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. Volunteers needed for Chantilly gun show on June 5-7
2. VCDL to have a booth at Galax festival - volunteers needed!
3. 2015 VCDL Carry Cards
4. Concealed handgun permit holder found NOT GUILTY by jury
5. Things we can do to prepare for modern threats
6. The success of gun control continues: just look at Chicago and Baltimore!
7. Antis dancing in blood again - trying to derail open carry in Texas
8. Anti equates gun control to controlling smoking
9. Everytown confuses a permit to purchase with a background check
10. How much did it cost for Bloomberg to force gun control on Oregonians?
11. Alert reader responds to previous item on mental health issues
12. Fairfax pays $2.95 million to settle suit in John Geer police killing [VIDEO]
13. Police can't delay traffic stops to investigate crimes
14. Hillary's White House bid energizes gun-control supporters
15. Senator Cruz: Why do we maintain gun-free zones on military bases?
16. New Brady Campaign Video
17. Gun-control victim: Joe Manchin pulls out of WV's governor race
18. [TX] Grandmother turns the tables on robber
19. [MI] Catholic priest tells parishioners to pack heat
20. Major terrorist plot in France foiled - gun control didn’t help
**************************************************
1. Volunteers needed for Chantilly gun show on June 5-7
**************************************************
Volunteers are mostly needed for Friday, but if you can help at other times, let us know.
CHANTILLY -- June 5 - 7 -- The Nation's Gun Show, Chantilly Expo Center
http://www.cegunshows.com http://www.Showmasters.us
Friday, June 5: 1:00pm - 4:30pm; 4:30pm - 8:00pm
Saturday, June 6: 9:00am - 1:00pm; 1:00pm - 5:00pm
Sunday, June 7: 10:00am - 1:30pm; 1:30pm - 5:00pm
Please contact Danny Paulson at gunshows.chantilly@vcdl.org to help in Chantilly.
**************************************************
2. VCDL to have a booth at Galax festival - volunteers needed!
**************************************************
VCDL will have a booth at the 14th Annual Galax Leaf and String Festival on June 12-13. The event is being held on Main Street in Galax
Times:
Friday: Noon to 7 PM
Saturday 10 AM to 6 PM
EM CHRIS STURGILL will head up the VCDL effort and will need assistance both days.
Please contact Chris at kris28675@yahoo.com or call him at 276-733-6123 to help!
This is a fun festival! Please come out and support VCDL's efforts.
**************************************************
3. 2015 VCDL Carry Cards
**************************************************
The VCDL Carry Cards, identifying where in Virginia the carrying of firearms is legal (on the front) and the locations where carry is prohibited (on the back), typically come out in early July, once all of the new laws have gone into effect and we have had a chance to get the new cards printed.
If you would like between 1 and 10 newly revised Carry Cards, as fast as we can get them to you, send a self addressed stamped envelope (SASE) and your most generous contribution to:
VCDL Carry Card
c/o VCDL Fulfillment Center
PO Box 254
Garrisonville, VA 22463
Make checks for any contribution payable to: VCDL or VCDL-PAC (whichever you see fit to contribute to)
Please enclose a note with:
1) the number of cards desired
2) an email address or phone number in case there are issues with the mailing, and
3) if you prefer NOT to have a "Guns Save Lives" sticker affixed to your return envelope.
Your SASE with an orange "Guns Save Lives" sticker (unless you opt out of the sticker) and the requested Carry Cards will be sent to you as soon as the cards are available.
**************************************************
4. Concealed handgun permit holder found NOT GUILTY by jury
**************************************************
Nicholas Thiel got into a confrontation with his girlfriend’s estranged husband and ended up shooting the husband. The jury agreed it was a case if self-defense, finding Thiel not guilty.
So, in the jury’s mind, Thiel **reasonably** felt that he was in danger of being killed or grievously hurt when he shot the husband.
Very sad that it had to come to the point where lethal force was required.
http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/Jury ... 22141.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/p7xwuo8
HARRISONBURG, Va. (WHSV) -- A jury found Nicholas Thiel not guilty on Friday afternoon.
Nicholas Thiel was accused of shooting and killing Clifford Polk in October 2014.
Friday marked day four of the trial that was originally scheduled to last three days.
During Friday's closing arguments, when Commonwealth's Attorney Marsha Garst brought up picture after picture of Polk with his family.
"Now those kids will never see their father again," she said.
Polk's family then burst into tears.
Thiel was charged of second-degree murder and using a firearm in commission of a felony.
**************************************************
5. Things we can do to prepare for modern threats
**************************************************
EM Dave Knight has compiled a document on things we can do to be prepared for some of the modern world’s threats.
http://www.haveguns-willtravel.com/things2do.pdf
**************************************************
6. The success of gun control continues: just look at Chicago and Baltimore!
**************************************************
Gun control is dangerous. The more the control, the more the danger.
Here are the body counts from the Memorial Day weekend in two of the gun-control havens in the United States. This is the kind of carnage the antis are trying to bring to the rest of America. No thanks.
Chicago: 12 killed, 43 wounded - including a 4-year-old girl
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/05/26/ ... shootings/
or
http://tinyurl.com/n4fpr2u
—
Baltimore: 9 killed, 29 shot, including a 9-year-old boy
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/05/2 ... y-weekend/
or
http://tinyurl.com/jwkk3p7
**************************************************
7. Antis dancing in blood again - trying to derail open carry in Texas
**************************************************
Here is a case where none of the accused was carrying any of their weapons legally or openly, but Shannon Watts of the Demanding Moms is claiming that the biker gang shooting in Texas proves that open carry is dangerous.
Ugh.
http://bearingarms.com/know-waco-biker- ... -carrying/
You Know What Those Waco Biker Thugs Weren’t Doing? Open-Carrying.
Posted by Bob Owens on May 21, 2015 at 7:49 am
Gun control supporters must practice yoga.
It’s the only way that they could twist and stretch reality itself in an attempt to link the outlaw biker gang shootout in Waco, Texas this past Sunday into a condemnation on open carry legislation about to land on Governor Greg Abbott’s desk.
For groups seeking to block the open carry bill from becoming law, Sunday’s violence served as another warning. Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, did her best to link the two issues on Monday.
Angela Turner, a spokeswoman for the group’s Texas chapter, argued that open carry would not lead to safer streets.
“Open carry makes everyday confrontations potentially more dangerous and poses an unnecessary challenge on our law enforcement to determine in the heat of the event who is a good guy and who is a dangerous criminal,” Turner told the Hill.
