Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lobby Day bus - additional pickup in Hampton
2. Pilot editorial not happy with VCDL for opposing gun control
3. 2015 Traveler's Guide Mail Order Sale and Deadline
4. Call 911 and die (of old age)
5. Does the Castleman holding overrule White?
6. Another pro-gun business - Appalacian Outdoor Readiness and Essentials
7. Federal court denies Palmer case reconsideration on DC carry ban
8. Lawsuit challenges federal machine gun ban
9. Voters give republicans a mandate to stop gun control
10. MDA Founder: Midterms prove we have gun control 'momentum'
11. Boom: Americans now agree that gun ownership makes homes safer
12. Judge Napolitano gives best explanation for how to stop attacks [VIDEO]
13. Swatting - you could be next
14. Open-carry advocate targeted in 'swatting'
15. Americans getting tired of gun control pushes shocks advocates
16. [WV] Suspect dead in home invasion shooting
17. [TN] Armed homeowner, shoots and kills home invader in broad daylight
18. [CO] Woman survives home invasion thanks to her gun
19. [CO] A little ingenuity renders 'high capacity' magazine ban toothless [VIDEO]
20. [CA] Can these gun sensors keep cops safer?
21. [CA] Banned arrests for gun theft, date rape drug possession
22. Homicide rates in English speaking new world countries
**************************************************
1. Lobby Day bus - additional pickup in Hampton
**************************************************
We have added a second stop for the Virginia Beach Lobby Day bus: Hampton.
Pickup will be at 6:45 AM at the Hampton Coliseum. When driving from Mercury Blvd. on Coliseum Drive, pass through the traffic lights on Coliseum drive and then make first right into parking lot, which is pretty from the Coliseum itself.
To reserve a space on the bus, send an email to bus@vcdl.org
Include the following information in the email:
• The locality where you will be catching the bus
• The number in your party
• For each member of your party, include:
• Their full name
• Their email address (if they have one)
• Their cell phone number (if none, then their home phone)
ONCE YOU HAVE GOTTEN A CONFIRMATION THAT YOUR SEATS ARE RESERVED, then you can pay for your seats by clicking here:
https://mobipledge.mobi/vcdl/webpledge/
Cost to ride the bus is $25 for VCDL members and each person in their party and $30 for non-members.
**************************************************
2. Pilot editorial not happy with VCDL for opposing gun control
**************************************************
I was interviewed by Mr. Chesley this week. He did admit during the interview that he was in favor of more gun control. My comments are below.
http://hamptonroads.com/2014/12/gun-pro ... -right-try
or
http://tinyurl.com/mgb49lj
Gun proposals are a long shot, but the governor is right to try
By Roger Chesley
The Virginian-Pilot
Let's dispense with the fantasy quickly: Terry McAuliffe has no chance of getting his gun control proposals through a GOP-dominated General Assembly.
The Democratic governor knows Republicans, who led the charge in 2012 to end limits on purchases to one handgun a month in Virginia, are all about expanding gun rights - not curtailing them. That principle is practically stamped on their foreheads. [PVC: Gun rights are an important part of the Republican Platform. If only all of them followed their own platform.]
A spokesman for House Speaker William Howell told The Washington Post it's "disappointing" the governor "is making a divisive social issue like gun control the centerpiece of his legislative agenda." [PVC: Looks like the Speaker doesn't get it either. Gun RIGHTS are RIGHTS, Delegate Howell, not some "divisive social issue." <Head-slap>.]
Del. Scott Lingamfelter chairs the House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee, where such firearm bills often expire. In a statement, he said McAuliffe's "strident anti-Second Amendment agenda is completely out of step with the rational approach most Virginians want when it comes to curtailing gun crime." [PVC: Amen. Virginians don't want their rights compromised by emotion-driven laws.]
I'd call the GOP pretty irrational on gun issues, especially given the legacy of the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech. But that's a column for another day. [PVC: His real issue is with those pesky Founding Fathers. If only they had the wisdom of Mr. Chesley! But that's a comment for another day.]
McAuliffe's detractors are right when they say he's playing politics. The guv, obviously, will use the proposals he announced this week to rally his party base in 2015, when all 140 seats in the Assembly are up for election.
His firearm package includes reinstating the one-handgun-a-month law, originally enacted in the early 1990s; requiring private vendors at gun shows to submit background checks; and prohibiting the possession of firearms for people subject to protective orders.
Political observers told me the campaign reassures Democrats that McAuliffe supports issues they hold dear.
More important than playing politics, though, is that McAuliffe wants a renewed public debate on guns - including restrictions on people who shouldn't have them. [PVC: We have debated gun control to death. In the end gun control always loses when the truth and facts are presented.]
Reading the tea leaves about what the Assembly will do, gubernatorial spokesman Brian Coy told me, shouldn't "prevent the governor from doing the right thing.
"He's got a commitment to building a new Virginia economy," Coy added. "Part of that is keeping Virginia families safe. Part of that is limiting access to firearms from dangerous people." [PVC: The best way to keep families safe is to continue to remove existing gun control. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of truly dangerous and violent people, make sure they are behind bars and aren't walking around amongst the rest of us.]
Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, told me he disagreed with the governor's plan. "I don't think it will make us any safer," he said, adding he saw no link between safety and the push to revoke concealed handgun permits for parents behind on child support payments.
Van Cleave is right about that, but it's regrettable he so thoroughly opposes any limits on guns. [PVC: It's regrettable from Mr. Chesley's point of view because he knows how powerful VCDL/grassroots gun rights are in Virginia.]
We all know the horrific statistics involving gunfire in America:
More than 30,000 deaths annually, nearly two-thirds by suicide. [PVC: Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the U.S. and they kill themselves quite easily and effectively without using a gun.] Some 70,000 injured each year. Mass shootings that have killed youngsters in schools, moviegoers in theaters, customers in restaurants, and service members and civilians on military installations. [PVC: What do all those places, except restaurants, have in common? They are GUN-FREE ZONES. Restaurant mass shootings are rare, except when they are a gun-free zone.]
I interviewed Jon Vernick, co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and co-editor of "Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis." The 2013 book relayed research and analysis presented at a summit.
Vernick said at least three states - New Jersey, Maryland and California - continue to limit handgun purchases to once a month. Virginia passed the law because the state had become an East Coast haven for illegal gun trafficking.
Vernick also said a poll he helped conduct after the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut showed majorities of people nationwide supported tougher gun policies, including requiring a background check system for all gun sales and prohibiting those convicted of violating a domestic violence restraining order from having a gun for 10 years. [PVC: The poll that really counts was the one we just had - mid-term elections.]
Virginians support gun ownership, but they also want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable. [PVC: None of the Governor's proposals do that. It's a task that can't be done. In Australia, 8 children were stabbed to death yesterday. It's not the tool, but dealing with the criminals / dangerous mentally-unstable individuals that is the key. Keep them away from the rest of us and we'll all be safer as a result. And keep it easy for good people to be armed, so that if government doesn't keep the dangerous people away from us, at least we can protect ourselves at all times and all places.]
That's why McAuliffe's proposals can provide a valuable discourse. For safety's sake, the Assembly should welcome it. [PVC: Like I said, gun control and these kind of proposals have been debated ad-nauseum.]
**************************************************
3. 2015 Traveler's Guide Mail Order Sale and Deadline
**************************************************
The 2015 Traveler's Guide to the Firearm Laws of the Fifty States is being ordered and is expected to arrive about the 3rd week in January. If you do not want to wait until the next local gun show, do we have a deal for you!
The VCDL Fulfillment Center has a copy on order with your name on it! If you would like one, we need to receive your order by January 10th.
Orders will be processed in the order in which they are received.
There are two options:
If you want it sent in a sturdier envelope and by priority mail the cost will be $20.00
If you want it sent in a standard manila envelope and by first class mail the cost will be $18.00
If you include a copy of your current unexpired membership card (or a completed application) you can reduce the price by $2.
