 2
2010–11: Pending 5, Convicted 4
2011–12: Pending 3, Convicted 4
Total: Pending 14, Convicted 11
In other words, during 2007–08, five cases were pending and there were no convictions. The Violence Policy Center makes several fundamental mistakes. First, it can’t add simple numbers up correctly. While the VPC claims 20 pending cases and 14 convictions, the Michigan State Police report a total of 14 and 11 cases respectively.
Secondly, since it can take years for a murder case to go to trial, some of the homicides may have occurred well before 2007. In addition, the Michigan State Police report doesn’t provide information on how the murder was committed, so gun murders make up only a portion of this total.?
Third, and perhaps the worst mistake, the Violence Policy Center actually adds the “pending” and “conviction” numbers together. Convictions are obviously what should be counted. After all, some of the “pending” cases do not result in a conviction, and adding them more than doubles the total number.
There is even more numerical nonsense. The Violence Policy Center then adds in twelve cases that were reported in newspapers and other media over the same years. However, those cases had already been counted in the official statistics by the Michigan State Police.
It seems the Violence Policy Center piles on any numbers that it can get hold of, anything that can be related to concealed-carry holders. For instance, it counts legitimate self-defense cases in which no charges were filed or the permit holder was charged and later exonerated.
All in all, the VPC has managed to triple-count claimed cases of permit holders killing people, and the vast majority of cases it includes in its list — such as legitimate self-defense shootings or suicides not related to permitted concealed handguns — shouldn’t be counted to begin with.
Yet, put aside all these problems for a moment. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Violence Policy Center’s claim that concealed-handgun permits were responsible for 636 deaths in seven years is correct. One has to note that there are over 11 million concealed-handgun permits in the U.S. right now. With an annual number of deaths of 90, that means 0.00083 percent of concealed-carry permit holders were responsible for a shooting death each year. Removing suicides from the total reduces the rate even more, to 0.00058 percent.
The conjuring up of bogus numbers like these has become a mainstay of gun-control groups. That also includes the “studies” financed by Michael Bloomberg’s millions. However, a group of researchers, of whom I am one, are setting up the Crime Prevention Research Center to uncover and counter these misleading claims.
**************************************************
10. Juan Williams wife robbed, wishes she had gun
**************************************************
Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/mp6oqp2
JUAN WILLIAMS WIFE ROBBED, WISHES SHE HAD GUN
by AWR HAWKINS
April 28, 2014
During an April 28 interview on The Lars Larson show, Fox News' Juan Williams told a story about his wife's car being stolen and her saying, "I wish I had a gun."
Williams said that his wife "went to the gas station" this past weekend to fuel her car. He said that "while she's trying to put the credit card in some guy rushes by her, gets in the car and drives off with the damn car."
Williams said his wife's response was, "I wish I had a gun."
Larson responded by saying, "God bless Mrs. Juan Williams," and said Juan should buy her a gun "at the next opportunity.”
**************************************************
11. Bloomberg gun control spokesman defends her boss' armed escort
**************************************************
The reason Bloomberg has a phalanx of armed security around him at all times is because of…. wait for it…. YOU AND ME! Not the murderous criminals who are actually killing people all the time. Nah, the poor, misunderstood sociopaths are just cat cats at heart. It’s those darned legal gun owners with squeaky-clean records that are the real danger!
Welcome to Bloomberg’s twisted world.
Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/kovjpml
BLOOMBERG GUN CONTROL SPOKESWOMAN DEFENDS HER BOSS'S ARMED SECURITY USE
by AWR HAWKINS
April 27, 2014
On April 26 Erika Soto Lamb--spokeswoman for Michael Bloomberg's new "Everytown for Gun Safety" gun control group--defended her leadership's use of armed security guards by claiming pro-gun Americans threatened their lives and it was the same kind of security pro-gun advocates want for themselves.
In the exchange, Twitter user @tpcjk asked Lamb: "Why do all the big anti-gun advocates have security who carry loaded guns? Would love to hear their justification."
Lamb responded: "Because ppl on ur side of debate threaten our lives. We r not anti-gun. Why do u criticize our security? Same u want 4 self."
Latter in the exchange, while responding to other Twitter users, Lamb tweeted: "As long as you're not a felon, dangerously mentally ill or other prohibited purchaser, it's all good.”
**************************************************
12. Dana Loesch confronts one of Bloomberg's partners [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Too good. Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, is the same person who has said that citizens never use guns to defend themselves. Note how Shannon, who follows in the footsteps of Rosie O’Donnell, hypocritically has no problem with guns as long as they are for HER security.