Of course, there weren’t any firearms open-carried at Twin Peaks.
There were police units (including SWAT) on the perimeter of the restaurant, and they would have arrested any unlawful open carriers on site before the incident began. The firearms, chains, knives, clubs, and other weapons—hundreds in all—were all hidden:
Two minutes after the shootout begins, video footage described by the AP shows cops entering the restaurant with assault rifles at the ready. Bikers lie on the floor with their hands spread, according to the AP.
But as some bikers were cooperating with cops, it seems others were busy stashing their weapons. Sgt. Swanton said his officers found guns, knives, clubs and chains with locks on them — for added impact — stuffed into seat cushions, stashed inside stoves and wedged between bags of flour inside Twin Peaks. In the parking lot, police discovered an AK-47 assault rifle inside of a car and military grade body armor. So far, cops have seized at least 118 handguns and 157 knives connected to the confrontation.
Surveillance footage from inside the restaurant suggests that just three people in view of the camera inside the restaurant pulled handguns when the melee began, and only one fired a shot. None of the weapons at the scene were believed to have been open carried.
Not. One.
Governor Greg Abbott, who has already pledged to sign the open carry legislation headed towards his desk, doesn’t find the desperate, twisted demands of gun control cultists to be convincing.
“The shootout occurred when we don’t have open carry, so obviously the current laws didn’t stop anything like that,” Texas Governor Greg Abbott told the Associated Press. The bill permitting open carry has already passed the state House, and the Senate is expected to follow suit soon.
Supporters of gun control have seized upon the words of a local law enforcement officer who stated that the presence of open carriers might have made separating threats from non-threats more difficult.
He isn’t wrong. Seeing someone with a visible weapon does identify that person as someone with the capability of being a threat.
But what the media isn’t so quick to report is that all people in a scene of mayhem such as this are considered threats until they have been individually searched, and the police would likely not have treated an open carrier any differently than anyone else.
The only time officers would have found anyone to be a proximate threat is if they encountered someone with a firearm in their hands. Indeed, that appears to be precisely what happened. Several of the 26-27 casualties (9 killed, 17-18 wounded, depending upon the account) were fired upon by officers believed to have been equipped with patrol rifles (AR-15s) as those bikers fired at police and others. Most of the bikers wisely showed empty hands as the roughly dozen officers on site swept through the scene, disarming everyone they saw with a visible weapon within two minutes of the melee beginning.
As a practical matter, is is hard to believe that outlaw biker gangs are going to practice open carry once it becomes legal, as it will draw further attention to themselves… something they want to avoid if they are carrying illegal contraband.
Of course, I’m trying to apply logic to this scenario, and that has never been an area of strength for gun control advocates.
Texas Governor Greg Abbot is correct to go ahead with his plans to have Texas join the majority of the nation where open carry is legal, and should do so as soon as it is possible.
**************************************************
8. Anti equates gun control to controlling smoking
**************************************************
Here Ms. Pletka confuses the act of doing something with the act of simply possessing something.
The act of smoking a cigarette does not relate to the act of possessing or carrying a gun. Smoking a cigarette relates to the act of SHOOTING a gun. Having a package of cigarettes in your pocket relates to simply carrying or possessing a gun.
Thus, your right not to have to inhale someone else’s smoke would be equivalent to your right not to have to be shot by someone.
Since Ms. Pletka wants to control firearms in the same way that cigarettes are controlled, she should agree that since laws do not restrict the carry of cigarettes, even concealed, then neither should laws restrict the carrying of a firearm, even concealed (Constitutional Carry).
Thanks to EM Dave Hicks for the link:
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/05/23/a ... ding-guns/
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/lcgo26t
Another View: History of smoking policy offers lesson regarding guns
Just as with nonsmokers, noncarriers have rights, too.
By Linda E. Pletka
We had the same issue and debate with the ruckus over smoking that we’re having now with guns. It was said smokers had the “right” to smoke anywhere. After all, it is a free country.
However, over time, it was finally recognized that nonsmokers had rights, too. As hard as it may have been for smokers to understand, it was found that nonsmokers, too, had the right to not be subjected to the risk of by-products (secondhand smoke) from the smokers. So, amazingly, your rights end where mine begin …
Well, it’s really the same with carry and concealed carry. Those who carry say it’s their right to carry anywhere (mostly). It’s the law.
However, concealed carry? Well, not so fast. Wearing a jacket or coat (which does conceal) is not a right granted in the Constitution.
And, lest we forget, just as with nonsmokers, noncarriers have rights, too.
We don’t yet have separate sections in planes, restaurants and other buildings so as to know and distinguish who does or does not carry so we can choose health (or life). But just the same, I still retain the very same right to not be subjected to the risk of by-products (injury or death) from those who choose to carry. And if I can see your weapon, I remain “free to choose” to be elsewhere – free to choose life – and not subject myself to the risk of being anywhere within the range of your pistol.
The Second Amendment may allow the right to defend oneself. But, as hard as it might be for those who carry to understand, the Declaration of Independence (as well as the Ninth Amendment?) also allows my – perhaps even greater – “inherent and inalienable” rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
**************************************************
9. Everytown confuses a permit to purchase with a background check
**************************************************
More proof that Bloomberg is not ready for primetime when it comes to guns. He is fighting a change in North Carolina law to remove the current requirement for a permit to purchase a handgun. His reason? He thinks that by eliminating the Jim-Crow era requirement for a handgun purchase permit that purchasers will no longer be required to have a background check!
Federal law requires ALL modern firearms purchased through federal firearms dealers to go through a background check. Period. The purchase permit is simply another layer to allow sheriffs to deny minorities the ability to purchase a handgun.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... nd-checks/
or
http://tinyurl.com/oao6wp5
**************************************************
10. How much did it cost for Bloomberg to force gun control on Oregonians?
**************************************************
Bloomberg has a phalanx of armed guards, but wants you and I defenseless. His money has brought “universal background checks” to Washington State and now to Oregon.
How much money did the elitist billionaire have to spend to buy that legislation?
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... regonians/
or
http://tinyurl.com/nl8amgq
**************************************************
11. Alert reader responds to previous item on mental health issues
**************************************************
Member Victoria Bingham emailed me this in response to alert dated April 20, 2015 #8. Gun grabbing sweeping the nation [VIDEO]:
VCDL members, et al, ought to be warned about the system to set them up for being accused of 'mental health issues'. When people visit their doctor for any other reason, including a checkup, the American Medical Association has doctors asking people if they ever 'get depressed'. The answer for most people, honestly, is 'yes'.
