VA-ALERT: VCDL Mini-Update 2/28/15

[OakRidgeStars]

----------------------------------------------------------------------
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. Bill to honor CHPs from all other states dies on last day of General Assembly with help from the VSP
2. VCDL creating a comprehensive voting record for this session of the General Assembly
3. Georgia gun organization's detailed response to the BATFE on their proposed M855 ammunition ban
4. ACTION ITEM: While we are at it, let's sign a White House petition on the M855 proposed ban to force a response
5. Senator Wexton claims that misdemeanors aren't misdemeanors - huh?
6. Dr. John Lott: more proof that CHP holders are more law abiding than even the police


********************************************************
1. Bill to honor CHPs from all other states dies on last day of General Assembly with help from the VSP
********************************************************

HB 1329, Delegate Ware's bill that would honor the CHPs from all other states and would let us carry in Georgia, New Hampshire, and Colorado, died because of a last minute claim by the Virginia State Police (VSP) that there was a fiscal impact for the Commonwealth.

VSP says that the state could lose up to $1 million revenue if none of the current out-of-state non-resident permit holders renew over the next five years because of the proposed change in law.

There's no doubt in my mind this was simply a poorly disguised maneuver to kill HB 1329, as the VSP had been unable to even come close to stopping the bill directly.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, the VSP has become nothing more than an anti-gun lobby group, instead of an impartial law-enforcement agency. Until such time as that changes, it is important that legislators view the VSP in that light.

Back when non-resident permits were created, we were told that the $100 non-resident CHP fee was to cover the TOTAL cost of the State Police doing the background check, including fingerprint processing, and issuing the permit. If the fee is just a “pass-through," then how can there be any fiscal impact to Virginia?

There probably wouldn't have been much change in the number of non-resident permits issued if this bill had become law. But let's look at the worst possible case: if there are NO non-resident permits issued and therefore no associated income, there is also NO COST to the Commonwealth as there will be no background checks run or permits created and issued! The net difference to Virginia should be zero, no matter how many permits are, or are not, issued.

If the Commonwealth is indeed making a profit off of non-resident permits, then we need to lower the fee to eliminate the profit. The Commonwealth is not a private enterprise. It is NOT supposed to be in the business of making a profit from citizens.

I have been assured that a bill like HB 1329 will be reintroduced next year. VCDL plans to be ready for any more bogus fiscal impact statements or other interference tactics. This is an important bill and it needs to become law, sooner rather than later.


********************************************************
2. VCDL creating a comprehensive voting record for this session of the General Assembly
********************************************************

I have been very busy compiling a comprehensive voting record for this year for the legislators in the Virginia General Assembly. It is 99% complete, but I can't complete it until April in case there are any veto override votes to be taken.

I can say it has some very interesting results and will be of great interest to you, VCDL leadership, and the VCDL-PAC.

Legislators are rated on their percentage of pro-gun votes and they are held accountable for all gun votes they make, whether in subcommittee, committee, conference committee, or on the Floor. Pocket vetoes of gun bills in the House are also accounted for, too. (No pocket vetoes in the Senate this year.) A pocket veto of a pro-gun bill counts as an anti-gun vote by both the Speaker of the House and the committee chairman where the bill was assigned.

You will be able to see how your legislators did by name and also how they ranked in comparison to the other legislators.

We have some truly stellar legislators who had perfect voting records (so far, since possible veto override votes might still occur), with some casting over 40 pro-gun votes in the House and 30 in the Senate this year!

As soon as the final results are ready, I will post them on the VCDL web site in an easy to read PDF format and will let you know here on VA-ALERT.


********************************************************
3. Georgia gun organization's detailed response to the BATFE on their proposed M855 ammunition ban
********************************************************

VCDL has already had all of you contacting the BATFE with emails pointing out that the proposed ban on M855 ammunition as "armor piercing" is bogus because the ammunition does not meet the BATFE's own definition of "armor piercing."

In the letter to the BATFE from a sister organization in Georgia (Georgia Carry), they lay out the details of that statement and more.

Well done, Georgia Carry!