From theblaze.com: http://tinyurl.com/kvgznwm
Watch What Happens When Dana Loesch Confronts One of Bloomberg’s Anti-Gun Partners
by Jonathon M. Seidl
April 26, 2014
INDIANAPOLIS — Blaze TV host Dana Loesch has made no secret about her ongoing disagreement with Shannon Watts, the outspoken gun control advocate who heads Moms Demand Action and has partnered with former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg to create Everytown for Gun Safety. And on Saturday, she was finally able to confront Watts about it in person.
Loesch was in Indianapolis to attend the 2014 NRA convention but decided to stop by an area where Watts and other anti-gun activists were staging a get-together. When confronted by Loesch, Watts refused to answer any questions and eventually was whisked away in an SUV by what Loesch told TheBlaze appeared to be armed security.
The full video will air on TheBlaze TV next week, but TheBlaze.com was given exclusive access to a snippet:
In the full video, which this author viewed, Loesch can be seen approaching the rally and Watts and introducing herself. After exchanging pleasant hellos, Watts told Loesch she wouldn’t be engaging in any conversation.
“I’m not interested in having a conversation with you, because you’ve been so insulting online,” Watts said.
That didn’t stop Loesch from trying to get answers to why Watts has accused Loesch of being paid by the “gun lobby” and Magpul, a company that manufactures gun accessories.
“Shannon, would you like to clarify or retract when you said I was a paid employee of Magpul?” Loesch can be heard asking numerous times in the video. Loesch also asked about the accusations that she is being paid by the gun lobby and if Watts speaks for all moms or just those that support gun control.
In the background, Loesch’s producer can be heard accusing Watts’ security of being “physical” and Loesch told TheBlaze they were bumping her out of the way. The full video includes Loesch saying her attempted interview was in response to a media request by Watts’ PR firm.
The bad blood between the two personalities took center stage earlier this year when Watts sent numerous Tweets trying to get ABC to pull the plug on Loesch guest hosting ”The View.” She also retweeted messages calling Loesch a “pro-gun extremist,” “hate monger,” and “gun bully.”
Gun lobby and #Magpul pay #DanaLoesch to promote lies about guns – not appropriate guest for @theviewtv http://t.co/0ZPreCSpyY #momsdemand
— Shannon (@shannonrwatts) February 1, 2014
.@theviewtv – @Magpul_HQ privately flew #DanaLoesch in to shill post #SandyHook http://t.co/BvNLzdE3rY #momsdemand pic.twitter.com/D36ynXXA3A
— Shannon (@shannonrwatts) February 2, 2014
Loesch said she visited a pro-gun, Magpul rally in Colorado last July with Compass Colorado* and made an entrance in a helicopter with a Magpul logo on it, but she was never paid by the group and didn’t charge a speaking fee. The point of the event was to draw attention to new capacity limits for gun magazines (Magpul produces such magazines).
Watts’ group now will fall under the umbrella of Michael Bloomberg’s new $50 million effort to organize smaller anti-gun groups into a larger, unified organization (Everytown).
Loesch told TheBlaze she’s tried to get Watts to come on her program numerous times to correct the record but that Watts has repeatedly declined.
“They don’t exist to have intellectual discourse, they exist to shout people down,” Loesch told TheBlaze regarding Watts and her gun control group.
UPDATE:
Loesch noted to TheBlaze that the car that whisked Watts away had New York license plates. Consider that Charles Cooke over at National Review pointed out that Bloomberg’s group had paid the tab for the activists to be in Indiana during the NRA convention. Radio host Tony Katz apparently snapped a picture of the plates.
UPDATE II:
Erika Soto Lamb, whose Twitter profile identifies her as “Comms director for Everytown for Gun Safety (includes Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action),” confirmed on Twitter the presence of armed security:
.@DLoesch we have armed security because other people on your side of the debate threaten our lives. I wish it weren't the case, but it is.
— Erika Soto Lamb (@erikasotolamb) April 27, 2014
She also used the opportunity to say armed security is necessary because of people on “your” side of the debate and said the group is not against guns for “self defense”:
@Vegas_Whoa @DLoesch bc people on ur side of debate threaten our lives. We are not anti-gun 4 self defense. Why do u criticize our security?
— Erika Soto Lamb (@erikasotolamb) April 27, 2014
This post has been updated with additional information.
* We’ve updated the name of the organization that Loesch was in Colorado with.
**************************************************
13. NRA to Michael Bloomberg 'Let's see who crushes who'
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/levw2ka
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION TO MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: 'LET'S SEE WHO CRUSHES WHO...'
by Charlie Spiering
April 25, 2014
The National Rifle Association released a new video today, directly challenging former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's new anti-gun group, Everytown Against Gun Violence.
"This guy thinks he can scare us into running from a fight to protect our rights and our freedoms,” a character in the video declares. “He’s one guy with millions – we’re millions with our 25 bucks. Let’s see who crushes who.”