To which reply they are invited to try a prescription of 'anti depressant' medications.
Psychotropic medications are extremely dangerous. For one thing, they are often a ticket to lifetime dependence;
Also known as SSRI's, these medications are known for:
- Increasing paranoia
- increasing depression,
- increasing acts of violence
- increasing rates of sucicide.
Yet they are handed out like Valium in the 70's.. like candy.
A person on these medications is liable to wind up targeted, sooner or later.
**************************************************
12. Fairfax pays $2.95 million to settle suit in John Geer police killing [VIDEO]
**************************************************
While I generally have the highest regard for the Fairfax County PD, I am extremely disappointed in how they handled this officer-involved-shooting case. I would have expected this kind of obfuscation from a New Jersey PD.
From washingtonpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/k8qac9p
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/cri ... story.html
Fairfax pays $2.95 million to settle suit in John Geer police killing
By Tom Jackman
April 21, 2015
Fairfax County on Tuesday agreed to pay $2.95 million to the family of John Geer, settling a wrongful death lawsuit over the August 2013 shooting of the unarmed Springfield man by a county police officer.
But nearly 20 months after Geer’s death, no decision has been made on whether to charge the officer, Adam D. Torres, with a crime. While federal and county prosecutors continue to consider the case, Torres remains on paid administrative duty.
Geer, 46, was standing in the doorway of his townhouse with his hands on top of the storm door when he was shot once in the chest, police records show. As his father and best friend watched in horror, Geer spun, closed the front door and fell to the floor.
Fairfax police, uncertain of Geer’s condition, waited an hour before going in to render aid while Geer’s family pleaded with them to help. But Geer was dead where he fell, police reports show.
The settlement places the shooting in an unusual legal limbo: A civil suit for a police shooting has been resolved before prosecutors have decided whether to file criminal charges. Typically, civil suits in such matters aren’t even filed until a criminal case is concluded, which enables the victim’s relatives and their attorneys to gather information from the criminal prosecution and potentially benefit from a conviction.
But after a year with no movement on the criminal case and no information from the authorities, Geer’s family filed suit. That prompted a torrent of information about the case in January, including records that revealed a discrepancy between the accounts of Torres and other witnesses: Torres said Geer moved his hands quickly toward his waist; four officers and two other witnesses said his hands were near his head.
Three months later, the case was settled.
Still, the criminal case remains dormant. Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney Raymond F. Morrogh and U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente, to whom Morrogh turned over the investigation in January 2014, declined to comment Tuesday.
Fairfax’s decision to settle the civil case is not a concession that Torres committed a wrongful act, as the terms of the settlement state that it is not an admission of liability.
“It’s odd that the civil case is already concluded,” said veteran defense lawyer Jonathan Shapiro, who said the settlement would have no legal effect on the criminal case. “But what’s really astounding is that they haven’t made a decision on the criminal case after all this time. It’s not like they’re waiting for forensic evidence or hunting for witnesses. They’ve had everything from the get-go.”
Geer’s longtime partner, Maura Harrington, said Tuesday that she wanted to avoid a long legal fight, and she implored prosecutors to pursue a criminal case. “Nothing can replace John,” Harrington said. “He was a good dad. One of the biggest things was we wanted our daughters to go to college and not have huge debt because of it. This will accomplish that.”
Michael Lieberman, Harrington’s attorney, said his research showed the settlement was the largest in a police shooting in Virginia history. “No family should have to fight like the Geer family was forced to,” Lieberman said, “in order to learn basic facts about the police shooting of a loved one.”
In announcing the settlement, Fairfax Board of Supervisors Chairman Sharon Bulova (D) said, “I’m very pleased that we have a fair settlement in the case, and I hope this will bring some sense of closure to the family.”
The case led to Bulova’s forming a commission to review county police policies on the use of force and the release of information, and it cost a deputy county attorney her job when supervisors saw e-mails allegedly indicating that she had kept information from them.
Torres, 32, has not spoken publicly about the case. He joined the Fairfax police in 2006, and when he shot Geer, it was the first time he fired his weapon on duty, records show.
Torres and his attorney, John Carroll, did not return messages seeking comment Tuesday.
The investigation of Geer’s death stands out because of the unusually long time county prosecutors are taking to decide whether to charge Torres — and the long silences. Fairfax police issued a news release on the day of Geer’s killing, and then they did not release any more information, to Geer’s family or the public, for 16 months.
It fell to Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows to break the silence, assisted by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa).
Harrington sued Fairfax Police Chief Edwin C. Roessler Jr. and the department in September 2014, a year after the killing. Then Bellows, in December, ordered the county, over its vigorous objections, to turn over its investigative file to the family’s attorneys. Bellows cited a Justice Department letter to Grassley in which federal authorities said they had no objection to the release of information. In February, the judge went on to order the release of Torres’s internal affairs files to the family’s attorneys.
Harrington, who lived with Geer for 24 years, is the administrator of his estate and filed suit on behalf of their two daughters, 18 and 14, who are the sole beneficiaries of the settlement. “We accomplished what we wanted, which is knowing what happened, and what was covered up.”
But Harrington said she felt a criminal case should be pursued against Torres. “He was murdered,” she said of Geer. “He was just standing up for his rights. He was in his own home, and he was killed because of it.”
The case began on the morning of Aug. 29, 2013, when Harrington informed Geer that she had signed a lease on an apartment and was moving out, a breakup she said they had been discussing for months. Geer began tossing Harrington’s belongings on the front yard, and Harrington called police.
Torres and Officer David Neil reported that when they approached Geer and Harrington outside their home, Geer, a kitchen remodeling contractor, turned and walked inside. He then showed the officers a holstered handgun and, according to Torres and Neil, said: “I have a gun. I will use it if I need to because you guys have guns.” Geer then placed the gun inside the door and out of the officers’ sight.
While Geer chatted amiably for about 40 minutes with Officer Rodney Barnes, a trained negotiator, Torres kept his gun trained on Geer, the officers’ reports show.
Suddenly, Torres fired once. Interviewed that night by homicide detectives, Barnes and three other officers said Geer had slowly moved his hands to about head level when Torres shot him.
“When the shot happened, his hands were up,” Barnes told investigators.
Four days later, Torres told detectives that Geer “brought both his hands down really quick near his waist, and I pulled the trigger one time.”
