VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 3/10/10 - Part II

[OakRidgeStars]

Continued...

---

**************************************************
22. New tool for finding ammo
**************************************************

Marc Gallagher emailed me this:

--

Hello Philip,

I just wanted to pass along to you and other fellow members of VCDL
that there's a new tool a colleague and I authored that helps gun
owners comparison shop for ammunition at multiple online retailers at
once. It's kind of like Google for finding ammo at the best prices.

Right now we check over 20 retailers and have over 200 calibers (rifle
and handgun for now) listed. We are planning on adding shotgun
ammunition within a few weeks.

Check it out at http://ammoseek.com/. We welcome any and all feedback
as we are always working to improve it.

Enjoy,
Marc Gallagher
http://ammoseek.com/


**************************************************
23. What NOT to do when a business asks you to leave
**************************************************

A member emailed me this:

One of my cop buddies told me that this afternoon two open carriers
were at my discount warehouse store and at checkout were challenged by
the manager about carrying. Instead of them saying "Ok.. sorry, now we
know and are leaving" made a scene, disturbing the peace, and so 911
was called. The police arrived and took the guys outside (one in
handcuffs) and later released. Their main argument was that the store
was not POSTED... ugh.. I am glad they got one of the good cops.

Maybe in a VA-ALERT we could remind everyone that we NEVER request
SIGNS BE POSTED. [PVC: Yes and also on private property, especially
enclosed malls and theaters, concealed carry is a smart idea. I have
seen this kind of situation before where a gun owner thought that
private property has to be posted before the property owner can deny
you entrance - that IS NOT TRUE. If asked to leave by a property
owner, just politely do so. Period.]


**************************************************
24. Sentara Hospitals
**************************************************

A member sent me this from a Sentara Hospital orientation class.
Here's some head-shaking logic: security guards are supposed to
**prevent** problems from happening, so without problems the guards
have no need to be armed. Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.

I hope they handle medicine better than they do common sense:

EXCERPT FROM "A SAFE HOSPITAL ENVIRONMENT - SLIDE 24"

"Security tries to prevent problems from occurring, while Law
enforcement punishes offenders after they have already caused the
problem. Therefor, security personnel do not carry weapons."

One of the few times I've seen an anti-gun establishment admit the
police can't stop crime. This is after

EXCERPT - "A SAFE HOSPITAL ENVIRONMENT - SLIDE 22"

"..hospitals face a unique set of security risks and are at a high
risk for ...Stalking, Hostage taking, kidnapping, and armed robbery."

Just thought you should know. ERs are notoriously violent, and they
can even admit that. Not sure how in the hell those 'Observe &
Report' guys are expected to stop anything. They can't even stop
people from smoking within 25ft of the ER entrance.

Can you say SOFT TARGET?


**************************************************
25. Newspapers are split on McDonald v Chicago; Rasmussen says
majority supports gun rights
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/yahx62p

http://www.examiner.com

[SNIP]
Newspapers take different approaches to McDonald arguments

Rasmussen survey affirms most Americans say cities have no right to
ban handguns


Not only did there appear to be a division in the ranks of the
Supreme Court during oral arguments in the case of McDonald v. Chicago
this week, but the aftermath revealed that newspaper editorial boards
are also split on whether Chicago's handgun ban should be struck down
or affirmed.

Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment
Foundation, which filed the case now before the Supreme Court in
partnership with the Illinois State Rifle Association and four Chicago
residents, is not surprised at the divisiveness in the press. He is
encouraged, however, that a number of newspapers appear to have
discovered that the First Amendment is followed by the Second
Amendment, and that both are of equal importance to individual rights
and liberties.