Also, if you typically buy your copy from a VCDL table at a gun show, please include a note with the show's location so we do not swamp our coordinators with more guides than they need.
To order, please send a check or money order made out to "VCDL" to:
VCDL Fulfillment Center
PO Box 254
Garrisonville, Virginia 22463
ATT: Book Sales
NOTE: If you do not place "book sales" on the envelope your purchase could be delayed by as much as 2 weeks. Please help us help you!
Also, please consider including a donation to either the VCDL, the VCDL-PAC or BOTH!
(If you donate to the PAC, please make it a separate check and include your employer and job title. -- Thanks!)
**************************************************
4. Call 911 and die (of old age)
**************************************************
Member Danny Paulson emailed me this:
About a month ago, driving home at dark, I passed my neighbor's house, whose burglar alarm was going off. The houses in my area are acre plus lots and this house is even more isolated, being set back by itself. The lights were on and I called the neighbor, no answer.
I called again and left a message. I vaguely recalled that this neighbor may have once alluded to having a shotgun.
I called Fairfax 911 and got the same type of annoyed (why are you bothering me) voice and attitude as I usually do. After giving my life's history, name, address and telephone number, I waited for some police response, none ever came including a call back.
My neighbor, who was out of town, eventually returned my call and thanked me for my interest. Apparently the police and alarm company did not call him either.
**************************************************
5. Does the Castleman holding overrule White?
**************************************************
Technical, but important explanation dealing with recent, and conflicting, court rulings affecting those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.
Member John Pierce emailed me this:
From http://johnpierceesq.com/?p=927
Does the Castleman holding overrule White?
by John Pierce
November 3, 2014
There seems to be some disagreement in the legal community here in Virginia as to whether or not the decision in United States v. Castleman handed down by the United States Supreme Court earlier this year overruled the 4th Circuit’s 2010 decision in United States v. White.
I was contacted by a potential client who had received conflicting advice on whether or not he was now a prohibited person based upon a conviction that was previously held, under the White decision, to not be a prohibiting offense.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with either case, a little background is in order.
In the White case, the 4th Circuit ruled that the federal law which prohibits the purchase (18 U.S.C. 922(d)(9)) and possession (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9)) of firearms by those who have been convicted of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ did not apply to Virginia cases unless the trial record clearly shows that “force, greater than a mere offensive
touching” was used during the commission of the crime.
The basis of the White decision was the definition of ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ from 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). That definition states that to qualify, an offense shall have “as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.”
In determining what the term ‘physical force’ meant, the White decision said that it clearly required more than “a mere offensive touching.” Since Virginia still “retains the common law definition of battery, which includes even the slightest offensive touching as an act of battery,” absent additional findings in the record that the use of force exceeded this threshold, this definition is not met by Virginia cases. Based upon this opinion, numerous persons were deemed not to be prohibited and their records were marked as such.
Fast forward to March of this year when the United States Supreme Court handed down a 9 – 0 ruling in the Castleman case. The question presented boiled down to the same definitional quandary … what is meant by the term ‘physical force’ when used in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A)(ii)?
In Castleman, the court held that the “‘physical force’ requirement is satisfied by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction — namely, offensive touching.”
Since this holding seems to completely negate the reasoning supporting the White decision, I believe that Castleman does overrule White.
Those who have domestic violence convictions in Virginia who were previously flagged as not prohibited will now be considered prohibited by the Virginia State Police and the federal government and will be subject to possible criminal prosecution if they answer that question incorrectly on a purchase form.
I should note that there are attorneys in Virginia who disagree with this analysis but until we see an opinion holding otherwise, I will advise my clients who are in this situation to seek a pardon as the only available legal remedy.
**************************************************
6. Another pro-gun business - Appalacian Outdoor Readiness and Essentials
**************************************************
Member Lloyd Reese emailed me this:
Visited Appalachian Outdoor Readiness and Essentials in Purcellville this week and was pleased to see the sign, like the one below, but minus the image of the handgun.
http://guide.sportsmansguide.com/news/p ... -business/ (Guns are welcome on premises sign)
Retailer website: http://www.appalachianreadiness.com/
**************************************************
7. Federal court denies Palmer case reconsideration on DC carry ban
**************************************************
DC is headed towards a collision with the courts on their "probably won't issue" CHP system at some point.
From examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/nq6amzh
http://www.examiner.com/article/federal ... -carry-ban
Federal court denies Palmer case reconsideration on DC carry ban
by Dave Workman
November 7, 2014
The Second Amendment Foundation announced today it had won a “small, but significant” court ruling from a federal judge in the District of Columbia who denied a motion by the city to reconsider his July ruling that the District ban on carry outside of the home is unconstitutional “under any level of scrutiny.”
Yesterday’s decision came from U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., who warned the District in his July ruling that, “in light of Heller, McDonald and their progeny, there (was) no longer any basis on which this court (could) conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home (was) constitutional under any level of scrutiny.”
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb cheered Judge Scullin’s denial. In a statement, Gottlieb observed, “This new ruling reiterates the language in the Peruta decision in California that ‘the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes ‘bear(ing) Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.’ I’m beginning to wonder what part of that the District doesn’t understand.”
There are strong indications the District understood Judge Scullin very well, but has put on the stall since July to essentially delay what Gottlieb called “the inevitable.” That opinion seems to be shared by others, including a firearms instructor who was part of the Palmer case.
In an Oct. 23 article published by The New American, George Lyon was quoted complaining about the high cost of applying for certification. The course takes 16 hours in the classroom and two hours of range time, according to the story.
“This is another example of them making the process as difficult and expensive as possible,” he reportedly stated.
Gottlieb, who is now weighing various courses of action in the wake of a tough gun control battle in Washington State, was buoyed by the new Palmer case ruling. He called Scullin’s denial of reconsideration another step toward restoration of Second Amendment rights, not just for District residents, but for citizens everywhere.
“At some point,” Gottlieb said, “gun prohibitionists will have to realize that the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, not a government-regulated privilege.”
SAF and the other plaintiffs in the Palmer case are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who won both the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald Supreme Court Second Amendment cases.
**************************************************
8. Lawsuit challenges federal machine gun ban
**************************************************
This would be so cool if it makes it.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/qethhbk
http://www.examiner.com/article/lawsuit ... ne-gun-ban
Lawsuit challenges federal machine gun ban
by David Codrea
October 31, 2014
A complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division. Plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.
“By imposing such a ban on an entire class of weapons, the statutes and regulations exceed the power of the United States,” the complaint states. It makes its case by citing violations of Article I of the United States Constitution, the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and “principles of federalism and dual sovereignty.
“y arbitrarily ‘disapproving’ an already approved Form 1, Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and is an unjust taking; and violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the complaint continues. “Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against ... unconstitutional provisions ... declaring the ban on machine guns unconstitutional ... and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from unjustly taking property without Due Process.
“In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief finding that [United States Code] does not prohibit an unincorporated trust from manufacturing or possessing a machinegun manufactured after May 19, 1986 and/or that the Defendants lack the authority and are thus prohibited from revoking or denying the validity of Plaintiff’s approved tax stamp,” the complaint declares. Costs of the suit, attorney fees and “[a]ny other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate” are also being sought.
Representing Hollis is Mississippi attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh, reported on earlier this month in this column when he started a crowdfunding effort to finance this legal effort. This case represents the “first complaint,” Stamboulieh notes on the GoFundMe page he established that, with nine days left to attain its goal at this writing, has raised $37,505 toward a $50,000 goal.
**************************************************
9. Voters give republicans a mandate to stop gun control
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/onbrxqb
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... un-Control
VOTERS GIVE REPUBLICANS A MANDATE TO STOP GUN CONTROL
by AWR HAWKINS
November 6, 2014
While media pundits and defeated Democrat campaigns voice different interpretations of the Republicans' midterm landslide, no one should overlook one indisputable fact: voters gave Republicans a mandate to stop gun control at the federal and state level.