**************************************************
14. The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
**************************************************
Membre Katherine Polanowski emailed me this:
--
From america.aljazeera.com: http://tinyurl.com/kxrblg3
The real reason Michael Bloomberg cares about guns
It's not the ‘gun' part of ‘gun control’ that the ex-mayor is interested in
by Malcolm Harris
April 25, 2014
During Michael Bloomberg’s three terms as mayor of New York, he loved nothing more than to lord over the nation’s largest city. Now he’s just a normal civilian multibillionaire, sitting right below the prime minister of India on the Forbes list of the world’s most powerful people — a lowly position that is no doubt a source of immense personal disappointment. Short of patrolling New York’s parks in a spandex bodysuit to inflict vigilante justice on cigarette smokers and super-sized Slurpee drinkers, what’s a rich ex-mayor to do?
Luckily for Bloomberg, in American politics, controlling sublime amounts of capital is its own qualification, and lavishing it on pet issues counts as philanthropy. And this time, without an elected office to use for a pulpit, he’s going to need that money: After attacking tobacco and soda, Bloomberg is coming for guns.
In an extensive interview with The New York Times, the former mayor outlined his plan for a nationwide lobbying effort designed to counteract and overwhelm the National Rifle Association. He certainly has the cash: Despite its notoriety, the NRA spends only about $20 million a year, and relies heavily on the grassroots enthusiasm of its members. Bloomberg, on the other hand, shrugged at the idea of throwing in an experimental $50 million “as if he were describing the tip he left on a restaurant check.”
Bloomberg’s fortune and political strategies figure prominently in the description of his new hobby. But he evinces no passion for the issue unless he’s defending the racist, ineffectual and unpopular police practice of “stop and frisk.” After all, this is the mayor who, after the NYPD accidentally shot nine innocent bystanders while attempting to subdue a single armed man near the Empire State Building, angrily told a reporter, “If somebody pointed a gun at you and you had a gun in your pocket, what would you do? I think that answers the question.” He sounds more like Charles Bronson than James Brady, so why is Michael Bloomberg America’s most prominent gun control advocate?
Standing armies
If Bloomberg wanted to spend some pocket change to undermine any other constitutional right, liberals would quickly complain about how the nation’s elites use their money to overinfluence policy and consolidate power away from the broader citizenry. The billionaire Koch brothers, who fund numerous conservative and libertarian causes, have become archetypes of this phenomenon, to the benefit of Obama-aligned outrage sites such as Salon and ThinkProgress. But when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals don’t see a question of freedom or liberty, even when a billionaire tries to buy it away.
What really irks Bloomberg about the right to bear arms isn’t the red herrings we throw around in the gun rights debate, such as hunting or self-defense. Rather, he hates its foundation in popular sovereignty. It’s easy to forget that when the Bill of Rights was being drafted, the founding fathers took for granted that the United States would not field an army during peacetime. With the enumerated rights to association and the press — as well as arms — they attempted to place the tools of 18th century revolution (and thus American sovereignty) permanently in the hands of the enfranchised public. Militias weren’t supposed to be local armies, they were supposed to be the Army. As Rep. Samuel Nasson wrote to Rep. George Thatcher in 1789, “Spare me on the subject of Standing armeys in a time of Peace they allway was first or last the downfall of all free Governments it was by their help Caesar made proud Rome Own a Tyrant and a Traytor for a Master.”
Bloomberg has never had a problem with standing armies; in 2011 he even bragged to an audience at MIT, “I have my own army in the NYPD, which is the seventh biggest army in the world.” The NYPD is the largest, best-equipped municipal police force in the country, and its influence extends far beyond American territorial borders. It operates in 11 foreign cities and runs its own foreign policy and intelligence network. Bloomberg personally boasted that the NYPD has the capacity to shoot down passenger planes. It’s clear from his record that it’s not the “gun” part of “gun control” Bloomberg is interested in.
Whose guns?
There’s no doubt America needs to curb gun use and possession. The question is, whose guns? There are 34,500 members of the NYPD, and in 2012 they fatally shot 16 people. That gives Bloomberg’s army a rate of over 46 shooting deaths per 100,000, killing people at a clip that dwarfs any civilian level in the country. To put it in perspective, Chicago — an American city known for gun violence — hit its peak murder rate of 34 per 100,000 in 1992. American law enforcement is increasingly militarized — as Radley Balko reports in his book “Rise of the Warrior Cop”: “Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment — from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armored personnel carriers — American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield.” And this army takes a lot of prisoners: While gun violence has markedly declined following heightened crime in the ’90s, incarceration rates haven’t returned to earth, nearly quintupling since the early ’70s, making Americans the most imprisoned people in the world.