"Otis McDonald, 76, an Army vet who lives in a high-crime area of
Chicago, thinks the Constitution gives him the right to bear arms to
protect himself and his wife as he protected his country. We think so
too."--Investors Business Daily

**************************************************
26. The unlikely liberal case for gun rights
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/y8a27lc

http://www.newsweek.com

Gun Rally
Liberals and the NRA have found common cause in a pending supreme
court case.
By Ben Adler | NEWSWEEK
Published Feb 26, 2010
From the magazine issue dated Mar 8, 2010

When the constitutional accountability Center launched in 2008, it
looked like just another liberal legal-advocacy group, dedicated to
"fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and
history." The causes it has backed run the standard liberal gamut:
among other things, the group supports California's efforts to
regulate carbon emissions and pushes for "robust due-process
protections for immigrant criminal defendants." So if you were told
that the CAC had filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago, a case
about gun control to be argued before the Supreme Court this week, you
might think it was siding with Chicago, whose restrictions on gun
ownership are being challenged.

You would be wrong. For decades, liberals have opposed gun rights on
the grounds that the Second Amendment is limited to the establishment
of state militias. But some liberal dissenters from this view now say
that is too narrow a reading of the Constitution. They contend that it
fails to take into account the historical record and contradicts
liberals' own reading of the Constitution's protection of individual
rights.

The CAC has joined forces with staunch conservatives, including Steven
G. Calabresi, cofounder of the Federalist Society, to support
expanding individual rights, including gun rights, in the states--
inviting the possibility that Chicago's virtual ban on handguns might
be overturned. "There is a deeply progressive historical basis for
some individual right to bear arms," says Douglas Kendall, the CAC's
founder.

This is still far from the standard liberal view. But Kendall does
have allies. Some sharp liberal legal minds are part of his campaign
to reverse and embrace the right to gun ownership. "I believe in an
individual right to bear arms, consistent with a living Constitution,"
says Adam Winkler, a professor of law at UCLA and a frequent
participant in the American Constitution Society, the liberal answer
to the Federalist Society. Winkler was one of eight scholars,
including other prominent liberals, who signed the CAC's brief in the
McDonald case.

What is going on here? For much of the nation's history, Kendall and
his supporters argue, the right to bear arms was considered essential
to citizenship. "Forty-two states in their state constitutions provide
protections for the right to bear arms," says Winkler. "It is one of
the longest-standing, most deeply entrenched rights in American
history."

At the heart of the left-leaning dissenters' argument is a plea for
consistency. For decades, liberals have insisted that the Constitution
assumes--even if it does not explicitly spell out--a right to bodily
autonomy. This right, long disputed by conservatives, is a basis for
arguments in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Liberals who
support gun rights find a similar implied right to own weapons: after
all, they say, what is the right to bear arms but the ability to
protect your body from criminals as well as the government? "The right
to bear arms gives you a mechanism to protect your bodily autonomy
from attack," says Winkler.

The CAC's main concern in weighing in on the McDonald case isn't to
secure gun rights but to set a precedent that will expand individuals'
protection under the Bill of Rights to the state level. That would,
they hope, bolster liberal constitutional arguments in favor of
stronger due-process and abortion-rights protections.

The real issue in McDonald is whether the Second Amendment applies to
the states. Currently, it covers only the federal government. The
Supreme Court has already applied "fundamental rights," such as the
right to free speech, to states. The National Rifle Association is
asking the court to elevate the Second Amendment to the list of
fundamental rights. The CAC hopes instead that the court will add not
just the Second Amendment but the whole Bill of Rights. That would
make state laws vulnerable to federal-court challenges under a part of
the Constitution that liberals love: the "privileges or immunities"
clause of the 14th Amendment. Liberals would be able to sue states in
federal court on everything from welfare to gay marriage, challenging
laws that deprive someone of the "privileges or immunities" of
citizenship. The CAC believes the benefits of these new protections
are worth the weaker gun laws that may go along with them.

Traditional liberal legal scholars don't see it this way. They still
come down overwhelmingly against individual gun rights. When the
conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that
Washington, D.C.'s outright ban on handgun possession violated the
Second Amendment, the four left-leaning justices dissented. Liberals
attacked the majority decision, saying the record from 1789 shows the
Founders' intent was to protect state militias. Applied today, that
means that the National Guard can stock arms, but a National Guard
reservist, much less a typical citizen, does not have a right to buy a
pistol and keep it in his home.