Federally speaking, in race after race pro-gun control candidates were run out of office and replaced with pro-Second Amendment candidates in the US Senate.
This was clear for Mark Udall (D-CO) and Kay Hagan (D-NC)--two Senators who voted for Senator Joe Manchin's (D-WV) gun control bill in April 2013, only to be replaced by pro-Second Amendment candidates. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) voted for Manchin's gun control package as well, and she lost so much support among midterm voters that her race will be decided via a run-off election against pro-Second Amendment candidate Bill Cassidy (R-LA) in December.
In Arkansas, Senator Mark Pryor (D) voted against Manchin's gun control package in 2013 but still lost to NRA-endorsed candidate Tom Cotton (R). This race was truly demonstrative of the push for a mandate inasmuch as a quasi pro-gun candidate--Pryor--was run out of office to make room for a bona fide, no holds barred supporter of the Second Amendment, Tom Cotton.
On top of this, pro-gun candidate Joni Ernst (R-IA) won pro-gun control Senator Tom Harkin's (D-IA) former seat.
On November 4 Breitbart News reported the Huffington Post deriding Ernst's gun views as those that belong to "Second Amendment extremists." She'll now be taking those views to Washington, D.C., aiming to stop gun control in its tracks.
Kentucky was also indicative of the push-back against gun control. There, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was in a tight race with Alison Grimes (D), who had to fake her pro-gun convictions just to get traction in the state. But in October The Weekly Standard uncovered a memo showing her pro-gun statements were "canned," and Breitbart News reported that expanded background checks were on her agenda.
McConnell won by a large margin.
On top of these Senate victories, Republicans not only held the House but expanded their majority there--an expansion that is itself a buffer against any gun control measure that may come down the pike.
In state-level races, voters supported pro-Second Amendment incumbents over their pro-gun control challengers--even in races where dedicated gun control proponents such as Gabby Giffords showed up to raise money or campaign. Gun control candidates even lost in races where Giffords' gun control PAC donated to the candidate's campaign.
For example, Giffords went to Maine in August to raise money for gun control candidate Michael Michaud (D), but he was defeated by pro-Second Amendment Governor Paul R. LePage (R). Giffords' gun control group sent $100,000 to Florida gun control gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist (D), but he was defeated by pro-Second Amendment Governor Rick Scott (R). And Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly endorsed Arizona gun control gubernatorial candidate Fred DuVal (D), but he was beat handily by pro-Second Amendment candidate Doug Ducey (R).
**************************************************
10. MDA Founder: Midterms prove we have gun control 'momentum'
**************************************************
The founder of Mothers Demand Action, who actually believes that a citizens has never successfully used a gun to defend themselves, sees "momentum" after the last election.
"Oh, look - it's a light at the end of the long, dark tunnel!!! We're going to make it after all!"
Uh, no, Shannon. That's not daylight. That's the headlight of a train.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/o5kbpen
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... e-Momentum
MOMS DEMAND ACTION FOUNDER: MIDTERMS PROVE WE HAVE GUN CONTROL 'MOMENTUM'
by AWR HAWKINS
November 5, 2014
Following the shellacking that voters handed gun control candidates on November 4, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts emerged to say that her group "[has] the momentum" and their push for control will continue.
In a Moms Demand/Everytown for Gun Safety video released November 5, Watts said:
For years, the gun lobby has had the field to themselves. But this election season, supporters like you are changing the game. You've shown the size and the power of our movement, led by moms and concerned citizens from all over the country who care deeply about gun violence prevention. We mobilized nearly one million gun sense voters who pledged to vote for candidates who support common sense gun laws.
Watts said these volunteers organized over "100 house parties," knocked on "tens of thousands of doors," and made "more than 100,000 phone calls to voters in key areas."
Yet gun control candidates still got shellacked. Republicans expanded their majority in the House and became the majority party in the Senate. The candidates endorsed by the NRA and supported by their 5 million-plus members dominated the night. And this was true in gubernatorial races, as well.
Nonetheless, Watts told Moms Demand members, "You've already proven that we can accomplish great things together. And I'm excited to see what we can accomplish next."
She then appealed for more people to join her gun control group, adding: "We have the momentum, and together, we will win this fight."
**************************************************
11. Boom: Americans now agree that gun ownership makes homes safer
**************************************************
From hotair.com: http://tinyurl.com/nj8qxpl
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/11/07/b ... mes-safer/
Boom: Americans now agree that gun ownership makes homes safer
by Jazz Shaw
November 7, 2014
Who was it that was just recently saying that, eventually, liberal policies always wind up taking over the country? Opinions among Americans clearly do shift over time, but when it comes to our Second Amendment rights, the drift seems to be decidedly in one direction, and Andrew Malcolm reports that it’s clearly not toward the nanny state.
Bang! For the first time, a growing — and already substantial — majority of Americans now believe having a gun in the home makes it a safer place to live.
Put that in your chamber and cock it.
Gallup, which has been surveying the politically volatile question for a generation, announced this morning a new poll revealing that nearly two-out-of-three Americans (63%) now say having a firearm there makes a home safer.
That’s nearly twice the number who said that just before 9/11.
And the explosion of support has come across all political boundaries. Back in the fall of 2000, barely a third thought that (35%), while a majority (51%) said guns made homes more dangerous.
But the number who say guns increase home safety has been steadily increasing while the number who see them as increasing danger has been steadily declining — from 35% in 2000 to 42% four years later to 47% in 2006 and now a jump all the way up to 63%.
The Gallup poll also reveals a closing of the gender gap. Men have traditionally been more comfortable with firearms as an enabler of home defense, but now 67% of men and 58% of women are answering in the affirmative.
As with so many other subjects, education has been key to this question and will continue to be in the future. One of the strongest arguments for those opposed to Second Amendment rights are the high profile, tragic stories of children who get hold of unsecured guns and wind up injuring themselves or others. There is, of course, no excuse for these tragedies taking place. But better education has resulted in more gun owners being made aware of when and how to best secure their firearms. This applies whether or not children live in the home or simply visit on occasion. Nearly all of these incidents could be prevented with proper precautions and common sense.
So the results of the poll are heartening, but there will always be more work to do. People like Michael Bloomberg will continue to flush huge sums of cash into public scare tactic campaigns to try to drive lawmakers further into the arms of the gun grabbers. But it doesn’t seem to be sinking in, thankfully. The backlash of media alarmist opportunism after Newtown won them some victories on the local level in the short term, but I can not believe that the nation at large will tolerate it in the long run.
**************************************************
12. Judge Napolitano gives best explanation for how to stop attacks [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
From tpnn.com: http://tinyurl.com/kr3jls4
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/11/02/video-ju ... c-attacks/
VIDEO: Judge Napolitano Gives the BEST Explanation for How to Stop ‘Lone Wolf’ Islamic Attacks
by TPNN
November 2, 2014
The same liberal talking heads that tried to label the Ft. Hood killing spree as “workplace violence” instead of calling it what it is- the product of militant Islam- are the same kinds of pinheads that are trying to label the recent slew of attacks by Muslims as “lone wolf” attacks that are perpetrated by individuals and that should be counted as isolated incidents.
However, these so-called “lone wolf” attacks are indicative of a greater problem: radical Islam is coming to the Western World.
In, perhaps, the most-straightforward and obvious way possible, Fox News’ Judge Andrew Napolitano discussed the recent attacks and explained that the best way to thwart such attacks is to simply maintain a well-armed citizenry. Speaking of the recent attack at Canada’s War Memorial, Napolitano stated,
“Look, ISIS is a threat in many ways…. It’s the loner; it’s the lone wolf. We don’t know if this person came from an organization or did this on his own. This person does not cause a big commotion; it’s not an army marching on a city. It’s one guy getting out of a car and starting to shoot.
What is the best deterrent to that? An armed citizenry. People able to protect themselves. We have a Second Amendment in this country, they do not have the equivalent of that in Canada.”