While Bloomberg is squaring up to spread fears about armed Mormon cattle ranchers gone wild, we should be more worried about guns in the hands of the police. To further his agenda, Bloomberg is counting on the public’s unwillingness to look beyond the flashiest proximate cause of surprise violence, as well as liberal stereotypes about rural Americans who own guns. But the biggest, most violently irresponsible gun owner in the country isn’t some left-wing caricature redneck or a deranged teen plotting a massacre from his basement. It’s the state.
**************************************************
15. Gun controller stepping down
**************************************************
The head of Mayors Against Illegal Guns (“illegal guns” seemingly being defined by the group as guns owned by law-abiding citizens) is stepping down. Probably got tired of living off Tylenol to fight migraine headaches as members of his feckless group were being carted off to jail or were being “unelected."
From chicagotribune.com: http://tinyurl.com/mop257d
Head of leading anti-gun violence group to step down
by Edith Honan
April 30, 2014
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The executive director of the gun control group founded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, which has emerged as a leading counterweight to the National Rifle Association, said on Wednesday he would step down from the organization in June.
Mark Glaze was named head of Mayors Against Illegal Guns in 2011, three weeks after a gunman opened fire in an Arizona shopping plaza, killing six people and critically wounding Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. It was the first in a string of mass shootings, including one at a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in 2012, that helped galvanize the gun control movement.
Glaze helped turn the group into the largest and most prominent gun safety organization in America.
Last year, he helped orchestrate MAIG's merger with another group, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, and launch a new umbrella group, Everytown for Gun Safety, earlier this month.
"It is time for me to hand off the fight to somebody else," Glaze, 43, said in an interview. "The issue is unbelievably important to me. But it's a tough issue and a tough grind. And there's a point where you feel you've done all you can do."
Glaze said he planned to do some consulting.
"I think I've learned a lot about how to run a simultaneous national and state issue campaign on very difficult issues against very tough opponents. And I think there are other organizations who are fighting similar fights who could use the help," he said.
Even as the movement has grown, it has suffered stinging losses and the NRA remains a potent rival. After the Newtown shooting, a bill to expand the use of background checks, which was backed by President Barack Obama and championed by MAIG, failed to win passage in Congress.
"The fight for better gun control has worn out many a warrior," said Adam Winkler, a law professor and the author of the book "Gunfight."
Glaze, whose father was a licensed gun dealer in Colorado, previously worked at the Washington-based Raben Group. He joined MAIG several years before taking over as executive director.
He voiced optimism about the gun control movement and pushed aside criticism it had fallen short.
"People who thought that you were going to win the hardest public policy fight there is overnight and defeat the toughest special interest were kidding themselves," he said.
**************************************************
16. Sandy Hook victim's mother: Schools need emergency plan [AUDIO]
**************************************************
EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
Good audio on BBC – albeit in the written text they skipped the part where she said we don’t need to change gun laws. [PVC: Just an oversight, I’m sure. <eye roll>]
From bbc.com: http://tinyurl.com/k3n9vh3
Sandy Hook victim's mother: Schools need emergency plans
April 28, 2014
A mother of a child killed in the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting has called on schools to plan better responses to threatening situations.
Michelle Gay, who lost her youngest daughter Josephine (pictured) in the Newtown shooting, said schools should prepare "basic" emergency measures until authorities arrive.
The former teacher, who has since moved to Massachusetts, told BBC Radio 5 live's Up All Night: "I don't think we need to put bars on the windows and I don't think we need to have or armed guards."
"But some basic common sense types of practices and measures and some very basic education goes a really long way in making folks safer.”
**************************************************
17. [MT] More bad reporting
**************************************************
Member David Custer emailed me this:
--
None of these are even close to stand-your-ground (SYG). When you set a trap or setup inducements for people to rob you in the hope of shooting them that is murder. Perhaps the defendants tried to use SYG, but these cases are not even close to what the law intends - which is why they were found guilty. Reporters are trying to use these cases - where SYG doesn't apply - to condemn SYG as a whole. Journalism is dead. [PVC: The RIP on the journalism headstone goes back to the 70’s.]
From wtop.com: http://tinyurl.com/pzr5th9
'Stand your ground' law tested in recent shootings
by Matt Volz
May 1, 2014
HELENA, Mont. (AP) -- A Montana man is accused of setting a trap and blindly blasting a shotgun into his garage, killing a 17-year-old German exchange student. A Minnesota man is convicted of lying in wait in his basement for two teenagers and killing them during a break-in.
The two recent cases take the "stand your ground" debate to a new level: Do laws that allow private citizens to protect their property also let them set a trap and wait for someone to kill?
"We don't want it to be easy to be able to prosecute people. But we want to be able to hold individuals accountable when they have stepped outside the bounds of society," David LaBahn, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said Wednesday.