Most legal conservatives don't buy the CAC's new line of reasoning,
either. Conservatives support the conclusion that individuals have the
right to bear arms--but find the new liberals' underlying argument
unconvincing. They do not believe a right to bodily autonomy can be
found--or even implied--in the language of the Constitution.
Essentially, conservatives reject this argument for the same reason
that they have long rejected the implied right to privacy that the
Supreme Court pointed to in deciding Roe v. Wade.

Justice Antonin Scalia and other "originalists" are most concerned
with trying to discern what the Founders had in mind when they wrote
the Constitution. They often dismiss the traditional liberal approach
to constitutional jurisprudence as one that tries to reach desired
outcomes by conveniently finding a basis for them in the Constitution.
(Liberals, of course, argue conservatives are doing just that in their
reading of the Second Amendment.)

As a result, for now the liberal stand in favor of gun rights remains
a novel argument in search of a judicial home. For different reasons,
most scholars on the left and the right want nothing to do with it.
Politicians aren't rushing to embrace it. One could see how moderate
Democratic members of Congress--always looking for ways to woo back
rural voters--might adopt this thinking. But they had begun to tone
down their opposition to gun ownership even before this new legal
argument started making the rounds in Washington. To the distress of
gun opponents, President Obama has said he "supports and respects the
Second Amendment," and Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill have not
made gun control a priority despite earlier promises to aggressively
pursue a ban on assault weapons. In a tough election fight, worried
Democrats are looking for all the arms they can bear.

With Krista Gesaman

**************************************************
27. Correction
**************************************************

Jeff Knox emailed me this:

--

In my haste to get the news out yesterday I got my clauses confused
and referred to the "equal protection" clause when I meant "due
process."
Below is the full copy with corrections.

If you are able to make the corrections in your postings or
publications I would appreciate it.
Thanks.

Jeff


(Washington, DC, March 2) The Supreme Court has concluded hearing oral
arguments in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment
Foundation's challenge to Chicago's gun ban.

As expected, the Justices gave strong indications that they intend to
"incorporate" the Second Amendment to apply it against the states and
declare Chicago's gun ban unconstitutional. That will of course be
followed by Chicago Mayor Daley trying to loosen the law to the absolute
minimum for compliance with the Court's order just like Washington, DC
did. I expect to see at least two more lawsuits against Chicago before
an average citizen will be able to purchase and possess a handgun in
their home.

One of the big questions in this case is whether the Court will use the
"privileges or immunities" clause or the "due process" clause to
apply the Second Amendment to the states. From their questions and
comments, it sounded like they were not inclined to overturn previous
bad precedents in order to use the "privileges or immunities" clause so
it is likely they will stick with the tried and true (if somewhat
convoluted) method of incorporation under the "due process" clause.
None of that really matters as far as application of the Second
Amendment is concerned though. What really matters is whether the
Justices include more superfluous BS in the decision like they did in
Heller. Scalia's assertions and assumptions in his written opinion in
Heller have been predictably used to abuse the rights of gun owners.
For now things look very good for a favorable ruling though.
We can expect that to come out sometime in late June.

As always, we'll keep you posted.


**************************************************
28. Gun rights and SCOTUS: Chicago will lose and the nation will win
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/yellv6v

http://www.examiner.com

[SNIP]
Gun rights and SCOTUS: Chicago will lose and the nation will win

Attorneys for the Second Amendment Foundation (which brought this
case) and the National Rifle Association (which was allowed to present
an argument) hit the long balls, while it is evident Chicago gun
banners have none....

And a last (hopefully) word on the Starbucks manufactured controversy..

**************************************************
29. Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely
**************************************************

Paul Henick emailed me this:

--

http://tinyurl.com/yctosbk

http://www.scotusblog.com

Analysis: 2d Amendment extension likely
McDonald v. Chicago, 08-1521, Argument recap
Lyle Denniston | Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010 11:26 am
Analysis

The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed poised to require state and local
governments to obey the Second Amendment guarantee of a personal right
to a gun, but with perhaps considerable authority to regulate that
right. The dominant sentiment on the Court was to extend the
Amendment beyond the federal level, based on the 14th Amendment's
guarantee of "due process," since doing so through another part of the
14th Amendment would raise too many questions about what other rights
might emerge.

