VA-ALERT: VCDL Mini-Update 2/16/16

[OakRidgeStars]

VA-ALERT: VCDL Mini-Update 2/16/16

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a Virginia Citizens Defense League member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join-VCDL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's calendar: http://www.vcdl.org/events
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VA-ALERT archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/727/=now
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. The “deal” bills advance in House
2. David Kopel analyzes the “deal”
3. ACTION ITEM: Brunswick County to consider resolution against the Attorney General’s actions on reciprocity
4. ACTION ITEM: Rockingham County Republican Committee meeting
5. Interested in attending VCDL meetings on the Eastern Shore?
6. What’s your experience carrying at venues in Norfolk?
7. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Panel rules “fundamental right” to own “assault weapons”
8. Lecture in Norfolk: “3-D Printed Guns & the Second Amendment””
9. VCDL President interviewed about arming school guards [VIDEO]
10. VCDL analysis: Let’s look at the real murder and suicide rates in the U.S.
11. VCDL member gets library gun ban fixed in Campbell County
12. Updated NFA rules on trusts explained
13. Employee saves woman from stabbing, was fired, got his job back
14. “I’m NOT Your Sheepdog”

************************************************************
1. The “deal” bills advance in House
************************************************************

On Friday the three bills that make up the Senate version of the “deal” on reciprocity were conformed to the version of the bills that passed out of the House earlier this week. So now both the House and Senate versions of the deal are identical. The Senate bills now head to the House Floor on Monday. The House versions are in the Senate Courts of Justice Committee and could be heard as soon as Wednesday.

—

Some articles on the deal:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/vi ... story.html

or

http://tinyurl.com/hbcnm4s


************************************************************
2. David Kopel analyzes the “deal”
************************************************************

David Kopel, a Second Amendment attorney, wrote this article in the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... egulation/

or

http://tinyurl.com/z6g6kjx

The Virginia Compromise: Wins for gun rights and gun regulation
By David Kopel

In Virginia, a compromise gun reform bill endorsed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) has passed the Senate by a large bipartisan majority and appears certain to pass the House. The Everytown gun control lobby, which was founded by former New York City mayor (and, perhaps, future U.S. president) Michael Bloomberg, has been running advertisements against the bill. Closely examined, the Virginia Compromise simultaneously advances arms rights and arms regulation; the pro-rights advocates and the pro-regulation advocates each gain much more than they lose.

In each of the three major items of the legislation, one side gains a lot, while the other side loses hardly any anything. Economists would term the exchange “Pareto optimal.” Let’s look at each one:

Right to carry

Background: All states have laws to issue permits for citizens to carry handguns for lawful protection of self and others. Virginia, like the large majority of states, has fair procedures for issuing permits. Most states recognize permits issued by other states — but there is much variance in which licenses are recognized by which states. (Unlike driver’s licenses, for which all states choose to recognize the licenses issued by all other states.)

The Virginia attorney general — who won a very close election with the help of Everytown — recently announced that Virginia would withdraw its reciprocal recognition of licenses from many other states.

Legal effect of the Virginia Compromise: Attorney general discretion will be eliminated. Virginia will recognize almost all other permits from other states.

Practical benefits for gun rights: Significant. The decision of the Virginia AG was on its way to provoking widespread retaliation — reducing the ability of Virginians to lawfully carry handguns in two dozen other states. In Virginia, there will be more nonresidents lawfully carrying arms, thus increasing the possibility that an armed defender will be present to thwart violent crimes attempted in Virginia.

Practical detriment for gun regulation: Close to nil. Among the 50 states, there are 49 that can say that other states have lower standards for issuing permits. In Virginia, there does not appear to be a problem caused by tourists from states that have lower standards. Before the attorney general withdrew from reciprocity agreements, there had not been any demonstration that non-Virginians carrying in Virginia were causing a violent crime problem.

Gun shows

Background: In Virginia, like most states, the law about selling firearms at gun shows is exactly the same as for selling firearms anywhere else. People who are “engaged in the business” (18 U.S.C. 921) of selling firearms must require their customers to fill out extensive paperwork on every firearm sale. They must also request the permission of the FBI or its state counterpart to sell to a particular customer (the background check).