More than 30 states have laws expanding the self-defense principle known as the "castle doctrine," a centuries-old premise that a person has the right to defend their home against attack, LaBahn said. The name evokes the old saying, "my home is my castle."
Most of these changes have come since Florida in 2005 became the first state to interpret the "castle doctrine" to apply outside the home with a measure known as the "stand your ground" law.
These laws make it far easier for a person to shoot someone and avoid prosecution by saying they felt an imminent danger -- whether or not the person who was shot was armed.
The principle came under national scrutiny in the 2012 shooting of an unarmed Florida teenager, Trayvon Martin, by a neighborhood watch volunteer who was following the 17-year-old. George Zimmerman was acquitted last year after arguing self-defense.
The Montana and Minnesota cases involve homeowners who had been burglarized and said they were afraid of it happening again. Prosecutors say they lured intruders into fatal encounters.
In Montana, Markus Kaarma told investigators his Missoula home had been burglarized twice within the last week before Sunday's shooting death of 17-year-old Diren Dede. Kaarma told his hairdresser he had stayed up three nights waiting to shoot a kid, the woman told investigators.
The night of the shooting, Kaarma and his partner, Janelle Pflager, left their garage door open. Pflager left her purse in the garage "so that they would take it," she told a police officer. She also set up a video baby monitor and installed motion sensors, prosecutors said.
After midnight, they heard the sensors trip. Pflager turned to the video monitor and saw a man in the garage. Kaarma took his shotgun, walked out the front door and to the driveway.
He told investigators he heard metal on metal and without speaking fired four times -- sweeping the garage with three low shots and a high fourth shot. Dede was hit in the head and the arm.
Montana's law says a person is justified in using deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent an assault or a forcible felony.
Since it passed in 2009, the law has been raised at least a dozen times in Montana cases. In several, it was the reason prosecutors decided against filing charges.
Kaarma attorney Paul Ryan said he intends to use that law as a defense in his client's deliberate homicide charge. That shifts the burden to prosecutors, who will have to prove their case and that deadly force wasn't justified, he said.
Kaarma didn't intend to kill Dede, Ryan said. "He was scared for his life. It shouldn't be up to a homeowner to wait and see if (an intruder) is going to shoot him when he announces himself," he said.
Because the laws typically leave it up to the shooter to decide if a danger exists, prosecutors often have no way to challenge such a claim. LaBahn said the case in Missoula appeared to reflect the same concerns raised repeatedly by prosecutors in Florida.
"It doesn't sound to me that a reasonable person is going to shoot through a garage door," LaBahn said.
He added there could be mitigating factors yet to emerge in the exchange student's death.
Minnesota law allows the use of deadly force in a home to prevent a felony, but it must be considered a reasonable response.
Byron Smith, a 65-year-old retiree, unsuccessfully used that defense to justify his shooting of Nick Brady, 17, and Haile Kifer, 18, after the cousins broke into his Little Falls home in 2012. Smith's attorney said his client's home had been burglarized, and he was afraid.
Smith was convicted of premeditated murder Tuesday. Prosecutors said Smith moved his truck to make it look as though no one was home. He turned on a handheld recorder, had a surveillance system running and waited in the basement with food, water and two guns.
Brady descended the basement stairs first, and Smith shot him three times, saying "You're dead." He dragged the body to another room and waited until Kifer followed, and he shot her. "You're dying," he told her, according to the audio recording.
Since Martin's death in Florida, lawmakers in at least seven states have introduced legislation to weaken or repeal self-defense laws. None of the measures have passed, according to the San Francisco-based Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Gary Marbut, who heads the Montana Shooting Sports Association and helped draft the state's law, said Kaarma's case could help clarify it.
"If they're going to possess the means to apply lethal force," he said, "they need to have a good understanding of when and how that is permissible.”
**************************************************
18. [TX] Armed good Samaritan comes to the aid of purse-snatching victim
**************************************************
James Durso emailed me this:
--
From www.khou.com: http://tinyurl.com/ldgy7x8
Armed good Samaritan comes to the aid of purse-snatching victim
by Rucks Russell, KHOU 11 News
April 28, 2014
HOUSTON — A mother out with her two children to go shopping became the victim of would-be purse snatchers, but a good Samaritan armed with a gun came to the rescue.
“It happened so fast,” said Brenda Vasquez, who manages the Family Dollar store in the 3400 block of Orlando Avenue in northeast Houston.
She witnessed the assault.
“This lady opens her car door, grabs the woman’s purse and they reverse. While they’re trying to reverse, the lady is holding on to her purse still, chasing them all the way to the middle.”
That’s when a perfect stranger intervened. He happened to be in his car in the parking lot when it happened.