The detectives, John Farrell and Chris Flanagan, asked Torres whether he had fired accidentally. “It was not accidental,” Torres told them. “No, it was justified. I have no doubt about that at all. I don’t feel sorry for shooting the guy at all.”
County officials said the settlement will be paid from two insurance funds: $1 million from a county self-insurance fund and $1.95 million from an excess insurance fund.
**************************************************
13. Police can't delay traffic stops to investigate crimes
**************************************************
This U.S. Supreme Court ruling protects citizens from police “fishing expeditions,” where a person stopped for a traffic violation is detained for a longer period of time as the police look for some other violation or crime. The police can only detain you as long as necessary to handle the violation you were stopped for, unless they have a **reasonable suspicion** that you are involved in some other kind of crime. In that case, they can they detain you for a longer period of time as they investigate. The ruling applies anywhere you are in the U.S.
EM Dave Vann emailed me this:
From washingtonpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/mz4wgoq
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo ... urt-rules/
Police can’t delay traffic stops to investigate crimes absent suspicion, Supreme Court rules
By Orin Kerr
April 21, 2015
The Supreme Court handed down a notable Fourth Amendment ruling this morning in Rodriguez v. United States, holding that the Fourth Amendment does not allow the police to extend the duration of a traffic stop without reasonable suspicion, even for just a “de minimis” amount of time, for reasons unrelated to vehicle and driver safety. The vote was 6-3, with Justice Ginsburg writing for the majority and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito dissenting. I’m pleased with the Court’s opinion. The Court’s holding, and the reasoning, matches up well with the approach I have suggested.
The issue in the case: When the police make a routine traffic stop, can the police delay the duration of the stop, even just for a small amount of time, to wait for drug sniffing dogs, absent any articulable suspicion to believe that there are drugs in the car? The Court has previously held that officers are allowed to use drug-sniffing dogs at a traffic stop so long as the use of the dogs does not delay the stop. This case raises the flip question: What if use of the dogs delays the stop just a little bit. Is that okay? How much leeway do the police have on the duration of the stop, given that a traffic stop is a seizure and its duration would normally determine how reasonable the delay is?
The case may ring a bell for regular readers, as I’ve blogged about it a bunch of times. My prior posts include this post when the lower court ruled; this post when the Court granted cert, this video after the grant, and this post after the Supreme Court’s argument.
On to the new decision. The majority opinion begins with what is the most important analytical step in the opinion: Answering the permitted constitutional “mission” of a traffic stop. According to the Court, the fundamental mission of a traffic stop is “ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly.” This principle allows officers to inquire into the traffic violation that justified the stop, as well as to make other safety-related checks:
Like a Terry stop, the tolerable duration of police inquiries in the traffic-stop context is determined by the seizure’s “mission”—to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407, and attend to related safety concerns, infra, at 6–7. See also United States v. Sharpe, 470 U. S. 675, 685 (1985); Florida v. Royer, 460 U. S. 491, 500 (1983) (plurality opinion) (“The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification.”). Because addressing the infraction is the purpose of the stop, it may “last no longer than is necessary to effectuate th[at] purpose.” Ibid. See also Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed. See Sharpe, 470 U. S., at 686 (in determining the reasonable duration of a stop, “it [is] appropriate to examine whether the police diligently pursued [the] investigation”).
. . .
Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission includes “ordinary inquiries incident to [the traffic] stop.” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 408. Typically such inquiries involve checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 658–660 (1979). See also 4 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure §9.3(c), pp. 507–517 (5th ed. 2012). These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Prouse, 440 U. S., at 658–659; LaFave, Search and Seizure §9.3(c), at 516 (A “warrant check makes it possible to determine whether the apparent traffic violator is wanted for one or more previous traffic offenses.”)
With that mission defined, the Court concludes that bringing out drug sniffing dogs are outside the mission and can’t support a delay absent reasonable suspicion:
A dog sniff, by contrast, is a measure aimed at “detect[ing] evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing.” Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U. S. 32, 40–41 (2000). See also Florida v. Jardines, 569 U. S. 1, ___–___ (2013) (slip op., at 7–8). Candidly, the Government acknowledged at oral argument that a dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 33. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission.
Then the question becomes, is there a reason to allow a “de minimis” extension of the stop for reasons outside the mission of the stop? No, the Court reasons: The permitted length of the stop is defined by how long it takes to diligently complete the steps that are part of the core mission of the stop.
Finally, the Court rejects the government’s argument that it should be the overall reasonableness of the duration of the stop that matters. Let’s say an officer completes a stop really quickly and then waits for the dogs. Should the delay then be allowed because the overall stop wasn’t unreasonably long, even though part of that time was waiting for the dogs? No, the Court concludes:
The Government’s argument, in effect, is that by completing all traffic-related tasks expeditiously, an officer can earn bonus time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation. See also post, at 2–5 (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (embracing the Government’s argument). The reasonableness of a seizure, however, depends on what the police in fact do. See Knowles, 525 U. S., at 115–117. In this regard, the Government acknowledges that “an officer always has to be reasonably diligent.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 49. How could diligence be gauged other than by noting what the officer actually did and how he did it? If an officer can complete traffic-based inquiries expeditiously, then that is the amount of “time reasonably required to complete [the stop’s] mission.” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. As we said in Caballes and reiterate today, a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” that point is “unlawful.” Ibid. The critical question, then, is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, as JUSTICE ALITO supposes, post, at 2–4, but whether conducting the sniff “prolongs”—i.e., adds time to—“the stop,” supra, at 6.
A few thoughts:
(1) It’s a correct decision, I think. I’m particularly pleased that the Court adopted the safety-based rationale for traffic stops. As I blogged before, I think that is exactly right, and there hasn’t been much authority on this. For authority, the Court mostly relies on dicta in Prouse and Wayne LaFave’s oft-cited treatise. In the grand scheme of things, that’s relatively slim doctrinal pickings. But I think the Court was quite right on this, and that it’s a conceptually important step.
(2) Similarly, it’s important that the Court distinguished Terry stops from traffic stops. There is caselaw on the proper length of Terry stops, but I read Rodriguez as saying that the proper length of traffic stops is a different animal. That’s doctrinally quite important. In Caballes and Muehler, the Court indicated that the police are allowed to look for evidence of criminal activity during traffic stops, by asking questions and bringing in the dogs, as long as they don’t extend the length of the stop. Rodriguez imposes some limits on that by adopting a more limited framework for the duration of the stop and saying that the criminal-related steps can’t extend the stop even a second beyond that.