When the Justices cast their first vote after starting later this week
to discuss where to go from here, it appeared that the focus of debate
will be how extensive a "right to keep and bear arms" should be
spelled out: would it be only some "core right" to have a gun for
personal safety, or would it include every variation of that right
that could emerge in the future as courts decide specific cases? The
liberal wing of the Court appeared to be making a determined effort to
hold the expanded Amendment in check, but even the conservatives open
to applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities seemed
ready to concede some -- but perhaps fewer -- limitations. The eagerly
awaited oral argument in McDonald, et al., v. Chicago, et al.
(08-1521) found all members of the Court actively involved except the
usually silent Justice Clarence Thomas. And, while no one said that
the issue of "incorporating" the Second Amendment into the 14th
Amendment had already been decided before the argument had even begun,
the clear impression was that the Court majority was at least
sentimentally in favor of that, with only the dimensions of the
expansion to be worked out in this case and in a string of likely
precedents coming as time went on.

An attempt by an attorney for the cities of Chicago and Oak Park,
Ill., defending local bans on handguns in those communities, to
prevent any application of the constitutional gun right to states,
counties and cities looked forlorn and even doomed. The nub of that
argument by James A. Feldman of Washington was that, unlike other
constitutional rights that the Court has extended to the state and
local level, the right to a gun recognized by the Court two years ago
in District of Columbia v. Heller pitted the threat that guns pose to
human lives against a constitutional right, so the balance should be
struck differently. So far as the hearing Tuesday showed, Justice
Stephen G. Breyer was the only member of the Court attracted to that
approach.

Justice Breyer drew only thinly veiled ridicule from conservatives on
the Court when he suggested that there be a constitutional "chart"
drawn up to rank the higher and lower priorities of rights that would
be protected against state and local infringement -- perhaps the
highest rank safeguarding the right to have a gun in community self-
defense (as with a "militia") but with a decidedly lower rank for a
right to "shoot burglars." While that idea drew no support, the
notion that the Second Amendment right restricting state and local gun
laws would not be an absolute right had significant appeal, it appeared.

The first argument to collapse as the hearing unfolded was the plea by
the lawyer for gun rights advocates, Alan Gura of Alexandria,
Virginia, that the Court should "incorporate" the Second Amendment
into the 14th Amendment through the "privileges or immunities"
clause. In the first comment from the bench after Gura had barely
opened, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., noted that the Court had
essentially scuttled that argument with its ruling in the
SlaughterHouse Cases in 1873. And within a few minutes, Justice
Antonin Scalia -- the author of the Heller opinion and the Court's
most fervent gun enthusiast -- was sarcastically dismissing the
"privileges or immunities" argument.

"Why," Scalia asked Gura, "are you asking us to overrule 140 years of
prior law....unless you are bucking for a place on some law school
faculty." The Justice said the "privileges or immunities" argument
was "the darling of the professorate" but wondered why Gura would
"undertake that burden." And Scalia noted that the "due process"
clause -- an open-ended provision that he has strongly attacked on
other occasions- was available as the vehicle for incorporation, and
added: "Even I have acquiesced in that." Gura somewhat meekly said
"we would be extremely happy:" if the Court used the "due process"
clause to extend the Second Amendment's reach.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the dissenters in Heller, then
moved in to press Gura on just what "unenumerated rights" would be
protected if the Court were to revive the "privileges or immunities"
clause. It was a theme that would recur often thereafter, solidifying
the appearance that the argument had virtually no chance of
succeeding. (In fact, when Gura near the end of the argument returned
to the podium for his rebuttal, his time was used up by Justices
Ginsburg and Anthony M. Kennedy exploring what other rights might come
into being if the Court gave new life to the "privileges or
immunities" clause. He responded that he could not provide a full
list, to which Justice Scalia retorted: "Doesn' t that trouble you?"
It was obvious that it troubled the Court.)