“And that good Samaritan came out, drew his weapon and scared them. And that’s when he pulled them out of the car.”
Someone snapped a picture of the man holding the two suspects at bay. A few minutes later, police arrived and took the male and female suspects into custody.
The man who first confronted them purchased some candy for his kids and drove away.
“The guy is something else,” said Vasquez. “He’s a hero.”
Police were not releasing the names of either the good Samaritan or the victim.
No one was injured.
**************************************************
19. In California a fevered rush for gun permits
**************************************************
EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
From www.nytimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/lrdzk7o
In California, a Fevered Rush for Gun Permits
by Adam Nagourney
April 26, 2014
SANTA ANA, Calif. — Pete Alexander celebrated the news that a federal court in California had thrown out this state’s strict requirements for obtaining a concealed-handgun permit — among the toughest in the nation — by calling the Orange County Sheriff’s Department to apply for a permit he had long wanted.
“I’m a gun enthusiast,” said Mr. Alexander, a construction contractor who lives in Fullerton. “Crime is encroaching on our neighborhood, and I don’t feel as safe as I used to. This is adding to the police force.”
Mr. Alexander turned out to be the beginning of a flood. In the two months since the court sided with a group of gun owners and found California’s law on concealed-weapons permits unconstitutional, nearly 4,000 residents in this county of 3.1 million people have applied for one, eight times the number usually logged in a year. While no permit is required to own a gun, California residents must obtain one to carry a concealed weapon outside their home or business.
The surge in Orange County and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other counties stunned law enforcement officials and offered a striking demonstration of the frustration of California gun owners. It also showed the complicated politics of weapon regulation in a state with a large and ever-expanding catalog of gun control legislation.
The ruling by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, one of the most liberal appeals courts in the nation, sets up a potential battle over gun control before the Supreme Court. If the full Ninth Circuit court upholds the panel’s decision — which is hardly a foregone conclusion — the Supreme Court is likely to take the case, to reconcile the conflicting decisions of different circuit courts.
“This case definitely has the potential to go to the Supreme Court,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at the School of Law of the University of California, Los Angeles. “The biggest unanswered questions with the Second Amendment today are whether the right extends outside of the home, and what kind of permitting states and cities can impose. Gun rights advocates have been pushing the Supreme Court to declare that there is a right to carry concealed firearms outside the home.”
The Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling was appealed, and has been stayed. Nonetheless, Orange County has blazed ahead. It has spent $1.6 million to hire 14 additional part-time workers, many working through the weekend, in response to the crush of applications, which has overwhelmed county telephones and office workers. There is now a 30-month wait to schedule the required in-person hearing to obtain a permit.
“We got inundated,” Sandra Hutchens, the Orange County sheriff, said in an interview. “We don’t have a lot of crime here. But there are some people who feel very, very strongly about their right to bear arms.”
Most counties decided to hold back until a final ruling is issued, including neighboring San Diego County, where the case originated. Sheriff Hutchens, who has tangled with gun owners in Orange County over concealed weapons in the past, said she was moving forward because “this is the law of the land.”
California is one of 11 states that require applicants to meet some condition — including, in California, routinely traveling with a large sum of money or jewelry — to get a concealed-weapons permit, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In the 35 other states that issue concealed-weapons permits, the requirements are far less rigorous.
“If you’re not a convicted felon, you are going to get a concealed-weapons permit,” said William D. Gore, the sheriff in San Diego County. “That’s not the case in California. That frustrates a lot of people.”
Four states do not require a permit to carry a loaded weapon in public: Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming.
The 2-to-1 decision by the Ninth Circuit court, issued in February, found that California’s law violated the Second Amendment. The state attorney general, Kamala D. Harris, intervened and urged the court to review the panel’s decision, which she called a threat to public safety.
Martin J. Mayer, the counsel to the California Police Chiefs Association, which also appealed the decision, said, “We all know a proliferation of weapons will increase the potential of them being used, whether you are talking about a domestic violence dispute, a road rage situation or a barroom brawl.”
The response by Orange County, which was once known for its political conservatism, stands in sharp contrast with that of other municipalities. San Diego County also had a spike in applications, with nearly 1,200 in March, compared with 50 in a typical month. But Sheriff Gore, who took office in 2009, said he would wait until the case was resolved.
“This is probably the most contentious issue I’ve dealt with as sheriff,” he said. “I am responsible for regulating guns in San Diego, so I end up in the bull’s-eye.”
The decision by Sheriff Hutchens to encourage applications has drawn criticism from gun control advocates. “I’m flabbergasted,” said Charles Blek, the president of the Orange County chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “I cannot think of a rational reason for her to be taking this position at this time.”