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/ ... 2-65816005

or

http://tinyurl.com/knjfbp5

Georgia Gun Rights Group Tears Apart ATF’s Proposed M855 Ban With Their Comments
February 26 2015
by Dan Cannon

GeorgiaCarry.org, the premiere gun rights group in the Peach State, has officially filed comments with the ATF on their proposed M855 ammo ban. The group goes into the specifics of the M855 round and lays out, in plain English, why the ban does not fall within the limits of current law.

Here are the comments that GCO filed with the ATF:

Introduction

GCO is a non-profit corporation whose primary mission is to foster the rights of its members to keep and bear arms. GCO’s membership is largely based in the State of Georgia, but GCO has some members from other states and other countries.

In the Framework, the Bureau announces its intentions to re-classify one of the most common rifle rounds in existence as “armor piercing,” thus rendering manufacture and sale of such ammunition illegal under federal law. Because the Framework fails to take into consideration the statutory requirements, and the constitutional ramifications of the Framework as applied, GCO opposes the Framework.

Background

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B) and (C) provide:
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—
(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

(C) The term “armor piercing ammunition” does not include shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney General finds is primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used in an oil and gas well perforating device.

The Framework proposes to re-classify M855 (NATO 5.56 “green tip”) ammunition as “armor piercing” under the statute, resulting in the prohibition of its manufacture or sale. The Framework asserts that M855 ammunition meets the definition of armor piercing under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(17)(B)(ii), and that it is not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.1

Discussion

I. M855 Fails the Statutory Tests for Armor Piercing Ammunition

Congress created objective tests, coupled with a subjective “savings clause” for determining whether given ammunition is armor piercing. Ironically, whether the ammunition does pierce armor, or is more adept at piercing armor than other (presumably “non-armor piercing”) ammunition, is not relevant. Instead, Congress elected to establish criteria related to caliber, weight, and other physical characteristics, plus design intent, to determine objectively if ammunition is armor piercing. Only ammunition that meets these objective criteria is then considered under the subjective test of whether the attorney general finds that there is a “sporting purpose” for the ammunition. The objective criteria are:

1. The projectile must be “larger than .22 caliber;”
2. The projectile must have a jacket that weighs more than 25% of the total weight of the projectile;
3. The projectile must be fully jacketed;
4. The ammunition must be designed and intended for use in a handgun.

GCO will show below that M855 ammunition does not meet any of the objective criteria, and therefore does not meet the statutory definition of armor piercing.

a. M855 Is Not “Larger Than .22 Caliber”

A threshold requirement for armor piercing ammunition under the statute is that it must be “larger than .22 caliber.” The Bureau seems to have assumed, without discussion, that M855 meets that requirement. The SAAMI specification for M855 projectile diameter is 5.7 mm, or .224 inches. By contrast, the diameter for .22 long rifle projectiles is 5.72 mm, or .225 inches.2 Both are commonly referred to as “.22 caliber.” On that basis alone, one might conclude that M855 is not larger than .22 caliber.

Moreover, because the statutory requirement contains only two significant digits, one must round any subject ammunition to two significant digits in order to make a comparison. M855 projectiles, rounded to two significant digits, are .22 in diameter. Thus, M855 ammunition fails the threshold requirement of being larger than .22 caliber and cannot, by definition, be armor piercing. Ironically, one might argue that .22 LR ammunition should be rounded up to .23 caliber, and therefore it passes this test.

b. The Jacket Does Not Weigh More Than 25% of the Core

Another threshold requirement is that armor piercing ammunition must have a jacket whose weight is more than 25% of the weight of the projectile. In its Framework, the Bureau fails to make any findings regarding this requirement. The jacket on the projectile of M855 ammunition weighs approximately 10.8 grains.3 The entire projectile weighs 62 grains. That means the jacket weighs approximately 17% of the total weight of the projectile. By definition, M855 ammunition is not armor piercing, and the Bureau would be exceeding its authority to determine otherwise. It is unclear why the Bureau apparently assumes, without finding, that M855 ammunition meets this requirement.

c. M855 Is Not Fully Jacketed

Yet another threshold requirement in § 921(a)(17)(B)(ii) is that the projectile have a “full jacket.” M855 ammunition has only a partial jacket, the tip being an unjacketed steel core painted green.4 In addition, GCO understands that at least some manufacturers do not jacket the entire butt end of the projectile. Because it is not fully jacketed, M855 is statutorily excluded from being armor piercing ammunition.