When Gura's argument moved on to the general question of
"incorporation" of the Second Amendment, Justice John Paul Stevens
explored whether such an extension would "apply to all of the Second
Amendment" -- including any court interpretations that ensued -- or
only "a homeowner's right to protect against intruders in the home" --
the specific right that Heller recognized. Gura responded that the
Second Amendment "was not so limited." Stevens then asked whether the
right would include "a right to parade around in the streets with a
gun." Gura said that the states and cities would have to obey a right
that was fully equal to all rights embraced by the right to keep and
bear arms.

Justice Kennedy soon joined in that exchange, and asked whether
"incorporation" would embrace "all of the refinements" that courts
would make in interpreting the right, or "just the core of the right."
Gura left no doubt that gun rights advocates were seeking the full
panoply of whatever gun rights the Amendment were found to cover.

The remainder of Gura's time was spent amid an exchange between Breyer
and Scalia over whether courts should give the Second Amendment lesser
scope based on statistics about the social cost that would result in
people killed from others' use of gun rights. Gura was essentially a
bystander as the two Justices jousted over that issue.

The Court then got the focus that a majority seemed to be hoping for:
a full-scale plea, by former Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, to use
the "due process clause" as the vehicle for extending gun rights to
the state and local level. And it was during Clement's time at the
podium that the Court's liberal bloc began making a case -- which
Clement essentially resisted -- to limit the "incorporated" right to,
at most, some core guarantee, without all of the variations that would
later develop. Clement noted that there were "not a lot" of
variations of the gun right yet, since Heller was the only precedent
so far, and that was limited to gun rights for self-defense in the home.

Clement, however, said that the Court should allow a "carryover" into
the 14th Amendment of all of the jurisprudence that develops on the
Second Amendment's scope. There should not be a Second Amendment
right and then a mere "shadow" of it that applied to state and local
government, he argued. He did concede, though, that constitutional
gun rights might be allowed to develop differently at the state and
local level than at the federal level. But that, he said, is
different from creating only a "shadow" right applied to state and
local laws.

The Court's strong leanings in the case became even more evident
during questioning of Feldman, the lawyer for the two cities involved
in the case. Although he absolutely needs the vote of Justice Kennedy
if his plea is to prevail, he almost immediately frustrated Kennedy by
arguing that gun rights were not an essential attribute of "ordered
liberty," thus questioning whether such rights qualify as
fundamental. If they are not, Kennedy shot back, then the Heller
decision was wrongly decided. And Chief Justice Roberts told Feldman
that there was no way to read the Heller opinion to make the Second
Amendment seem a less important right.

Tellingly, however, the Chief Justice commented that "we haven't said
anything about what the content of the Second Amendment is," so that,
over time, it may develop that state and local governments may well be
allowed to impose restrictions, such as bans on carrying concealed
weapons. And Scalia reminded Feldman that the Court in the Heller
decision had left room for some regulation of guns even though the
Second Amendment now embraced a personal right to have a gun. Kennedy
also noted that "there are provisions of the Constitution" that allow
states to have "significant latitude" in regulating what those
provisions seek to protect.

Feldman made no headway with an argument that state and local
political processes should be left to develop gun control policy,
unimpeded by the Second Amendment or its equivalent. Some cities, he
said, might conclude that "a ban on handguns is the best way to
protect people," and yet Heller says that the Second Amendment forbids
such a ban. That was, in essence, a total rejection of the idea of
"incorporation," and it was by then more than evident that there was
no majority for such a rejection. He also scored no points with a
complaint that "incorporation" of the Second Amendment would go a long
way toward establishing a national constitutional right of "self-
defense," which he said the Court has never mandated and should not
now. For 200 years, he said, it has been up to state and local
government to sort out when self-defense was justified. No member of
the Court seemed persuaded that that was now at stake in the Second
Amendment context.