Legal effect of the Virginia Compromise: At every gun show, there must be a law enforcement officer who has the ability to conduct a background check on prospective buyers. This has no effect on the vast majority of gun show sellers: They have a firearms dealer license because they are “engaged in the business.” Thus, under existing law, they already must telephone (or contact via the Internet) the Virginia State Police to obtain permission for the sale.

The Virginia Compromise affects only a gun show seller who is not “engaged in the business” — such as a collector selling part of a collection to raise some money for the family. Even without the Virginia Compromise, collectors could voluntarily ask a licensed dealer to process their transactions. This would require the dealer to fill out all of the records necessary for acquiring a firearm for his inventory, and then disposing a firearm from his inventory. The paperwork includes a four-page federal form, for which which the the dealer and buyer must answer dozens of questions, including the buyer’s race and Hispanic status. After the paperwork is completed, the dealer would contact the Virginia State Police to obtain permission. The whole process takes a while, so licensed firearm dealers typically charge a fee for processing this transaction.

The Virginia Compromise adds a new option: Law enforcement officers will be available at every gun show to conduct background checks for sellers who are not “engaged in the business” (i.e., sellers who by law are not allowed to contact the Virginia State Police for background checks).

For private sellers, the use of third parties (either licensed dealers or law enforcement officers) remains optional. McAuliffe would strongly prefer that it be mandatory; however, that was not achievable, given the Republican majority in the both chambers of the Virginia legislature — notwithstanding (or because of?) a last-minute Everytown infusion of 2015 election money for anti-gun Democrats.

Practical benefit for gun regulation: The Virginia Compromise is likely to significantly increase the number of background checks on gun show sales. Although most gun show sales are conducted by licensed dealers (who must already conduct background checks), the new system will encourage private sellers to utilize voluntary background checks.

Why? Under the old system, the private seller must request the services of a licensed dealer, for a fee. There will be the time cost of the paperwork. Under the new system, the private seller can instead request the services of a law enforcement officer. The paperwork for this is considerably less. Although law enforcement is allowed to charge a fee, the fee will likely be less than that charged by firearms dealers; because the paperwork is less, the time is less. Besides, firearms dealers are busy trying to sell their own inventory for a profit, whereas the police officers are not. When you lower the transaction costs (time and money), you get more transactions (background checks).

Practical detriment for gun rights: Legally speaking, none, since everything is voluntary. On the other hand, more private sellers will voluntarily engage with the background check system, which will result in more denials of firearms purchases. This will deny some purchases by people who are genuinely dangerous (e.g., have recent violent-felony convictions) and by some who are not (e.g., have a 1972 conviction for marijuana possession).

Domestic violence prohibitions

Legal effect of the Virginia Compromise: A permanent domestic violence protection order will now require the subject to get rid of his or her firearms within 24 hours. Previously, such an order prohibited only acquiring new firearms and transporting firearms.

Practical benefit for gun regulation: Domestic abusers are much more likely to misuse firearms than are ordinary citizens, especially against their abuse victims. Everytown would prefer that the firearms be confiscated by law enforcement, but that would put an extra burden on law enforcement. As a practical matter, there are not enough police officers to conduct house-to-house searches of every person subject to a restraining order. People subject to a restraining order are more likely to comply if they can give the guns away quickly to someone they know, which at least allows them to confer a benefit on a friend.

Practical detriment for gun rights: Virtually nil. Second Amendment advocates have raised strong objections to laws that deprive rights based on mere allegations regarding domestic or mental issues. In contrast, the Virginia Compromise strips arms rights only after proper due process adjudication.

Conclusion

In the Virginia Compromise, each side gains much more than it loses. Gun rights are improved for Virginians who travel outside the state and for non-Virginians who visit the state. Gun regulation is improved by more background checks at gun shows and stronger prohibitions on adjudicated domestic abusers. In practice, each side gives up little or nothing from its core concerns.

The Virginia Compromise supports University of California at Los Angeles professor Adam Winkler’s observation that gun rights and gun regulation can be compatible. In Virginia this year, they are synergistic.