This is the latest chapter in Orange County’s contentious history with concealed-weapons permits. Sheriff Hutchens was appointed in 2008 to replace the last sheriff after he was ousted in a corruption scandal that included rewarding campaign contributors with concealed-weapons permits. Sheriff Hutchens quickly ran into trouble when she said she would review the 1,100 permits issued by her predecessor.
“I took a lot of heat,” she said. “The N.R.A. got really upset with me.”
Shawn Nelson, the chairman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, said he suspected that “the sheriff herself would tell you she’d like a do-over on that one.”
“She is certainly saying all the right things now,” he added.
The crime rate in Orange County has declined by 20 percent over the past 10 years, but Sheriff Hutchens said that would not be a factor in her consideration of whether to issue permits.
“We’re not going to try to tell them there’s a low crime rate or it’s safe on the streets,” she said. “If they feel that under the current guidelines that they need it for personal safety and they pass the background of moral character, then we are going to issue it to them.”
**************************************************
20. Law of self defense- UC Berkeley debate [VIDEO]
**************************************************
The reason we are not included in the list of SYG states is probably because it is part of our Common law and case law.
Member Paul Kent emailed me this:
--
I found the full debate. While most of our readers will not be interested in seeing 1hr 36min full proceeding, in the interest of sourcing, and because the inaneness of the antis serves to prove the point, I suggest we include it below the link for 6 minute intro.
Also, in the manner of debate, politics, and advertising, repetition is the mother of learning, and the six minute intro basically just repeats a single point four times. The main point is stated succinctly between 0:28 seconds and 1'36". We might say that, and restate his main point, just because it is a handy sound bite for all our members to know (and many of our readers don't have time or can't get to YouTube).
That is, the basis for a legal claim of self-defense evolved to require meeting five criteria:
1) Innocence - You didn't start or cause the conflict;
2) Imminence - the threat is imminent, here, right now;
3) Proportionality - deadly force against the potential deadly or grave injury threat;
4) Reasonableness - your action must be both objectively and subjectively reasonable;
5) Avoidance - if you could retreat safely you had an obligation to do so.
*** Plain and simple: Stand Your Ground eliminates number 5, avoidance. *** [PVC: That’s not to say that if you can get away safely, you shouldn’t do it, however. The only gunfight you are guaranteed of winning is the one you never get in.]
From lawofselfdefense.com: http://tinyurl.com/lfjf9ul
So, here’s the opening 6 minutes of the UC Berkeley Law School debate on Stand-Your-Ground.
MY 6 minutes.
The 6 minutes that reduced former Federal prosecutor Sunny Hostin to blithering idiocy.
So much so that she accepted a $100 wager on an obviously treacherous basis (e.g., I offered the wager)
Then she lost.
Then she welshed.
Anyway, here are my opening remarks. Sorry for the poor video, but it’s the audio that’s important, and it’s very clear.
--
The gspp.berkeley.edu: http://tinyurl.com/lw2jun3
Policy Debate: Stand Your Ground Law
Event: Blacks in Public Policy
Date: April 22, 2014
Duration: 96 minutes
The debate focused on the controversial “Stand Your Ground” (SYG) self-defense law, which garnered national attention after the fatal shooting of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin in February 2012. Twenty-two states now have some variation of SYG law. Attorney General Eric Holder has said he will actively pursue the repeal of SYG laws because such laws “senselessly expand the concept of self-defense and sow dangerous conflict in our neighborhoods." Legal and policy experts will debate Holder’s call for the repeal of SYG laws, and then participate in a Q&A session with the audience.
**************************************************
21. [CA] Smart gun in search of somebody, anybody, wanting one
**************************************************
From www.nytimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/mjqhk8z
‘Smart’ Firearm Draws Wrath of the Gun Lobby
by Jeremy W. Peters
April 27, 2014
BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — Belinda Padilla does not pick up unknown calls anymore, not since someone posted her cellphone number on an online forum for gun enthusiasts. A few fuming-mad voice mail messages and heavy breathers were all it took.
Then someone snapped pictures of the address where she has a P.O. box and put those online, too. In a crude, cartoonish scrawl, this person drew an arrow to the blurred image of a woman passing through the photo frame. “Belinda?” the person wrote. “Is that you?”
Her offense? Trying to market and sell a new .22-caliber handgun that uses a radio frequency-enabled stopwatch to identify the authorized user so no one else can fire it. Ms. Padilla and the manufacturer she works for, Armatix, intended to make the weapon the first “smart gun” for sale in the United States.
But shortly after Armatix went public with its plans to start selling in Southern California, Ms. Padilla, a fast-talking, hard-charging Beverly Hills businesswoman who leads the company’s fledgling American division, encountered the same uproar that has stopped gun control advocates, Congress, President Obama and lawmakers across the country as they seek to pass tougher laws and promote new technologies they contend will lead to fewer firearms deaths.