Of course, as with every defense win in Fourth Amendment law, some will criticize the opinion for not going far enough. But Caballes made time the key variable, and given the arguments in play, Rodriguez ends up imposing a limit on the variable of time.
(3) The most important sentence in the opinion is this: “Authority for the seizure thus ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are— or reasonably should have been —completed.” Unpacking that, there are two limits on the duration of a traffic stop. First, the stop has to end When the safety-related tasks are done (absent reasonable suspicion that turns the traffic stop into a Terry stop). Second, the stop has to end when the safety-related tasks should have been done (again, absent reasonable suspicion that turns the traffic stop into a Terry stop). Either limit is sufficient.
This means that there are two kinds of Rodriguez claims defense counsel can make. First, they can argue that the tasks actually had been completed and the stop was over, not allowing any further delay. Second, they can argue that the officer was taking his sweet time and delayed the stop, ending his constitutional authority for the stop even though the safety-related checks were not complete. (The latter kind of claim is probably more important, even though the former is the focus of Rodriguez.)
Justice Thomas points out a possible implication in his dissent:
The majority’s rule . . . imposes a oneway ratchet for constitutional protection linked to the characteristics of the individual officer conducting the stop: If a driver is stopped by a particularly efficient officer, then he will be entitled to be released from the traffic stop after a shorter period of time than a driver stopped by a less efficient officer. Similarly, if a driver is stopped by an officer with access to technology that can shorten a records check, then he will be entitled to be released from the stop after a shorter period of time than an individual stopped by an officer without access to such technology. . .
Under its reasoning, a traffic stop made by a rookie could be executed in a reasonable manner, whereas the same traffic stop made by a knowledgeable, veteran officer in precisely the same circumstances might not, if in fact his knowledge and experience made him capable of completing the stop faster.
That may be right, although it depends in part on how you measure how much time is “reasonable” to complete “tasks tied to the traffic infraction.” This raises the classic question of how you measure reasonableness: Is a reasonable time period for a particular stop measured in the abstract, independent of the characteristics of the individual officer, or is it measured for a particular officer with particular experience and access to specific technology? How much do you take into account the officer’s specific training, experience, and speed?
(4) Rodriguez is more important for its impact on police asking questions than use of drug-sniffing dogs. Drug-sniffing dogs are brought around on occasion, but officers ask questions outside the scope of the traffic stop all the time. (An aside: Is the remedy for the second kind of Rodriguez violation — that is, a claim that a stop went on for too long because the officer was dilly-dallying — suppression of evidence from the entire stop, or only suppression of what occurred after the stop should have ended? I would think the latter. If that’s right, the officer’s incentive is to ask incriminating questions, request consent, etc., early on in the stop to avoid getting close to the line. At the end of the stop, when the officer is handing back the driver’s license and maybe writing a ticket or a warning, the officer still can ask questions unrelated to the stop. But at that point officer is going to be vulnerable to a Rodriguez challenge that the officer improperly delayed the stop to ask unrelated questions.)
(5) Justice Thomas’s dissent begins with some plausible points, although I think he hits some off notes in Part II.C. starting at the bottom of Page 7. There, Justice Thomas criticizes the majority for missing the fundamental distinction between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. If I understand Justice Thomas correctly, he is arguing that because Terry allows all sorts of things based on reasonable suspicion, then it must be that the law should allow more when the government has probable cause.
But I think it’s Justice Thomas who is missing the fundamental distinction, between crimes and civil offenses. Terry stops are only allowed when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime. In contrast, traffic stops are allowed when there is probable cause even of just a civil traffic violation. That’s a notable difference. The powers an officer has to investigate civil traffic violations are less than the powers an officer has to investigate criminal activity. For example, an officer can arrest someone based on probable cause to believe that he committed a crime, but the officer doesn’t have powers to arrest someone based on probable cause that he committed a civil traffic offense. As I’ve blogged before, it doesn’t work to speak of “probable cause” or “reasonable suspicion” in the abstract. The issue is always, “probable cause of what?”
Looking at Nebraska’s traffic offense caselaw, there appears to be some uncertainty about whether basic traffic offenses count as civil or criminal for Fourth Amendment purposes. See State v. Knoles, 199 Neb. 211 (Neb. 1977). I haven’t looked closely enough at the Nebraska statutory scheme to be sure one way or the other. But if Nebraska’s traffic violations are only civil violations, then that explains the different treatment. On the other hand, if Nebraska’s traffic violations are criminal offenses, then that raises a different possible argument the state could have raised — but didn’t — to justify the stop. That is, the state could have invoked Terry to justify the detention instead of the Whren/Prouse traffic violation line of cases.
Post-Rodriguez, I think it remains uncertain whether the allowed duration of a traffic stop for a violation in a traffic-violations-are-crimes jurisdiction is any different from the allowed duration of a traffic stop for a violation in a traffic-violations-are-civil-offenses jurisdiction. Maybe criminalization of the traffic code gives the police more time, in exchange for added protections to the defendant such as the proof-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard. We’ll see what lower courts do with that. But that was an issue not raised in Rodriguez, which appears to have been litigated on the assumption that the initial stop was a routine traffic stop for a non-criminal traffic violation.
**************************************************
14. Hillary's White House bid energizes gun-control supporters
**************************************************
Hillary Clinton believes that those of us who don’t want “universal background checks” are a minority who “terrorizes the majority of the people.”
She doesn’t understand her own country. A constitutionally-protected right doesn’t require the majority of the people to agree with it for it to apply. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. As a republic, citizens are protected from the “tyranny of the many” by the Constitution.
Member Billy Huckleberry emailed me this:
From thehill.com: http://tinyurl.com/klu8mpg
http://thehill.com/regulation/other/239 ... un-control
Hillary’s White House bid energizes gun control supporters
by Tim Devaney
April 24, 2015
Gun-control advocates have high hopes for Hillary Clinton’s presidential run, viewing her as an ally who can finish the push for tightened background checks that has stalled in President Obama’s second term.
Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has been a staunch advocate of gun-control proposals, such as expanding background checks and banning assault weapons. Last summer, she ripped groups that oppose those ideas as out of step with public opinion.
“We cannot let a minority of people, and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people, hold a view point that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town-hall event.
The remark was music to the ears of gun-control groups, who want her to bring that same rhetoric to the campaign trail.