************************************************************
3. ACTION ITEM: Brunswick County to consider resolution against the Attorney General’s actions on reciprocity
************************************************************

J. W. Zubrod, a Brunswick County Board of Supervisors member, is going to bring up a resolution excoriating the Attorney General for his actions on destroying reciprocity.

If you live in Brunswick County or know someone who does, we need to have a presence at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Wednesday to speak in support of the resolution.

The meeting is being held at 7:30 PM THIS Wednesday, February 17.

The meeting is being held at:

Board Room of the Brunswick County Government Building
228 N. Main Street
Lawrenceville, VA 23868

Since it is in a county government building, carry should be legal.


************************************************************
4. ACTION ITEM: Rockingham County Republican Committee meeting
************************************************************

If you are a registered voter in Rockingham County you should attend the Rockingham County Mass meeting this Wednesday evening, February 17, at the County Administrative building, 20 East Gay St., Harrisonburg (Fire and Rescue room). Doors open at 6:30 PM, please bring a source of identification.

This meeting deals with the future of a lawsuit to repeal a bad law called “the incumbent protection act,” which gives incumbents an unfair ability to control how candidates are selected in a primary. The current chairwoman, Donna Moser, supports the lawsuit, but her opponent, Dan Cullers, will not commit supporting the lawsuit.


************************************************************
5. Interested in attending VCDL meetings on the Eastern Shore?
************************************************************

Member Bradford Bradach wants to set up so more regular member meetings on the Eastern Shore. If you would be interested in attending such meetings, send me an email at president@vcdl.org and I will forward them on to Bradford. You don’t have to live on the Eastern Shore, just interested and willing to go there to attend meetings.


************************************************************
6. What’s your experience carrying at venues in Norfolk?
************************************************************

Member Denny Olson sent me this email:

"Just a note to let you know about the new policies at all of the Norfolk venues. They are now doing a bag check and wand scan at all concerts and events at Scope, Chryslers Hall and the Harrison Opera House. I am not sure about the other venues in the area. The good news is that I have concealed carry at both the Opera House and Chrysler Hall while attending several events in the last 2 months with no problems. When I approach the individual doing the scan, I show them my carry permit and quietly tell them that I am carrying. (I am usually in a line with other people) They proceed to do the scan and then either escort me or direct me towards a Norfolk Police Officer that is usually near the entrance. The officer then looks at my driver’s license and carry permit, tells me to have a nice evening and that’s it. Everyone has been polite and professional and since there is always a large crowd, I try to keep the whole routine as low key as possible.

"I would be interested to know if anyone has had similar experiences at the Sandler Center, Ferguson Hall, or any of the other venues hosting concerts in the area.”

—

Board member John Fenter told me that he has had a similar experience at the Scope.

If you have had a carry experience at those other venues that Denny was asking about in Norfolk, respond to this email with your experience.


************************************************************
7. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Panel rules “fundamental right” to own “assault weapons”
************************************************************


This case was about Maryland, but also affects Virginia as we are under the Fourth Circuit as well.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ass ... lp00000592

or

http://tinyurl.com/zob5w3o


************************************************************
8. Lecture in Norfolk: “3-D Printed Guns & the Second Amendment””
************************************************************

There is a free presentation titled “3-D Printed Guns & the Second Amendment”” being offered by the Federalist Society in Norfolk on Monday, February 29 from 8:00-9:15 AM.

More information here:

http://www.fed-soc.org/events/detail/a- ... -amendment

or

http://tinyurl.com/zxlgy5o


************************************************************
9. VCDL President interviewed about arming school guards [VIDEO]
************************************************************

http://wric.com/2016/02/10/bill-aims-to ... ty-guards/

Bill aims to arm school security guards

By Mark Tenia Published: February 10, 2016, 5:24 pm

RICHMOND, Va. (WRIC) — For years, bills aiming to allow school staff to arm themselves at public or private schools have failed. Now, a proposal to allow security guards at schools to be armed is making its way through the General Assembly, passing the education committee Wednesday.

Under the proposal (HB 1234), the security guards would have to be retired police officers and get permission from the local school board.

“This is at least a small step in the right direction,” said Philip Van Cleave with the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

Van Cleave says he still thinks permit holders should be able to carry on school grounds, but believes this bill is a stepping stone in that direction.