There really is no arguing with that fact. The reality is that when shots are being fired by a “bad guy with a gun,” citizens wait and hope for the “good guys with guns” to show up and neutralize.
Wouldn’t it be great if we maintained a healthy stock of “good guys with guns” in the crowd to neutralize bad guys when police are minutes away when seconds count?
**************************************************
13. Swatting - you could be next
**************************************************
The author concludes by saying everyone should conceal carry to avoid this. But then the anti-gun criminals would have won in my opinion. Instead we need to prosecute the criminals every time they try this. VCDL is working to make SWATTING a felony, even if the SWATTING doesn't end up in a death.
Frederick Liewehr emailed me this:
http://girlsjustwannahaveguns.com/swatting-next/
Swatting – You Could Be Next
by Pat Henry
November 3, 2014
The anti-gun morons of the country have come up with a new way to amuse themselves – swatting. What is “swatting”? Swatting is making a bogus 911 call claiming that someone has a gun and is threatening, or worse, someone else.
Public service agencies such as fire departments have protocols they have to follow when called. If you call the fire department to report a brown burn mark on an electrical wall plate, like my folks did one time when I was young, in a few minutes you are liable to see a hook and ladder truck, a pumper, a fire department car, and an ambulance show up at your front door.
Police departments have similar protocols to follow when called. So, if you call them and tell them that there is a man with a gun threatening others in some location, the police will show up in a state of maximum alert, and their SWAT team, with guns drawn, will assume the worst. If someone doesn’t get killed it will be a miracle.
False alarms of either kind cost a lot of money. They also jeopardize lives, not just because the SWAT team is ready to shoot, but because they will travel at high speeds to get to the scene of the alleged crime. Property damage may ensue as the house may be broken into to either put out the supposed fire or to stop the alleged gunman. Perhaps worst is that there could be a real fire or a real holdup taking place simultaneously to which the department cannot respond while it is wasting its time with the false alarm.
Swatting is becoming very popular in trendy Los Angeles. It has happened to Clint Eastwood (!), Ashton Kutcher, Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus, Simon Cowell, Tom Cruise, the Kardashians, and Chris Brown.
It is spreading, and predictably has already claimed several victims. John Crawford III was gunned down in a Beavercreek, Ohio store after a 911 caller claimed he was loading and pointing an assault rifle at customers in Walmart. In reality, Crawford was merely holding a BB gun that the store sells.
Crawford was killed when officers fired on him, and another shopper suffered a heart attack and died when the police opened fire.
Several months ago 30 police officers surrounded a South Jersey house, forcing Rob Richards and his friends with whom he was playing video games, outside at gunpoint. The police had received a telephone call that said: “My mom and dad got into an argument and it got physical. I took the gun and I shot my dad. I want to kill her and kill myself. I don’t want to be alive anymore.”
In Nebraska, the state patrol launched a tactical response in Sarpy County based on a swatting false alarm at a home where family members were inside sleeping.
Fortunately the targeted family was able to talk to the deputies and defuse the situation, but as Lt. Kevin Griger said, “Somebody’s in his own home, he hears the front door crash in, he grabs his personal weapon, goes to the front door, the SWAT team’s coming in, he doesn’t know that because he doesn’t anticipate any problems, you know, and a firefight en[sues] in the home and somebody gets hurt because of that.”
So why is swatting suddenly all the rage? As you might imagine, this is a game of the anti-gunners, and kids who have been brainwashed by them. “Moms Demand Action”, a liberal group that intimidates merchants by threatening civil disobedience, boycotts, and so forth, may not openly advocate swatting, but some of the readers of their website certainly do. A sampling of their comments:
Referring to a photograph of a man open carrying in a checkout line a Joyce Ward asks, “Why weren’t the police called immediately? Why wasn’t he shot by the police for having a weapon”?
Another poster Lisa McLogan Shaheen asks, “Why hasn’t someone called 911 so the cops can gun him down?”
Others suggest taking a more active part. “Every time I see someone with a gun in a store I will call 911,” Jennifer Decker vows, “they’ll get tired of that right quick!!!”
“Just call the police every time you see someone with one,” she counsels, “the police will get sick of it eventually or have a run in with one of these clowns and then things will change,” advises Ann Marie.
This sort of criminal activity, and yes, it is a crime to “swat” somebody, is further dividing and polarizing our society. The liberals in Hollywood have manufactured a never-ending stream of sick violence on the one hand, and then shoot their mouths off about the problem with gun violence on the other.
Hypocrites like Daniel Craig, who is said to have received 31 million pounds for two new James Bond movies, which makes him the highest-paid British actor, as well as the best paid 007 superspy, is rabidly anti-gun, despite the fact that cinematic gun play pays his rent.
But worse than hypocrisy, the looney Left is increasingly dictating policy in America. Big name democrats like Al Gore make a fortune and cause the world to spend untold trillions of dollars on idiotic schemes to attempt to influence natural climate cycles. “Green” hucksters all the way up to the White House have crippled our economy and cause the waste of trillions of dollars in feel-good projects that often cause more harm than good.
Millions of simple minded individuals believe these con artists and sincerely think that those who enjoy driving cars and having their houses warm, and particularly those who believe that the right to keep and bear arms is absolutely essential to keep our nation free, are “bad” people who must be stopped.
The worst part is that the Left’s dream is for a utopian society, one that could never possibly exist. They are tired of waiting for their heaven on earth, so they have decided to move the timetable forward more quickly by using any means at their disposal. The famous book “Rules for Radicals” by Obama’s hero Saul
Alinsky contains their battle plan, and swatting is just part of it.
The police are caught in the middle. They are called by a false alarm to a situation that they believe to be life-and-death, and then if they do shoot someone, they are completely to blame. Heaven forbid it should be someone with darker skin than theirs, because for many Americans justice in 2014 should be determined by the race or ethnicity of the victim.
Meanwhile, jihad is coming to America, and with real unemployment being 2-3 times higher than the lies the government tells you, particularly among certain segments of the population, and with the decline of religion and the destruction of the family, crime is becoming more commonplace and more violent.
In the past, “Officer Friendly” would arrive at the scene of the reported crime to try to protect and serve the innocent victims of the bad guys. Nowadays, however, thanks to 9/11 and the ensuing emphasis on “homeland security”, much of which is arguably unconstitutional, the victims of a swatting are liable to discover that the armored, masked, helmeted, machine-gun toting men who smash down their doors aren’t trained anymore to rescue victims.
They are trained to neutralize potential threats first, rescue second. With the recent hatchet attacks on police, as well as the Pennsylvania State troopers who were ambushed and one killed, and with liberal agitators like Sharpton, Holder, and the black muslims constantly stirring up racial hatred in places like Ferguson, do you think things will get any better?
I don’t know what to tell you about all this. Yes, states do have laws that allow for open carry, but this is really off-putting for a lot of people. We live in a time when few anymore have any connection with guns other than what they see in violent TV, movies, and video games. The sick violence of muslims is in the news on a daily basis. People simply don’t want to see a reminder of the problems in the world on someone’s hip.
If that person is wearing an appropriate uniform, they are more or less comfortable because they think that the wearer will protect them from the bad guys. The reality of course is that there are not nearly enough folks in uniform with guns to protect them, and that the fellow with the open carry gun next to you in line may much more likely be the one who keeps you alive than someone with a uniform who is not there.
That kind of logic, however, is never going to get through to people who haven’t got the common sense to see what liberals are doing to our nation. In other words, roughly half of the people in this country are voting for people who would like to take your guns, as well as your freedom to follow your religious beliefs and the rest of the rights you thought were protected by the Constitution.
They are not all stupid; most are just mis-informed (brainwashed if you will) by years of liberal lies about guns. Many would respond favorably if they were just told the truth once in a while. Don’t hold your breath for this to happen in the media, however.