“As Hillary runs for president, she has a tremendous opportunity to educate the American public about how effective background checks are and the need to finish the job,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Second Amendment advocates are equally energized by Clinton’s presidential bid.
Republican presidential contenders lambasted Clinton as a “gun grabber" in a series of speeches at the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) annual convention earlier this month.
“If Hillary Clinton is going to join with Barack Obama and the gun grabbers and come after our guns, then what I say is, come and take it,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) who has declared his presidential candidacy, said at the convention.
Another Republican presidential contender, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R), warned the NRA crowd about the “liberal, progressive worldview of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton … and all the other people who want to take the guns out of the hands of the good guys and the hands of the law-abiding citizens."
The extent to which Clinton embraces gun control in her White House bid remains to be seen.
While an emphasis on guns could help Clinton win over the left, it could prove to be a liability in several battleground states that could decide the presidential election.
For the first time in decades, a majority of Americans say it is more important to protect gun rights than it is to limit gun ownership, according to a December poll from the Pew Research Center.
The same Pew poll found that a slight majority of women now believe owning a handgun can protect them from becoming victims of crime.
This rising popularity of guns among women could help Republicans in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and New Hampshire, according to GOP strategist Ford O’Connell.
“Obviously, any way that Republicans can appeal to women, with Hillary Clinton on the other side of the ticket, it certainly can’t hurt,” O’Connell said.
Gun-control advocates say Clinton has nothing to fear and point to a Quinnipiac University poll from April 2013 that shows more than 90 percent of Americans supported expanded background checks.
“Background checks are more popular in the United States than baseball and kittens,” Gross said.
Clinton didn’t shy away from gun control during her last presidential run in 2008, floating a new ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
“I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban,” she said during a Democratic primary debate in January 2008. “We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure, because bad guys now have assault weapons again.”
Last summer, she again pitched the assault weapons ban in the context of protecting school children.
"I don’t think any parent — any person — should have to fear about their child going to school or going to college because someone, for whatever reason — psychological, emotional, political, whatever it means — could possibly enter that school property with an automatic weapon and murder innocent children, students, teachers,” she said at the CNN town hall.
Clinton also campaigned for a national gun registry when she was running for the Senate in June 2000, though she later softened her position on the issue.
This time around, gun safety advocates want Clinton to make the case for keeping guns away from criminals, including domestic abusers and stalkers, as well as people who are mentally ill.
The policy prescription, advocates say, is closing loopholes that allow people to buy firearms at guns shows and online without going through a background check.
In April 2013, Congress rejected legislation from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that would have tightened background check requirements. The bill, which was strongly backed by Obama, was put forward in response to the mass shooting of children at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
“I was disappointed that the Congress did not pass universal background checks after the horrors of the shootings at Sandy Hook,” Clinton said at the CNN town hall.
Since launching her presidential bid last week, Clinton has been on a “listening tour” through early voting states that she says will help her prepare for the presidential campaign. She has also appointed three senior policy advisers — Maya Harris, Ann O’Leary, and Jake Sullivan — to help her craft a policy platform.
Expanded background checks is a no-brainer for inclusion, gun-control advocates say.
“We need a president in the White House who is willing to stand up to the gun lobby,” said Mark Prentice, spokesman for Americans for Responsible Solutions.
**************************************************
15. Senator Cruz: Why do we maintain gun-free zones on military bases?
**************************************************
A damned good question. Those that serve and protect us in the military, should be able to protect themselves on base or off base. They are targets for terrorists 24/7. Military lives matter.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/mfpjdwg
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... ary-bases/
SENATOR TED CRUZ: WHY DO WE MAINTAIN GUN-FREE ZONES ON MILITARY BASES?
by AWR Hawkins
April 21, 2015
On April 19, Senator Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) told gun owners at a Litchfield, New Hampshire, hunting club that it is past time to examine gun-free zones on military bases and to find a way to change the policy so soldiers can protect themselves.
Cruz cited three gun-related attacks in gun-free zones since November 2009 to emphasize his point: Fort Hood (2009), DC Navy Yard (2013), and Fort Hood (2014).
These attacks were all carried out on military installations by gunmen who passed background checks for their firearms. So the situation has not arisen from a lack of gun control, but from conditions created in a climate where there is so much gun control that innocent people cannot defend their own lives.
According to Politico, Cruz said, “I am very concerned about that policy. I think it’s very important to have a public discussion about why we’re denying our soldiers the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
Cruz told gun owners in Litchfield that he is “pressing” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) for “hearings on whether soldiers should be allowed to carry their own concealed firearms onto military bases.”
Military gun-free zones were implemented just months into the Clinton presidency. The Washington Times reported that “one of President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”
On April 3, 2014, Breitbart News reported that the original directive relating to military gun-free zones, 5210.56, was issued during the last months of President George H.W. Bush’s presidency. Then, AR 190-14, a regulation that revised and implemented 5210.56, was issued just months into the Clinton presidency.
**************************************************
16. New Brady Campaign Video
**************************************************
Looks like the Brady Campaign must have used a 7th grade class to make a video about gun control. As usual with their propaganda, this video makes the Brady Campaign look foolish.
Worse, the Brady Campaign considers itself an authority on “gun safety,” but the video shows only dangerous handling of firearms, including a woman putting the muzzle of a gun in her mouth.
Of course, “gun safety” isn’t actually about safety at all for the Brady Campaign. It’s just another synonym for the unpopular term “gun control.”
The Brady Campaign understand the safe handling of firearms any more than the characters in the video do.
From newsmax.com: https://tinyurl.com/p5h399a
https://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/636462
Woman Puts Gun in Her Mouth in New Brady Campaign Video
by Todd Beamon
April 4, 2015
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has introduced a new video featuring a woman who puts a gun in her mouth as it seeks to disclose in which states guns can be purchased easily to encourage supporters to fight gun laws in those jurisdictions.
The video promotes a new Brady website named "Crimadvisor.com," The Daily Caller reports. It features a young man and woman sporting leather gear and tattoos — talking in brash urban tones akin to hip-hop.
"Before now, it's been difficult for criminals like us to know which states have loose gun laws," the woman says. "How would a criminal like me know which states permit me to carry loaded guns in their amusement parks, golf courses, or beaches?"
"I have some violent friends," the man adds. "We all wear leather jackets and scream at women — and we want to find which states we can buy and sell guns easily."
After describing California as a state where "the market is hungry, hungry for guns," the woman puts the weapon in her mouth.