“Everywhere they allow permit holders to carry, it has been a success whether it be in schools or churches or anywhere else,” said Van Cleave, who adds it’s already working in higher education in Virginia.

“Liberty University is a good example of this,” he said. “They never had any problems with it.”

Andy Goddard with Virginians for Responsible Gun Laws is concerned that if the bill passes, it could be another step toward allowing more guns on school properties.

“There’s chipping away every year to all of our laws,” Goddard said. “If you can find an opening to crack open the door, then next year you can add more things and push the door wider.”

Goddard says even retired officers should have to go through annual training before being allowed to carry a weapon on school grounds. The bill now heads to the full House for a vote.


************************************************************
10. VCDL analysis: Let’s look at the real murder and suicide rates in the U.S.
************************************************************

The antis like to talk about “gun violence,” while myopically, and intentionally, ignoring any other kind of murder.

To dramatically inflate the numbers and make it look like gun control actually works, they include SUICIDES, ACCIDENTS, and LAWFUL SELF-DEFENSE as part of “gun-related deaths.”

Oh, and they always leave gun-control-heaven Washington, DC out of the statistics. Wonder why? I’ll show you.

Here’s a story using the distorted values approved by the anti-liberty crowd, which claims to show that states with more gun control have less firearms-related deaths:

http://wtkr.com/2016/02/05/the-states-w ... un-deaths/

—

The WTKR story claims the ten states with the least gun-related deaths in order are Hawaii, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. They claim the highest rates in order are Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and South Carolina - with gun-friendly Virginia coming in a distant #32.

Not so fast!

I went to the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) web site and grabbed the raw numbers, where suicides and murders are broken out separately for each state. I put the data into a spread sheet and did some sorting and the story THAT tells is very different!

I found that the ten states with the lowest MURDER rate (regardless of how the murder was committed) in order were: New Hampshire, Maine, North Dakota, Vermont, Iowa, Hawaii, Idaho, Utah, Minnesota, and Massachusetts. The highest murder rates in order were: DC, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Maryland, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Tennessee, and Arkansas. The murder rates slowly climb as we go from state to state. Starting at 1.5 per 100,000 for New Hampshire, the rate DOUBLES when going from Louisiana (12.5 per 100,000) to DC (25.9 per 100,000)!

Suicides tend to significantly outnumber murders in all states, but DC. However, DC’s murder rate is so astronomical that it is higher than the suicide rate in any of the 50 states!

During a recent panel discussion in Lynchburg that I participated in, one of the Moms Demand Action members told the audience that Vermont has the highest suicide rate in the U.S. Not true: Vermont is actually #14 in suicides according to the CDC.

Where does Virginia fit in? For suicides, we are in position #32. For murders, gun-friendly Virginia is in position #25 - the middle of the pack-, right next to gun-control-heaven New York in position #26.

Let’s look at murder rates compared to all of our neighbors (rate per 100,000 residents):

DC - 25.9
MD - 8.9
TN - 7.4
NC - 6.8
VA - 5.2
KY - 5.0
WV - 4.8

Here are the tables, so you can examine them yourself:

Sorted by the cause of death (murder and suicide):

http://vcdl.org:80/resources/pdf/By_Cau ... 4.xlsx.pdf

Sorted by the rate of death (either murder or suicide):

http://vcdl.org:80/resources/pdf/By_Rat ... 4.xlsx.pdf

Sorted by state:

http://vcdl.org:80/resources/pdf/By_Sta ... 4.xlsx.pdf


************************************************************
11. VCDL member gets library gun ban fixed in Campbell County
************************************************************

Member Justin Melvin discovered there was a “no guns” policy for Campbell County’s libraries and the policy was also listed on their web site. He contacted the County Administrator and cc’ed me. In short order the issue was resolved. Good job, Justin!