The best thing you can do is to set a great example of what a responsible gun owner should be. Don’t push the envelope by flaunting your rights. Instead, get a CCW permit. Familiarize yourself with anti-gun lies and learn just a few talking points and a few statistics to refute the liberals’ arguments. Take friends and particularly young people to the range and let them shoot. A box of ammo for a vote is less than the liberals are paying the folks they bus in.
Above all, go to the polls Tuesday and VOTE to protect your gun rights.
**************************************************
14. Open-carry advocate targeted in 'swatting'
**************************************************
An article on Robert Dicken (no "s" on the end - I made that same mistake in the last alert). He is having his day in court against the SWATTER in late January. I'll let you know what transpires.
VCDL is working to get a bill introduced in 2015 to make SWATTING a felony.
Member William Goodman emailed me this:
From wnd.com: http://tinyurl.com/oh8ebe2
http://www.wnd.com/2014/10/open-carry-a ... swat-ting/
OPEN-CARRY ADVOCATE TARGETED IN 'SWATTING'
'Wow, I could have been killed!'
by Bob Unruh
October 31, 2014
Fairfax, Virginia, resident and open-carry advocate Robert Dickens heard the police siren and saw the lights, so he very carefully stopped his motorcycle, locked his hands on his head and calmly waited for instructions.
He said yes when an officer asked if he could remove a handgun from a holster Dickens was wearing. He gave the same answer when the officer asked to take temporary custody of a pocketknife he had in his pocket.
In the end, he’s thankful he’s still alive after an up-close and personal encounter with “swatting,’ the practice of making a false report of an on-going critical incident to prompt an emergency response.
“Wow, I could have been killed!” he wrote in a report on the Bearing Arms website of an October incident in which officers from many police units suddenly pulled up around him while he was riding his motorcycle home from a couple of errands.
Such swatting incidents are becoming more common. They started out with Internet gamers who would hide behind online personas and anonymous names to report that their gaming opponent had a gun or had taken hostages.
The response often is a full-scale SWAT team at the location, with guns drawn and military vehicles at the ready. It’s even happened to actor Clint Eastwood.
But its danger turned from theory to tragedy over the summer when John Crawford III was gunned down in a Beavercreek, Ohio, store after being swatted by a caller who claimed Crawford was loading and pointing an assault rifle at customers in Walmart.
Actually, Crawford was merely holding a BB gun that the store sells. But Crawford died when officers fired on him, and another shopper suffered a heart attack and died after the police opened fire, the report said.
The Bearing Arms website said the activity is “a favored tactic” of gun-control supporters.
For example, from the Facebook page of Moms Demand Action, a group that tries to push retailers into public statements of opposition to guns, a Jennifer Decker wrote, “Every time I see someone with a gun in a store I will call 911 … because I feel threatened, they’ll get tired of that right quick!!!”
Added Alan Crammatte, “Call the police and say you feel threatened by a man with a gun.”
The Bearing Arms report had the details of Dickens’ ordeal.
He explained he ran some errands that day, at 7-11 and a Verizon store. Then he was pulled over.
“Now I’m thinking that I’ve got my pistol on me and I’m asking myself how I would feel if I were an officer pulling over someone who was armed,” he wrote. “OK, turn the bike off, straddle the bike, interlock your hands on your head, and be calm.”
He cooperated.
Eventually, he found out a known “swatter” had called police on him.
Reported Bearing Arms: “Unfortunately, the individual in question – like many supporters of gun control – is thought to be mentally ill. The [police department] has a difficult time pursuing a criminal SWAT-ting case against the caller because they can’t prove criminal intent.”
Hear the 9-1-1 call accusing Dickens of armed robbery:
Just days ago in Massachusetts, MyFoxBoston quoted a private investigator observing the “game” is getting much more dangerous.
“Last July, a prankster called in a bomb threat that shut down part [of] Harvard’s campus. In Dennis last week, a gamer used SWAT-ting to allegedly target a victim. But Tuesday in Ashland, police saw SWAT-ting go to the next level.”
The report said a scammer called police to claim to be a man who was being held at gunpoint by his wife. A SWAT team, police and fire officials arrived and found no emergency.
Private investigator Tom Shamshack said, “When somebody responds to one of these calls, it’s all hands on deck and you have weaponry and ammunition that are there that could conceivably get somebody killed.”
The NBC affiliate in Philadelphia reported this month that 30 police officers surrounded a South Jersey house earlier this year, surprising Rob Richards, who was playing video games with friends.
The occupants of the home were forced outside at gunpoint by police understandably concerned by the telephone call they had received that said: “My mom and dad got into an argument and it got physical. I took the gun and I shot my dad. I want to kill her and kill myself. I don’t want to be alive anymore.”
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, in early October, a woman called 9-1-1 telling dispatchers she had no idea why officers surrounded her home and pointed rifles at her.
“Please don’t have them shoot me! I’m really scared!” she said.
Officers explained: “We got a call there was a man inside the residence at your house and that he had killed his wife and was getting ready to kill his children.”
In Nebraska, the state patrol launched a tactical response in Sarpy County at a home where family members were inside sleeping.
Lt. Kevin Griger pointed out the danger.
“Somebody’s in his own home, he hears the front door crash in, he grabs his personal weapon, goes to the front door, the SWAT team’s coming in, he doesn’t know that because he doesn’t anticipate any problems, you know, and a firefight en[sues] in the home and somebody gets hurt because of that.”
And in Florida’s Bay Area, Bradenton police got a call from a man who said he had killed his family and was going to kill himself.
The targeted family was able to explain to deputies there was no problem, avoiding a standoff.
Meanwhile, police told Dickens they will be “checking the sanity of the caller.”
Said Bearing Arms: “Mr. Dickens kept his composure during the stop despite the four squad cars in his mirror, and the Fairfax County Police Department acted very professionally as well. The FCPD responded to the call with the potential for force, but never once drew a weapon on Mr. Dickens placing him in danger, which was the clear intention of the caller.
What of the caller?
“The [citizens group] contacted the FCPD to obtain a copy of the 911 call that the caller had made, and discovered that the caller is a known SWAT-ter, who has SWAT-ted others in the past.”
CNN previously reported RedState managing editor Erick Erickson was the victim of swatting.
And WND columnist Phil Elmore earlier this year addressed the problem.
“Two years ago, this column warned you of the dangers of ‘SWAT-ting,’ a technological exploit in which hackers (or those with the ability to ‘spoof’ telephone numbers or otherwise fool emergency response networks) simulate emergency calls in order to direct law enforcement officers to a specific address. Often, Voice Over IP (VOIP) and other modern telecommunications methods are used to hide the caller’s true identity. Notably, SWAT-ting was originally invented as a new means of silencing conservatives by liberals.
“It has, however, spread to other spheres of cultural influence, becoming just yet another weapon in the griefing arsenal of gamers, computer geeks and script-kiddie almost-hackers who want to find a way to reach through the Internet and harm someone.”
Elmore cited incidents in New York, Vancouver, South Dakota and other places.
“Making the police believe a dangerous situation exists at a given location should not be, in and of itself, a life-threatening condition. The first-responders who come to your home are there ostensibly to protect you, to rescue innocent people from harm that might be inflicted by bad actors. But increasingly, Americans and (their neighbors to the north) are discovering that the armored, masked, helmeted, machine-gun toting men who smash down their doors aren’t interested in rescuing anyone so much as they are interested in neutralizing potential threats. No doubt our nation’s SWAT teams are quite adept at this neutralizing … but this focus on command and control doesn’t leave a lot of room to protect and serve.”
**************************************************
15. Americans getting tired of gun control pushes shocks advocates
**************************************************
Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
From ijreview.com: http://tinyurl.com/lc9k2dd
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/195743- ... -happened/
Just How Much Americans are Getting Tired of Gun Control Pushes Will Shock Gun Control Advocates
by Chris Martin
November 2014
Let’s travel back in time to mid-December of 2012, when the horrific shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut had just taken place. There were countless calls from anti-gun activists to crack down on the availability of guns, and there appeared to be a shift of attitudes toward stricter gun control measures and away from the freedom to bear arms.