Lately, there has been little standing in the way of the muscle of the gun lobby, whose advocates recently derailed Mr. Obama’s nominee for surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, a Boston doctor who has expressed alarm about the frequency of shooting deaths.
And despite support from the Obama administration and the promise of investment from Silicon Valley, guns with owner-recognition technology remain shut out of the market today.
“Right now, unfortunately, these organizations that are scaring everybody have the power,” Ms. Padilla said. “All we’re doing is providing extra levels of safety to your individual right to bear arms. And if you don’t want our gun, don’t buy it. It’s not for everyone.”
In Georgia on Wednesday, Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law a bill that allows people to carry guns in bars, government buildings and even some churches. The National Rifle Association called the measure historic.
In West Virginia, one of several states like Georgia that in the past year have loosened restrictions on where weapons can be carried, the mayor of Charleston, Danny Jones, has gone to court to challenge a new law that allows guns in public recreation centers. Mr. Jones, a Republican, said he believed this endangered children and could eventually lead to allowing guns in schools. But his is an uphill battle.
“It’s a very lonely fight,” he said. “Sometimes I think I’m going to wake up from this, that it’s just a bad dream.”
Second Amendment defenders argue that once guns with high-tech safety features go on sale, government mandates will follow. They cite a decade-old New Jersey law requiring that within three years of the recognition technology’s becoming available in the United States, all guns sold in the state would have to be “smart.”
“Are we concerned?” asked Lawrence G. Keane, general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for gun manufacturers. “Yes.”
A National Institute of Justice report found last year that at least three companies, including Armatix, had developed owner-recognition abilities. The manufacturers argue that these new technologies could prevent suicides, accidental shootings and the deaths of police officers whose guns are wrested away in a struggle.
As part of the White House response to the shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn., Mr. Obama issued an executive order to spur the research and development of “smart gun” technologies. The Justice Department will soon solicit proposals for grants it plans to award to companies that can make guns with the software.
Investors from Silicon Valley have also pledged support. The Smart Tech Challenges Foundation, led by the entrepreneur and gun-safety advocate Ron Conway, has offered $1 million in prize money and solicited proposals to design the most advanced safety technology.
Firearms manufacturers and gun rights groups say the technology could malfunction and cause a weapon not to fire when someone needed it to work.
The National Rifle Association, in an article published on the blog of its political arm, wrote that “smart guns,” a term it mocks as a misnomer, have the potential “to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”
Mr. Keane said the industry did not oppose developing the technology. But, he added, “No. 1, the technology is not ready. No. 2, we believe the market ought to work.” Of the Armatix episode in California, he said, “They tried to put the product on the market, and the market reacted.”
Armatix said it had an agreement with the Oak Tree Gun Club, a large gun range and retailer about 20 minutes north of Los Angeles, to sell its iP1 pistol, which can be fired only after the owner enters a five-digit PIN into a watch that transmits a signal to the gun. The gun, which retails for about $1,800, disables itself if it is more than 10 inches from the watch.
But once Oak Tree’s owner, James Mitchell, went public in The Washington Post saying the iP1 “could revolutionize the gun industry,” Second Amendment activists went into overdrive, flooding social media with threats to boycott the club. They took to Calguns.net, a forum for gun owners, and called for vigilante-style investigations of Ms. Padilla and Armatix. They seized on her appearance before a United Nations panel to testify on gun safety and her purported association with a group once led by a protégé of George Soros.
“I have no qualms with the idea of personally and professionally leveling the life of someone who has attempted to profit from disarming me and my fellow Americans,” one commenter wrote.
Ms. Padilla found that any trace of her involvement with Oak Tree had vanished. Signs outside the club advertising Armatix had been taken down. Her branded merchandise — hooded sweatshirts, down jackets (camouflage for men, hot pink for women) — was gone. Her stall at the shooting range where she had shown prospective customers how the iP1 worked, once painted in her company’s signature blue, had a fresh coat of green paint over it. “Honestly, I was in disbelief,” she said. “It’s like I never existed.”
Mr. Mitchell disavowed his relationship with Armatix and denied ever selling the gun. Oak Tree officials did not respond to several requests seeking comment in person and by phone. When a reporter visited the club recently, an employee said, “I don’t know if we’re making any comments.”
Ms. Padilla and Armatix continue to look for stores to carry their pistols. She said she receives emails all the time from people asking her where they can buy one. But she cannot always be sure who might be a potential buyer and who might be just another person looking to harass her. “This is my mission in life,” she said, vowing to keep looking for customers. “If they really understood our technology, they wouldn’t be afraid of it at all.”
***************************************************************************
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/]