************************************************************
12. Updated NFA rules on trusts explained
************************************************************

VCDL EM and attorney, John Pierce, explains the changes to NFA trusts that happened last month:

http://johnpierceesq.com/understanding-41p-41f/


************************************************************
13. Employee saves woman from stabbing, was fired, got his job back
************************************************************

Public outcry for this hero got his job back.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/02 ... m=Firewire

or

http://tinyurl.com/he4f2mb

Licensed Gun Owner Saves Woman from Vicious Stabbing — Moments Later, He’s Stunned by the Words He Hears from Employer

Feb. 11, 2016 12:23pm Carly Hoilman

Update: After receiving praise from thousands on Facebook, including Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, Sarder’s employers changed their minds and allowed him to return to work, Fox News reported Friday.

A General Motors employee says he was fired for pulling out his gun after witnessing a woman being stabbed at the company’s Warren, Michigan, plant Wednesday.

The victim, 52, was hospitalized and remains in critical condition, but many are saying that had it not been for Didarul Sarder, a valet service supervisor, she probably would have died on site.

Sarder, who has a valid concealed pistol license (CPL), pulled out his gun to stop the attack and stayed with the woman until police and medical personnel arrived.

“The lady kept saying ‘I’m dying, someone help’ and it was just a natural reaction,” Sarder told WJBK-TV. “I just see this lady getting stabbed. I only had, like, half a second to think and I unholstered my firearm and pointed it at her to drop the knife.”

Sarder ordered the 32-year-old attacker to freeze until she was arrested by police.

Once the situation was under control, Sarder said a fellow GM employee ordered him to be removed from the site.

“He said, ‘You shouldn’t have had a firearm here. After this is done he needs to be escorted off the property. He’s not welcome back here.’ I was really bummed out. I got a little emotional,” Sarder recalled.

The stabbing occurred just outside the main entrance of the central office building where the victim works. Police said the suspect came to see the employee, and what began as an argument in the lobby quickly turned into the scene Sarder witnessed.

Though the valet said initially he was hurt when he was told to leave the premises, he has no regrets about his actions.

“I would to do it all over again,” Sarder said. “If I could save this woman’s life over a job, I can get another job.”

Local officials are hailing Sarder as a hero. Though GM refused to comment due to the ongoing investigation, the company released a statement denying that Sarder was ever fired.

“To our knowledge the valet remains an employee of the vendor,” the statement read.

As of Thursday the victim was still recovering in the hospital from multiple stab wounds to her neck, back and abdomen.

Sarder told WJBK-TV he hopes his efforts were enough to save the woman’s life.

“Maybe those few seconds before the police arrived could be the difference between life and death.”


************************************************************
14. “I’m NOT Your Sheepdog”
************************************************************

Late last year I was on a panel with Lori Haas and two other people on Channel 12 in Richmond. At one point during the event, I said that I carry a gun to protect myself and not others. At that, Lori spurted out, “You’re selfish!” I could tell she immediately regretted that comment. Too late. Considering that Lori spends so much time trying to disarm people like you and me, I found that spontaneous statement telling.

I said (paraphrasing), “I carry a gun to protect myself. I don’t carry one to protect you, Lori. That said, I might come to your aid anyhow.”

Jeff Knox with the Firearms Coalition makes a compelling point - that gun owners are really more like peaceful porcupines than they are sheepdogs.

http://www.firearmscoalition.org/index. ... Itemid=144

or

http://tinyurl.com/qct76fa

I'm Not Your Sheepdog

Thursday, 29 October 2015 12:57 Jeff Knox The Knox Update - The Knox Update

We Don’t Carry for You

By Jeff Knox

Like many Americans, I frequently carry a gun. I’ve done so for over 30 years without ever laying hand to it in need. Professor John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center reports that some 12.8 million people, over 5.2% of the adult U.S. population, are licensed to carry a concealed handgun. In addition to concealed carry license holders in all 50 states, 7 states require no permit at all for concealed carry, and 40 states have few restrictions on carrying as long as the gun is visible. On top of that, as I have reported recently, there appears to be a growing trend among people who routinely carry a firearm to also routinely ignore signs that tell them they can’t. It is a growing form of civil disobedience that puts no one at increased risk of death or injury. As the number of concealed carriers grows, violent crime continues to fall. This doesn’t prove that more guns equals less crime, but it irrefutably proves that more guns do not equate to more crime.