Now that almost two years have passed, let’s take stock of how Americans feel now about gun control issues as compared to during the aftermath of Sandy Hook. Recent Gallup polls are showing some unexpected results when it comes to attitudes on gun control. (Chart: Laws Covering the Sale of Firearms - American's preferences since 2000)
At the start of 2013, a majority of Americans (58%) favored making laws covering firearms sales more strict, while a total of 40% felt that those laws were adequate or too strict. But in the most recent poll, only 47% of respondents favor strengthening gun control laws, while a majority (52%) feel that these gun sale restrictions should be left alone or loosened.
Even though the Sandy Hook shooting involved a semi-automatic weapon and two handguns, current American attitudes toward a pistol ban are becoming clearer. In fact, a record percentage of Americans feel that they should be legally permitted to own a handgun, while barely one in four believe otherwise. (Chart: Support for Ban on Possession of Handguns, 1959-2014)
Finally, let’s make a side-by-side comparison of respondents who favored stricter gun control measures in 2012 versus in mid-October of this year, and then break the results out demographically: (Chart: Views on Gun Sale Laws, by Demographic Group)
With the exception of independent voters, there was at least a five percentage-point drop in every single demographic category. Perhaps the biggest surprises were the eight-point decreases among Democrats (from 79% to 71%) and liberals (from 75% to 67%), as well as the 14-point plunge among women (from 69% all the way down to 55%).
What conclusions can be drawn from these poll results? Maybe the anomalous spike in gun control sentiment coincided with the heavy media coverage of the Sandy Hook shootings. Or perhaps Americans just calmed down.
Either way, the numbers reinforce that efforts to not let a ‘good crisis’ go to waste might work the first time. After people come to their senses once time had passed, new attempts can result in a been-there, done-that effect.
**************************************************
16. [WV] Suspect dead in home invasion shooting
**************************************************
Elderly and handicapped? A gun is your equalizer to two men invading your home. Good luck without it.
From your4state.com: http://tinyurl.com/lhkg2pl
http://www.your4state.com/story/d/story ... uWHTi-6RbA
Suspect Dead in Home Invasion Shooting
by Carmen Chau
November 8, 2014
MARTINSBURG, W.Va. - Officers with Martinsburg Police Department responded to a home on Winchester Avenue Friday around 11:25 p.m. for a report of a home invasion involving a shooting.
It was later learned an elderly handicapped man was home when two men kicked in his door, and were believed to be attempting to rob the man. The victim took a gun to attempt to scare off the two men. However, according to the victim, one of the intruders grabbed the gun. The gun then went off, shooting the suspect in the chest where he then collapsed.
The victim told police he was unfamiliar with the second intruder but saw him leave before police arrived.
The suspect that was shot in the chest has been identified as Mr. Ronald Stotler and he was transported to the Berkeley Medical Center where he was pronounced dead.
This case remains under investigation.
**************************************************
17. [TN] Armed homeowner, shoots and kills home invader in broad daylight
**************************************************
Board Member Dale Welch emailed me this:
Just give the bad guy what he wants and he'll leave you alone, but what if he wants your wife too? This one wanted just that. [PVC: But had to settle for a bullet instead.]
From gunssavelives.net: http://tinyurl.com/pvoan36
http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/t ... -daylight/
TN Homeowner, Armed With .45, Shoots and Kills Armed, Masked Home Invader in Broad Daylight
by Dan Cannon
November 5, 2014
This story is yet another illustration of the fact that criminals are becoming more and more bold. You have to be ready to defend yourself in your home regardless of the time of day.
Around 9:50am on Tuesday morning a masked man armed with a handgun broke into a home in Nashville, Tennessee. According to WKRN, this what happened next:
The homeowner reported to police he was watching TV in his living room while his wife was asleep on the couch when the gunman entered through an unlocked screen door.
The gunman, whose face was masked by a bandana, demanded money and other belongings.
Metro police said the homeowner complied, but the gunman demanded more. The homeowner said as the gunman was “dealing with the wife,” he left the room and retrieved a .45 caliber pistol.
The suspect raised his own gun at the homeowner. Fortunately, the homeowner was able to win the gunfight and strike the suspect multiple times.
The suspect fled the home and collapsed nearby where he was found by responding authorities. The suspect died of his injuries.
This is the 45th defensive gun use we’ve documented in the state of Tennessee and the 1,337th defensive gun use we’ve documented overall.
**************************************************
18. [CO] Woman survives home invasion thanks to her gun
**************************************************
Final score: Good girls 1, bad guys 0 and there won't ever be a re-match.
Remember: warning shots are NOT a good idea.
Member Billy Huckleberry emailed me this:
From bearingarms.com: http://tinyurl.com/lc4j6cg
http://bearingarms.com/colorado-springs ... hanks-gun/
Colorado Springs Woman Survives Home Invasion Thanks To Her Gun
by Bob Owens
November 4, 2014
A Colorado Springs woman who lives alone in a rented home is shaken up but fortunate to be alive after being forced to shoot and kill a home invader that wouldn’t stop advancing upon her, even after she fired a warning shot.
The criminal—which the media is referring to only as a burglar, despite there being no information suggesting that was the reason he was in the home of a woman living alone—first attempted to breach the back door. When he failed to break through the door, he then broke a window with a brick to enter the home.
That was his next to last mistake.
“She said she just heard some crashing, and got up and saw that this guy was climbing through her window,” said homeowner Linda Orist of her tenant.
Orist said her tenant was upset and shaken up but was relived she was OK.
“She was upset that she had to kill someone to protect herself,” said Orist.
Orist said the man initially tried to get in through the back door. When he was unsuccessful, Orist said he broke a window with a brick and tried to climb in.
“She warned him that she had a gun and to go away but he, I don’t know, for whatever reason, he kept coming, and she shot a warning shot into the wall and he kept coming so she had to shoot him twice,” said Orist.
There was absolutely no reason at all that the renter needed to fire a warning shot, and as we’ve noted repeatedly, warning shots are a horrible idea and are generally illegal (as a practical matter, you are either justified in using deadly force against an attacker or you are not; a warning shot is therefore often successfully prosecuted by anti-gun district attorneys as assault with a deadly weapon). Nonetheless, the home invader did keep coming after the warning shot, until the renter fired two more shots which finally persuaded him to attempt to flee.
Police responding to the 911 call found the man outside the home, and he was reported dead at the hospital.
The lawyer questioned for the story said that the renter might attempt to justify her case with the state’s so-called “make my day” law, which is a large steaming pile of bovine excrement.
This was a classic self-defense case under castle doctrine, which was the prevailing law in the English-speaking world since before the United States was even a country.
As a side note, never trust a defense attorney who does a television interview wearing a hoodie.
**************************************************
19. [CO] A little ingenuity renders 'high capacity' magazine ban toothless [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Another gun-control fail. A ban on standard-size magazines in Colorado that has a perfectly legal solution for gun owners.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/oec4add
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-littl ... -toothless
A little ingenuity renders Colorado 'high capacity' magazine ban toothless
by Kurt Hofmann
October 31, 2014
When Colorado banned magazines with a capacity of 16 or more rounds back in March 2013, the ostensible justification was that doing so would limit the carnage a mass murderer could wreak when loosed on the soft targets of a "gun-free zone." That such targets can be mowed down in great numbers even without such capacity was apparently of no concern.
Magazine manufacturer Magpul has left Colorado as a result (although not before equipping Coloradans with tens of thousands of the soon-to-be-banned magazines--many of them for free--just before the law went into effect), taking their tax revenue and good jobs with them. But the political fallout went much further than that. State Senator John Morse (D), who as Senate President spearheaded the law, and Senator Angela Giron (D), became the first (and so far, the only) two Colorado senators to be kicked out of office on a recall vote (actually, the first two to have even faced a serious recall effort), despite an enormous funding advantage, courtesy of gun-hating billionaire and aspiring King of the Galaxy Michael Bloomberg. Then, when faced with her own recall vote--again because of her part in passing the magazine ban--Senator Evie Hudak (D) resigned her senate seat, so that, as per Colorado law, she would be replaced by a new senator from her own party, rather than lose the recall election to a Republican, thus shifting control of the senate.