d. The Ammunition is Not Designed and Intended for Use in a Handgun

The Framework acknowledges that the M855 ammunition was developed at a time when there were no commercially available handguns chambered for it. Relatively recently, however, manufacturers have begun marketing handguns that will fire .223/5.56 NATO ammunition, including M855. Significantly, the availability of such handguns is the only development the Bureau cites as evidence that M855 is designed and intended for use in a handgun. That is, nothing about the ammunition itself has changed. There have been no design changes since the advent of handgun availability. Ammunition manufacturers continue to produce ammunition to exactly the same specifications for rifle use that they made when the only devices commercially available to fire the ammunition were rifles. In short, the ammunition is not designed to be used in handguns. Instead, firearms manufacturers have developed handguns intended to be used with rifle ammunition.

It is a feature inherent in our economic system that innovators will find new ways to use existing products, and will even develop new products to be used with existing products. New applications for existing products cannot be logically thought of as design changes of those products.

Dried peas were on the market for decades. One day, someone invented a spring loaded plastic toy in the shape of a handgun, capable of discharging dried peas at harmless velocities. Did that invention cause newly-dried peas to be designed and intended to be fired from pea shooters? Of course not, at least not in any logical use of the word “designed.” Dried peas continued to be designed and intended as dehydrated food. It just so happened that there were devices chambered to fire them.

II. The “Sporting Purpose” Requirement Is Unconstitutional

If the Bureau were to find that M855 ammunition meets all the statutory criteria for armor piercing status (in the face of the apparent lack of meeting any of the criteria), then the attorney general may consider whether the ammunition nonetheless is primarily “intended for use for sporting purposes.” The phrase “sporting purposes” is not defined, but the Bureau interprets it to mean “for shooting sports.” Framework, p. 8. This regime thus supposes that the federal government may limit or ban all handgun ammunition that is not primarily intended for shooting sports. In doing so, the regime ignores that the Second Amendment guarantees a core right to “keep and carry arms in case of confrontation.”

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008). Given that “[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon,” [Id. at 629], it is difficult to understand why the test is “sporting purpose” rather than “self defense purpose.” For if the Bureau applies the “sporting purpose” test in such a way as to exclude ammunition readily usable in a handgun for self defense, then the Bureau could make a similar finding against any or all handgun ammunition.

The very reasons the Bureau uses for proposing the lack of a sporting purpose are the very reasons that make a given handgun more readily usable for self defense. The Framework concludes that only single-shot handguns, with a bolt action or break action and no magazine, are “sporting purpose” handguns. But such handguns are not particularly suited to self defense. Repeating guns, either revolvers or semiautomatics, are much more commonly used for self defense purposes. By applying the “sporting purpose” provision so as to exclude commonly-used self defense handguns, the Bureau is infringing on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in case of confrontation.

Conclusion
M855 does not meet any of the statutory criteria for being armor piercing, but even if it did, it would be unconstitutional to ban its manufacture on the premise that it is not intended for a “sporting purpose.” The Framework is fundamentally flawed and must be discarded. Dated the 25th day of February, 2015

1 The Framework does not assert that M855 ammunition meets the definition of § 921(a)(17)(B)(i), so GCO does
not address that possibility here. GCO observes that M855 would not meet that definition, however, because it
has some lead in the core, and therefore is not “entirely” made of the materials listed.

2 SAAMI specifies a range for .22 LR projectiles, of 0.2255 +/- 0.004 inches.

3 GCO cannot find a published specification for jacket weight, but some literature suggests a typical weight is 10.8
grains. If there is no specification, the Bureau would be unable to find that all M855 ammunition meets the jacket
weight element of the test. Instead, the Bureau would have to find this on a product by product basis and could
not categorically exclude all M855 ammunition.

4 GCO observes that some manufacturers describe their product as “full metal jacketed,” but of course the
manufacturer’s description is not dispositive. If a projectile is not completely encased in the jacket, it can hardly be
described as fully jacketed.