Unless you live in one of the extremely restrictive states like New York, New Jersey, or Massachusetts, any time you are on the street or anywhere that does not have controlled access, with metal detectors and bag searches, etc., there is a fairly high probability that someone nearby is legally carrying a gun. But they are not carrying that gun to protect you.

A popular essay from Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, divided humans into three categories: “Sheep,” “Wolves,” and “Sheepdogs.” I would suggest that Lt. Col. Grossman left out an important fourth category: “Porcupines.”

My wife is neither “sheep” nor “sheepdog,” and she certainly is no “wolf.” She is a “porcupine;” harmless and docile if left alone, but ferocious and dangerous if threatened – even more so if her progeny are threatened. She would choose flight over fight every time, if flight is a viable option. But if flight is not an option, she has the tools, training, and mindset to win the fight.

Our nation’s convoluted laws on self-defense and liability also force all but the most dedicated “sheepdogs” into the role of “porcupine” as well, making “porcupines” the most prevalent variety of armed citizen. We won’t passively stand by while the wolves have their way with us or our families, but neither can we take responsibility for protecting the “sheep” from the “wolves.” Certainly most people who carry would take action to help someone in need if there was an opportunity to do so, and there was no obvious alternative, and while many of us would probably prefer to characterize ourselves as “sheepdogs” rather than “porcupines,” the reality is that protecting you, your spouse, and your children is your responsibility, not ours. You should also be aware that protection of you and your family is not the responsibility of the police either. The courts have conclusively ruled that the police have a duty to protect only the public at large, not individuals.

Those of us who have a natural inclination toward being “sheepdogs” have some pretty significant disincentives to acting on those inclinations. Not only is it physically dangerous to intervene in a violent situation, it is a legal minefield that in most cases must be navigated in a matter of seconds. While laws and jurisprudence protect police from prosecution and civil liability, and while some protections exist for individuals acting in defense of themselves and their families, there are few shields for someone acting on behalf of a stranger. Armed citizens who intervene in situations where they or their families are not in imminent danger, place themselves at significant risk of prosecution and civil penalties. We also tend to be keenly aware of the fact that any error involving a firearm can be devastating and permanent.

Violent encounters usually happen quickly, and they can be very confusing. It’s not always clear who is the “good guy” and who is the “bad guy.” Anyone who has ever been through a quality personal defense course has been cautioned to avoid deploying a firearm or engaging an aggressor unless there is no other alternative. In any shooting situation, there are two key problems to deal with. Problem One is survival. Problem Two is dealing with the legal and emotional fallout from solving Problem One. Ending a life can be emotionally devastating, and the legal consequences can destroy bank accounts and quality of life as surely as being gravely wounded. For most of us, there are no legal repercussions for running away. In the real world, this means flight is better than fight. Our training, and often the law, dictates that if we’re enjoying a movie when a homicidal lunatic starts shooting people on the other side of the theater, our first responsibility is to get out and away, especially if our family is with us. If we’re in a college class and we hear gunfire from the next building or a classroom down the hall, we, just like our unarmed classmates or students, should evacuate or “shelter in place,” not head toward the gunfire.

This approach is galling to many gun owners, especially those of us with a natural inclination toward being “sheepdogs.” We would rather fight than run. We would rather put ourselves at risk than allow evil to go unchecked. But regardless of the level of training and skill a person has, the multiple layers of risk that are inherent in any shooting situation stack the deck against playing the hero unless there is no other alternative.

Both sides of the debate over bearing arms have a tendency to relegate armed citizens to the role of “sheepdog,” but that is a role that the law and prudence won’t let us accept, though some of us will try despite the obstacles. For the most part, we are “porcupines.” We are armed for defense of ourselves and our families, not for you and yours. In a worst-case scenario, one of us might be present and save your life in defending our own, but don’t count on it. We don’t carry for you.



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

[wittmeba]

2. David Kopel analyzes the “deal”

Very good explanation on this topic...

...but I have some questions:

1. Who initiates the background check - buyer or seller?
2. Is a background check performed by LEO at the show valid for purchase at a regular "in the business of" booth?
3. How long is a background check valid when performed by LE at a gun show? Is a record kept of this information?
4. Will this new LE process become preferred due to reduced effort & paperwork compared to a "in the business of" business?