Crimadvisor.com lists the nation's 10 most dangerous states — defined by the Brady Campaign as where guns can be easily obtained.
They are Alaska, Wyoming, Montana, Arkansas, Kentucky, Nevada, Maine, Mississippi, Idaho and New Mexico.
The site also lists the 10 states with the strictest gun laws: California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Maryland, Rhode Island, Delaware, and Illinois.
In the video, the man describes the latter states as those "where we're not so welcome. The ones that don't 'get us.' "
The pair end the video by saying: "Crimadvisor.com. Plan your perfect getaway."
In its report, however, the Daily Caller notes that the Brady Campaign's gun-ownership data is from 2007 and compares the top-10 lists with the actual numbers of gun-related deaths, based on FBI data.
With the safest states, for instance, a total of 2,953 gun deaths occurred in 2010. That compared with a total of only 539 in the most dangerous states.
The Daily Caller also noted that the Brady lists exclude Washington, D.C., with an ownership rate of 3.8 percent — and the nation's highest rate of gun deaths, at 6.5 per 100,000 residents.
That compared with Wyoming, which has a death rate of 0.9 per 100,000 residents — even though 59.7 percent of the Cowboy State's citizens own guns.
Both Washington and Wyoming have about 600,000 residents, the Daily Caller reports. The Brady Campaign is based in D.C.
**************************************************
17. Gun-control victim: Joe Manchin pulls out of WV's governor race
**************************************************
Gun control is toxic, as Senator Manchin from West Virginia has discovered.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
His stand, aka, flip flop on second amendment issues has come back to bite him
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/q5b8n8t
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... rnor-race/
JOE MANCHIN PULLS OUT OF WEST VIRGINIA’S GOVERNOR RACE
by AWR Hawkins
April 19, 2015
On Sunday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) appeared on CBS’s Face The Nation to announce the he has decided not to run for governor of West Virginia in 2016.
Ironically, Manchin’s announcement comes just two weeks after The State reported that the NRA’s Chris Cox said, “The NRA is more popular than Joe Manchin in West Virginia.”
Manchin’s gun control reputation precedes him. He opposed recent efforts in the state to establish Constitutional Carry by doing away with a concealed carry permit requirement. He did this by suggesting the Second Amendment is not a sufficient carry license. He believes people have to be “properly trained” before they can exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
Manchin was also the point man for gun control in the months after the heinous attack on Sandy Hook Elementary. He pushed a system of expanded backgrounds, which would have banned private gun sales, minus a handful of exceptions, and then admitted the expanded checks would not have stopped the Sandy Hook attack from happening had they been in place.
Manchin was the governor of West Virginia, but left that office in 2010 to fill the vacancy left by the death of Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV). He won his governorship by campaigning on guns, rather than gun control, and used guns in the campaign ads for his Senate run, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
But he is now the poster-child for gun control in this country.
He reflected on his years Governor, then told Schieffer:
I thought maybe I could take that same can-do attitude, that same commonsense approach to Washington. I will be first to tell you I didn’t think it would be this difficult. And it’s been challenging. But I think we have made some inroads. I really believe that we have changed the whole process, to a certain extent, in the Senate to where we’re willing to put our country first.
Bottom line: Manchin is not going to try to win a election in gun-loving West Virginia in 2016.
**************************************************
18. [TX] Grandmother turns the tables on robber
**************************************************
From theblaze.com: http://tinyurl.com/n6mh76t
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/04 ... ine-words/
He Allegedly Put Knife to Texas Grandma’s Neck — Then His ‘Eyes Got Big’ at Her Next Nine Words
by Jason Howerton
April 21, 2015
A 74-year-old grandmother in Fort Worth, Texas, left a would-be robber’s eyes “big” as the man nearly lost his life trying to hold her up with a knife on Monday.
While Jewell Turner sat in her minivan outside her doctor’s office, she said a man approached her and tapped on the driver’s side window. The grandma said she offered the man directions when he inquired — but she had no idea what he really had planned.
“Never thought that when I turned my head that that young man would stick a knife to my throat,” she told NBC DFW.
The suspect then reportedly threatened, “I don’t want to hurt you, but I want your money. And I will hurt you if I have to.”
But on this particular day, Turner said, she felt like she should bring her small handgun with her for self-protection. She also had a pocket knife with her, but opted for the firearm for obvious reasons. Within seconds, the tables were turned.
“I just reached down, got the gun and turned around and pointed it to his face. And I told him, I said, ‘You back off, or I’ll blow your head off.’ And his eyes got big and he just backed up and he took off walking down the street like nothing happened,” Turner recalled.
She said the “devastating” incident reminded her that there is a “dark side” to the world. The woman also apparently caught a glimpse of her own “dark side.”
“I noticed there was a dark side in me, too. Because when I first pulled that gun on him I actually wanted to shoot him. But I stopped and thought about it,” Turner said.
The woman described the would-be robber as a white male in his mid-20s with pale skin and blonde hair, according to NBC DFW. He was wearing a dark hat and came jacket. Reports didn’t indicate that police had apprehended or charged the suspect.
As for the grandmother, she said she hopes the incident won’t prevent her from seeing the good in people after her life was put in danger trying to help a stranger.
**************************************************
19. [MI] Catholic priest tells parishioners to pack heat
**************************************************
Now THIS is my kind of priest!
From freep.com: http://tinyurl.com/lnq8vxy
http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2 ... /26086691/
Ann Arbor Catholic priest tells parishioners to pack heat
By Patricia Montemurri, Detroit Free Press
April 22, 2015
An Ann Arbor Catholic priest has urged his parishioners to arm themselves and attend classes at Christ the King parish to earn a concealed pistol license (CPL).
In a letter sent to Christ the King parishioners recently, the Rev. Edward Fride explained why he believed it was necessary to get concealed pistol licenses because of recent crime in the area. During a Palm Sunday mass last month, Fride announced that the parish would be holding the CPL class.
When some parishioners questioned the decision, Fride sent out a pro-gun letter titled "We're not in Mayberry Anymore, Toto" – a reference to the 1960s-era Andy Griffith Show and its portrayal of a fictional North Carolina town, as well as Dorothy's dog from the Wizard of Oz.
"It is very common for Christians to simply assume that they live in Mayberry, trusting that because they know the Lord Jesus, everything will always be fine and nothing bad can happen to them and their families," Fride wrote.