The political fallout for Governor John Hickenlooper (D) has also been severe, to the point of causing him to flip-flop and waffle chaotically with regard to the ban--prompting the superbly ironic "Hickenlooper Blues" (do not cheat yourself out of the opportunity to watch the video).
And what have these politicians bought for their trouble, at the expense, for some, of their political lives (if Hickenlooper holds on to his office next Tuesday--anything but a foregone conclusion--he will only have lost his dignity, which in his case is no great loss) ? Certainly not public safety, but we already knew that. And as it turns out, they appear not even to have successfully bought much of a ban.
According to the breathless "reporting" of CBS Denver's Brian Maass, Colorado gun shops have found a couple methods of legally providing buyers with the ability to equip themselves with 30-round magazines. One way to do it is using parts kits:
In Colorado Springs at Old Colorado City Surplus, an Army Surplus store, a CBS4 producer bought two brand-new high capacity magazine “kits.”
The kits consist of the magazine hardware and a spring that needs to be inserted to make the unit operational.
The clerk opened the package, put it together in 24 seconds and sold CBS4 the 30 round magazine for $25.
According to the clerk, the kits are "selling really, really fast." Another method is to sell 30-round magazines that have been modified in such a way as to limit their capacity to 15, but the modification is easily reversed by the buyer:
At a northern Colorado gun show, a seller displayed an entire table full of 30 round magazines that had been “retrofitted” to hold 15 rounds and comply with the controversial law.
The seller was asked if anyone would care if a buyer removed the modification and turned the magazine back into a high capacity unit.
Restoring the magazine back to its standard, designed capacity of 30 rounds is as easy as popping a rivet out. This, of course, is without even delving into 3-D printed magazines. A magazines is, after all, little more than a box with a spring inside--it hardly requires a sophisticated factory to produce.
The CBS crew seems unconcerned about any prosecution they might face for possessing "illegal" magazines--perhaps they have secured for themselves the hallowed "David Gregory exemption" to onerous magazine bans.
Predictably, the CBS segment brought in Tom Mauser, the father of Columbine massacre victim Daniel Mauser. Mauser has ever since used the death of his son as justification to attack the gun rights of Coloradans and Americans in general. An enthusiastic supporter of magazine bans, the fact that his son was murdered in 1999--five years into the federal ban--apparently does nothing to reduce his zeal for such a ban. The article quotes him as saying, "I thought it would be an effective law." Perhaps he knows better now (but not likely).
Near the end of the segment (see accompanying video) Maass asks Mauser, who had just expressed his "disgust" at the successful efforts to make "a mockery of" the law (a law very worthy of mockery), "What do you do now?" Mauser sighed mournfully, hung his head, and eventually replied, "That's a good question."
Indeed it is, and its a question that the "gun control" zealots within the Colorado government appear to be utterly unable to answer.
**************************************************
20. [CA] Can these gun sensors keep cops safer?
**************************************************
From what I've seen written by police on a law enforcement blog site, they HATE the idea of these "smart" guns.
I don't blame them for doing so one bit.
From cnet.com: http://tinyurl.com/mqwqr3u
http://www.cnet.com/news/can-these-gun- ... s&tag=link
Can these gun sensors keep cops safer?
Technology from startup Yardarm can tell 911 emergency responders if a police officer's gun has been fired. But Yardarm doesn't call it a "smart gun" -- that would court controversy.
by Dara Kerr
November 8, 2014 4:00 AM PST
SANTA CRUZ, Calif. -- On a brisk Tuesday afternoon in February 2013, Santa Cruz police officers got an emergency call to check on a disturbance near downtown. They found a gruesome scene: two of their plainclothes colleagues had been gunned down. A routine call had gone horribly wrong.
"We lost two exceptionally fine officers today," Santa Cruz Police Chief Kevin Vogel told reporters at the time. "It's a horrible, horrible day for the Santa Cruz Police Department and the community of Santa Cruz."
Law enforcement across the country constantly grapples with violence against police officers. On average, one officer dies in the line of duty every 58 hours in the US, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. So, what if there were a way to keep police safer? Startup Yardarm Technologies is working on one.
The company's thumb-size wireless location- and movement-tracking sensor fits snugly in the butt of a Glock handgun. That sensor could shorten emergency response time, defuse deadly situations and create a log for crime analysis and evidence.
Yardarm, based in Capitola, Calif., is now field-testing the technology with two police departments: One in Carrollton, Texas, a Dallas suburb, and the other in Santa Cruz, south of San Francisco on California's northern coast.
Filling the void
Many guns come with a hollow space in the pistol grip. In handguns, it's a narrow area that's typically the length of the handle and sits next to where the magazine is loaded. Various theories explain the reason for the space -- it's a dirt and debris catcher, weight balancer or lanyard holder. For Yardarm, it's the perfect location for a tracking sensor.
Yardarm's first tracking device plugs in to the empty space in the handle of a Glock handgun, the preferred pistol in the field for roughly two-thirds of the nation's police officers.
That tracking sensor takes care of three basic tasks: knowing when the gun is removed from its holster, determining if and when the gun has been fired and recording the gun's GPS location. The Yardarm sensor immediately sends that data to police dispatch as a real-time alert. That instant notification is vital, since the vast majority of deadly incidents with law enforcement happen without dispatch knowing the officer's location, according to the Santa Cruz Police Department.
Yardarm's sensor also syncs automatically with police officers' iOS and Android smartphones via Bluetooth. So along with issuing alerts, the device can tell when officers have become separated from their firearms.
"Smart gun" recoil
Co-founders Bob Stewart and Joaquin Menezes dreamed up the idea that became Yardarm's gun-tracking technology in the wake of the December 2012 massacre in Sandy Hook, Conn. As the world now knows, 20-year-old Adam Lanza shot his mother, stole her Bushmaster assault rifle and stormed the local elementary school. He killed 26 people there, including 20 children.
This tragedy prompted many people to think about new ways to keep guns out of the wrong hands. One way is so-called smart guns -- which use technology to lock out all users except a gun's owner. One example comes from Germany-based Armatix, which makes a smart-gun system it hopes to license to gun manufacturers. Armatix-equipped guns would fire only if they're in range of an accompanying smartwatch. Likewise, Yardarm's initial prototype was intended for the general public -- not law enforcement -- and allowed gun owners to remotely disable their weapon.
There was one problem: backlash.
The National Rifle Association has repeatedly expressed fears that the US government could eventually require gun owners to use smart-gun technology, trampling Second Amendment rights.
"NRA recognizes that the 'smart guns' issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the antigunner's agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology," the NRA wrote in a blog post last year. The NRA didn't respond to a request for comment on this story.
Gun advocates complained that Yardarm's prototype could stifle people's freedom to use guns whenever they wanted.
Yardarm would've faced a "very long path and a very challenging path," if it had continued working on a consumer product, said Yardarm's vice president of marketing, Jim Schaff. So, when chiefs of police and private security firms approached the company about a location-tracking system, it pivoted focus to law enforcement.
Keeping police officers safe
That February day in Santa Cruz, the police department's dispatch knew officers were on a routine call investigating a sexual assault. But it wasn't until officers had been silent for a while that 911 realized there had been a shooting. Yardarm sensors would have alerted dispatch that the officers had pulled their firearms from their holsters.
"We would have known sooner that they had been disarmed. We would have known sooner their exact location when that incident occurred," Santa Cruz County Sheriff Phil Wowak said in an interview with CNET. "It's not a bulletproof vest and it's not a magic bullet, but it is a safety device that I believe will bring assistance to those that are out there every day putting their life on the line for their community."