********************************************************
4. ACTION ITEM: While we are at it, let's sign a White House petition on the M855 proposed ban to force a response
********************************************************

2/3 the way to 100,000 signatures, which will require a response from the White House on the proposed ammunition ban.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... n/XrvVh1cj


********************************************************
5. Senator Wexton claims that misdemeanors aren't misdemeanors - huh?
********************************************************

Senator Jennifer Wexton, whose district includes Leesburg, is sending this email to her constituents who contacted her to opposed Senator Favola's SB 943 bill, which takes away a person's right to own a gun for a misdemeanor:

"Thank you for your email concerning SB 943. While I believe it is important that law-abiding citizens are able to exercise their right to bear arms, I also believe that it is important to create a safe environment for all of Virginia’s citizens. Regardless of our opinions on legislation that deals with firearms, I strongly disagree with your characterization of stalking, assault and battery of a family member or household member, or sexual battery as 'minor crimes.' Domestic and sexual assault are major issues in both Virginia and our country, and they are often exacerbated by individuals with firearms. I supported a similar bill during the 2014 session, SB 510, and I continue to support Senator Favola’s attempt to keep firearms out of the hands of violent and dangerous offenders."

Hmmm. So a misdemeanor isn't a minor crime by DEFINITION?

Let's see what the dictionary says:

The The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition says this:

"misdemeanor [(mis-di- mee -nuhr)]

A minor crime, punishable by a fine or a light jail term. Common misdemeanors, such as traffic violations, are usually dealt with informally, without a trial."

Regardless of Senator Wexton's views, the LAW says that stalking, assault and battery, and sexual battery are minor crimes. If she doesn't like that, then she should put in a bill to make them felonies. But, instead she is twisting the law on its ear to give the rights of gun owners "special treatment."


********************************************************
6. Dr. John Lott: more proof that CHP holders are more law abiding than even the police
********************************************************

More evidence to show that CHP holders are even more law abiding, as a group, than police.

This is in response to an editorial hit-piece on CHP holders in the New York Times last week. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/opini ... .html?_r=1)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/02/ ... hemselves/

or

http://tinyurl.com/qcxxb6v

Guns and the New York Times: Why shouldn't Americans be able to defend themselves?
By Dr. John R. Lott Jr.
Published February 24, 2015

With Somali terrorists threatening this past weekend to attack the Mall of America, the nation’s largest mall, the debate over allowing citizens to defend themselves has heated up again.

Gun control advocates just can’t accept the fact that concealed handgun permit holders are incredibly law-abiding. The New York Times’ recent attack on permit holders is typical. It is filled with triple-counting of legitimate self-defense cases. Murders or suicides by permit holders are blamed on guns, even when no gun was involved. In point of fact, permit holders are incredibly law-abiding. Some new evidence puts things in perspective.

Police are the single most important factor for reducing crime, but even police commit crimes on very rare occasions. Even more law-abiding than police, however, are permit holders.

According to a study in Police Quarterly, the period from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2007 saw an average of 703 crimes by police per year. 113 of these involved firearms violations. This is likely to be an underestimate since not all police crimes receive media coverage. The authors of the study may also have missed some media reports.

So how law-abiding are police? With about 570,000 full-time police officers in the US at that time, that translates into about 124 crimes by police per hundred thousand officers. For the US population as a whole over those years, the crime rate was 31 times higher -- 3,813 per hundred thousand people.

Perhaps police crimes are underreported due to leniency from fellow officers, but the gap between police and the general citizenry is so vast that this couldn’t account for more than a small fraction of the difference.

Concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding. Between October 1, 1987 and January 31, 2015, Florida revoked 9,366 concealed handgun permits for misdemeanors or felonies. This is an annual rate of 12.5 per 100,000 permit holders -- a mere tenth of the rate at which officers commit misdemeanors and felonies. In Texas in 2012, the last year the data is available, 120 permit holders were convicted of misdemeanors or felonies – a rate of 20.5 per 100,000, still just a sixth of the rate for police.

Firearms violations among police occur at a rate of 6.9 per 100,000 officers. For permit holders in Florida, it is only 0.31 per 100,000. Most of these violations were for trivial offenses, such as forgetting to carry one’s permit. The data are similar in other states.

Clearly, people who are going to commit crimes don’t bother going through the process of getting a concealed handgun permit.

At some point, maybe the New York Times and other gun control advocates will realize that making false claims about permit holders actually endangers public safety.




***************************************************************************
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/]