"How to balance faith, reality, prudence, and trust is one of those critical questions that we struggle with all our lives. Pretending we are in Mayberry, while we are clearly not, can have very negative consequences for ourselves and those we love, especially those we have a responsibility to protect. If we are not in Mayberry, is there a real threat?"
Fride told parishioners in the letter that Catholic teachings do not preclude carrying a gun for self-defense and to defend others. Fride then asserted that crime is up and that because of budget cuts, "there has been a significant reduction in the availability of an armed police response."
Fride could not be reached for comment Monday. But Michael Diebold, a spokesman for the Diocese of Lansing which oversees the Ann Arbor parish, confirmed Monday that the controversial letter had been sent.
"Yes, it appears that 'We're Not in Mayberry Anymore, Toto!' was sent out to the parishioners of Christ the King by their pastor, Fr. Ed Fride," Diebold wrote in an email to the Free Press.
Guns and gun lessons do not belong in a Catholic church, Lansing Catholic Bishop Earl Boyea stressed in a statement after they learned about Fride's letter from the Free Press.
Boyea "has never given permission for anyone to carry a concealed weapon in a church or school in the Diocese of Lansing," said a statement released by Diebold.
"Additionally, Bishop Boyea further states that Concealed Pistol License classes are inappropriate activities to be held on Church property," wrote Diebold.
Diebold said the Lansing diocese's ban on weapons on church makes them "gun-free zones" and extends to those who want to practice "open carry" of weapons in full view. He added that public or professional security "provide for public safety on church property."
Diebold referred to a 2012 statement by the Lansing bishop.
"We are followers of Jesus Christ, who raised not a hand against those who mocked, tortured, and finally murdered him," Boyea said in 2012. " While we grasp both the Second Amendment and the legitimate right of some persons to defend themselves, our churches and our schools are dedicated to a far different approach to life's problems."
In the Mayberry letter, Fride wrote that he was worried about students at nearby Father Gabriel Richard High School in Ann Arbor, and pointed to a recent incident near the school.
"The fact that two active shooters got within yards of Father Gabriel Richard before they were taken down by SWAT demonstrates that the threat is real. This druggie couple from Detroit stole a car and it broke down at Plymouth and Dixboro. They went through the woods and had almost reached the high school when they were stopped," wrote Fride.
"There is zero security at the high school. Had the shooters got in, we would have had our own Columbine," wrote Fride, a reference to the shooting massacre at a Colorado high school in 1999.
A CPL class was held at the church recently by a suburban Detroit police officer, Fride wrote in the letter. Fride said the officer told parishioners "that because more Detroiters are protecting themselves, more of the criminals are now targeting the suburbs…"
"That same officer from the CPL class personally thanked me for having the parish do this class and expressed a hope that more would follow suit, because having law abiding citizens armed makes their job as police so much better," Fride wrote in the letter.
Fride said some parishioners told him they were afraid of carrying weapons.
"Several people have said to me, I'm afraid of guns. My response to one woman was, 'Well, how do you feel about rape?'' wrote Fride.
Fride's friend, Jay McNally, said the priest is a beloved pastor, a martial arts practitioner whose sermons bring parishioners to tears.
"It is a rare day that one finds a priest so well-loved by parishioners at every level – the old folks, the young folks," said McNally, a former editor of the Detroit archdiocese's Michigan Catholic newspaper and conservative Catholic activist who is the director of the Ypsilanti-based Citizens Alliance for Life and Liberty.
McNally said Fride has served at the parish for about 20 years, and also was the chaplain for young men considering the priesthood at Ave Maria College, when the college started by Domino's Pizza founder and traditional Catholic activist Tom Monaghan was located in Ann Arbor. Christ the King Parish has strong ties to traditional, conservative Catholics.
"He's a priest factory," said McNally, describing Fride's service as an inspiration to many young men considering the priesthood.
"Father Ed quite frequently travels around the country and to be the chaplain for people in the military who die in service," said McNally. "He's in high demand for that."
"This whole gun thing is kind of new. He has become very vocal about it," said McNally. "There isn't a phony bone in him.
In his letter, Fride explained how he grew up a Pacifist and was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War. He converted to Catholicism. He wrote that he veered away from pacifism when he asked himself questions of "what would Jesus do" were he to come across women and children being harmed.
"I eventually concluded that I was certainly no longer a pacifist absolutist," wrote Fride. "There were situations in which I would actively intervene, even to a lethal level if necessary.”
**************************************************
20. Major terrorist plot in France foiled - gun control didn’t help
**************************************************
All the gun control in the world isn’t going to stop, or even slow down, a determined criminal or terrorist.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/on9hnug
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/04 ... by-chance/
MAJOR TERROR PLOT TO MACHINE GUN CHURCH SERVICES IN FRANCE FOILED ‘BY CHANCE’
by Oliver Lane
April 22, 2015
An ‘imminent’ terrorist plot to attack church services with machine guns while wearing fake police uniforms has been uncovered by French police… after the main suspect accidentally shot himself.
After shooting himself in the leg with one of the weapons he was going to use to massacre Christians in the French capital, 24-year-old student Sid Ahmed Ghlam called an ambulance, only to have police follow the trail of blood back to his car. Inside they found enough assault rifles, side arms, body armour and fake police uniforms to arm a small gang. Police are now working on the theory that Ghlam had a number of accomplices.
A 25-year-old woman was arrested in Paris in connection with the plot, with local reports suggesting she was Ghlam’s partner, a women who ‘stood out’ because she was the only person in the area who wore a Burqa. It is also reported Ghlam’s family are radical Muslims, which may have affected his own radicalisation and interest in fighting in Syria.
In an break for police investigators, Ghlam’s blood matched that found at a murder scene discovered on Sunday. It now seems the terrorist attempted to car-jack a 32-year-old dancer and fitness instructor named as Aurélie Châtelain, leaving her dead in the passenger seat.
Although Ghlam has been ‘on the radar’ of French authorities since he visited Turkey last year, previous investigations have turned up nothing, and so observation ceased.
Churches presently enjoy no state protection in France, unlike synagogues and some mosques which are under guard by the army and police. Le Figaro reports that while French churches, many of which exist in the most ‘multicultural’ neighbourhoods, don’t want to have police or soldiers stationed outside, they have received advice from the government about how to minimise risk.
One bishop reflected the advice unfortunately conflicted with the core mission of the church, remarking: “He asked bishops and priests to be vigilant, especially to close their churches as often as possible. Which is difficult since the church is meant to be an open place”.
***************************************************************************
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/]