Yardarm's sensor could also be a tool for gathering certain crime scene evidence. Since the device tracks location and movement, it can glean important data, such as exactly where and when a gun is fired, and how many times.
"It will aid in the investigation of a deadly force confrontation and it will also help us qualify and corroborate the deputy's statement about the incident," Wowak said.
For example, questions loomed about the exact timing and location of the lethal shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., this past August. It was unclear if police officer Darren Wilson fired at Brown from his car or if everything happened on the sidewalk. A Yardarm sensor would've been able to clarify some of these uncertainties.
While Yardarm's tracking sensor has been well received so far, some officers worry that dispatch can watch their every move. Others wonder if the sensor could interfere with a gun's capacity. Wowak believes these concerns will lessen once police see the sensor's capabilities firsthand.
"I think everyone has a question about Big Brother," he said. "We have no intention of tracking our people in real-time every minute of every day. This is essentially a fire alarm.
"It does nothing to the sidearm. It makes no alterations to the functionality of the equipment. All you have to do is log in to the system before you go in the street, just like you do putting a key in a car," said Wowak.
The field trials in Carrollton and Santa Cruz will last roughly four months. Yardarm is working with about a dozen officers in each unit to iron out kinks and customize the sensors to officers' needs. Yardarm expects to wrap up testing by year's end and bring the product to market by spring 2015.
Even though Yardarm is working exclusively with law enforcement, that doesn't mean it's ruled out a consumer product. Firearms and weapons commonly used by police tend to catch on with consumers, Schaff said. Yardarm hopes that will also happen with its sensor.
"We're suddenly in a million gun owners' hands every day," Schaff said of working with US police departments. "That just opens the door to the future and working with gun manufacturers."
**************************************************
21. [CA] Banned arrests for gun theft, date rape drug possession
**************************************************
"Officer - that gang-banger just stole a gun!"
"[YAWN] It's not a big deal here in California. I'm not going to bother going after him."
"OK. Well, I'm NOT a gang-banger and I want to BUY a gun legally. What do I do?"
"Oh, now THAT'S DIFFERENT! You need to go through a waiting period, have a background check run on you (we wouldn't want criminals to have guns, now would we?), and you can't purchase certain firearms at all because we don't trust you law-abiding types!"
From thefederalist.com: http://tinyurl.com/me3r5ns
http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/06/cal ... ossession/
California Just Banned Arrests For Gun Theft, Date Rape Drug Possession
by Sean Davis
November 6, 2014
If you want to steal guns or sell date rape drugs and suffer no real consequences, move to California.
Proposition 47, a ballot initiative that California owners just supported with over 58 percent of the vote, requires misdemeanor instead of felony sentences for a number of so-called “non-serious” crimes. And that includes gun theft and possession of date rape drugs. Seriously. That’s not my personal opinion. It’s the official opinion of California state officials. Here’s what the state-sanctioned voter guide said about the “cons” of the ballot initiative:
Potentially releases 10,000 felons from state prison. Reduces penalties for stealing guns. Reduces penalties for possession of “date rape” drugs. Opposed by prosecutors, law enforcement, and the business community. Opposed by crime victims and sexual abuse victims. Vote NO on Proposition 47.
Are you freaking kidding me? I get the need for smarter sentencing laws and all that, but at what point did firearm theft and possession of date rape drugs become non-serious offenses? But it gets worse. It’s not just that gun theft is no longer a felony. The new law required by Proposition 47 now bans arrests for gun theft. Instead of arresting those suspected of stealing guns, police are required to write them a ticket and ask for them to appear in court.
If that sounds like what you would expect from a traffic ticket, it’s because it is. California just forced its law enforcement community to issue tickets for gun theft and date rape drug possession.
Here’s what the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department wrote about the new law on its Facebook page late last night:
1. In most instances, many crimes that were previously “arrestable” as a felony will now only be “citable” as a misdemeanor. That means they may not be booked into jail but rather given a citation (similar to a traffic ticket) with a court date to appear, and released in the field. They will not be held pending trial. Such felony crimes that are now misdemeanors include:
• Commercial burglary (theft under $950)
• Forgery and bad checks (under $950 value)
• Theft of most firearms
• Theft of a vehicle (under $950 value)
• Possession of stolen property (under $950 value)
• Possession of heroin, cocaine, illegal prescriptions, concentrated cannabis, and methamphetamine
This kind of nonsense is exactly what gun rights and self-defense advocates are talking about when they say we need to enforce existing gun laws instead of passing new ones to make life harder for law-abiding citizens who just want to defend themselves and their families.
If gun violence is a real problem (and it obviously is), why did California voters just make it easier for criminals to illegally obtain guns that they can use to perpetrate violence? Out of one side of their mouth, they lecture gun owners on why they’re not responsible enough to own guns, and out of the other side, they support new laws that turn serious gun crimes into non-arrestable misdemeanors.
BUT THAT’S NOT ALL. Seriously, it gets worse. The new California law also reduced penalties for possession of date rape drugs. Instead of being a felony, possessing date rape drugs is now a petty misdemeanor. Here’s what the L.A. Times wrote about that provision:
Opponents point out, though, that in reducing simple possession of most controlled substances from felonies or wobblers to misdemeanors, Proposition 47 covers roofies. Currently, a person caught with Rohypnol in his pocket can be prosecuted for a felony and end up in state prison for three years. If the initiative passes, he would be liable only for a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine. But, as a practical matter, he may do no jail time at all. It would be merely a “slap on the wrist,” according to the ballot pamphlet rebuttal arguments signed by, among others, Sandra Henriquez, executive director of California Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
In one fell swoop, California voters just made it a whole lot easier for criminals to commit gun crimes and perpetrate date rape.
**************************************************
22. Homicide rates in English speaking new world countries
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From gunwatch.blogspot.com: http://tinyurl.com/lxjo9f2
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/10/ho ... g-new.html
Homicide rates in English Speaking New World Countries
by Dean Weingarten
October 30, 2014
(Chart: Homicides per 100,000 in New World)
The above chart was created from UNODC data.
Many comparisons have been made between the homicide rates of the the United States and various European countries. They have been made between members of the G-8, or among "developed" or "advanced" countries, or "economically developed" countries, though all of these comparisons suffer from various unstated assumptions, typically that "economic" development is the prime predictor of homicide rates, which clearly is not correct.
Here is a comparison of homicide rates among new world countries where the dominant or official language is English. This creates an interesting set of common characteristics. All of these countries were inhabited only by pre-Columbian immigrants a little more than 500 years ago. All of them were colonized by Europeans, Africans (as a result of the slave trade, in some form or another), and, to a much lesser extent, Asians. The current populations are now a significant mix of people descended from European, pre-Columbian new world, African, and Asian cultures. The pre-Columbian cultures were mostly destroyed and displaced over the last 500 years. The pre-Columbian languages have been mostly displaced by English in these countries. I was unable to find UNODC data for the Falkland Islands.
Interestingly, the greatest survival of pre-Columbian languages and cultures in these countries exists in Canada and the United States.
The chart shows the enormous problems with international comparisons of crime and homicide rates. Differences in culture, data collection, and definitions make comparisons very difficult, perhaps to the point of meaninglessness. Culture is far more important than method or economic condition.
Consider one aspect of the law that is often linked to homicide rates, firearm regulation. The U.S. Virgin Islands is listed separately from the United States because it is listed separately in the UNODC data. Perhaps it is because the territory was only purchased by the United States in 1917. It and Belize are tied for the highest homicide rates of the countries listed. Both entities have extremely restrictive laws regulating the possession and carry of firearms. At the other end of the spectrum, we have Canada and the United States. The firearm laws in Canada are much less restrictive than those in the U.S. Virgin Islands or Belize. The firearm laws in the United States are the least restrictive of the group.
The comparison supports what other researchers have found. If firearms regulation has any effect on the overall homicide rate, it is not easily discerned from international comparisons.
***************************************************************************
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/]