**************************************************
30. Starbucks re-affirms its commitment of tolerance regarding open-
carry
**************************************************

The best thing we can do for the Starbucks situation is patronize them
and thank them when you do. After all, it was the Brady Campaign that
threw a hissy fit when Starbucks refused to prohibit law abiding
citizens carrying lawful items from patronizing their stores. It was
the Brady Campaign that that tried to force Starbucks to be
intolerant. It was the Brady Campaign who tried to draw Starbucks
into the middle of the self defense debate.

Emphasis added with "***" in article below:

http://tinyurl.com/yag3uzl

http://www.foxnews.com

[SNIP]
Coffee chain Starbucks Inc. is sticking to its policy of letting
customers carry guns where it's legal and said it does not want to be
put in the middle of a larger gun-control debate.


--------


From Starbuck's:

http://tinyurl.com/ylgzh8z
http://news.starbucks.com

Mar 03, 2010
Starbucks Position on Open Carry Gun Laws

SEATTLE, March 03, 2010 - We recognize that there is significant and
genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws.
Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use
Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-
standing approach to this issue ***remains unchanged***. We comply
with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this
case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have ***open carry weapon laws***.
Where these laws don't exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the
open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates
around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our
stores.

At the same time, we have a security protocol for any threatening
situation that might occur in our stores. Partners are trained to call
law enforcement as situations arise. We will continuously review our
procedures to ensure the highest safety guidelines are in place and we
will continue to work closely with law enforcement.

We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee) and
customer safety. ***Were we to adopt a policy different from local
laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners
to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners
in an unfair and potentially unsafe position***.

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties
to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of
this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the
issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all
too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and
illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe
that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe
environment for both partners and customers.


**************************************************
31. Starbuck's interview [Video]
**************************************************

Jim Snyder emailed me this link to a news story where he was
interviewed:

--

Here's the NBC News story that aired last night.

http://tinyurl.com/yhuoaoj


**************************************************
32. Gun lovers in the U.S. test law by wearing weapons to Starbucks
**************************************************

Bruce Jackson emailed me this. An article in the UK where Jim Snyder
was interviewed. The title of this article is misleading - no one is
"testing" anything:

--

http://tinyurl.com/yld9sfc

http://www.timesonline.co.uk

Gun lovers in the US test law by wearing weapons to Starbucks

IT is not exactly Gunfight at the OK Corral -- more like Lattes at High
Noon -- but Starbucks, the coffee chain, has become an unlikely
battleground for American gun owners campaigning to carry their
weapons openly in public.

Last Thursday morning Jim Snyder walked into a Starbucks branch in
Virginia and ordered a tall hot chocolate without cream. On his left
hip was his mobile phone. On his right hip was a semi-automatic
Browning pistol.

The coffee bar was busy with customers, including a group of mothers
with children in pushchairs. Nobody blinked an eyelid.

"I don't see why I shouldn't wear my gun to go to a coffee bar," said
Snyder, 59. "If businesses say you can't bring in a gun, that's
discrimination against a person for doing something that's legal. It's
like saying we won't serve people with blue shirts.

"I see my gun as insurance," he added. "Like I have life insurance to
protect my family, car insurance to protect my car, house insurance to
protect my house."

Snyder never used to be a customer of Starbucks. But the past few
weeks have seen gun enthusiasts flocking to the coffee chain. They are
part of the so-called Open Carry movement testing the laws in the 42
states that allow gun owners to carry weapons in public.

Anti-firearms campaigners have collected 40,000 signatures calling on
Starbucks to ban firearms.

Last week the chain pleaded to be left alone. "Advocacy groups from
both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw
attention to their positions," the Seattle company said in a
statement.

"The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in
the legislatures and courts, not in our stores."

Many Americans are fiercely protective of their right to carry guns
despite high-profile school shootings such as the Columbine massacre
in Colorado in 1999, in which 15 died, and the shootings at Virginia
Tech in April 2007, when a student shot and killed 32 before turning
his gun on himself.

"The right to bear arms is a fundamental right and part of what our
founding fathers put in the constitution," said Ed Levine, a member of
Open Carry in Virginia. "That's not for any coffee bar to decide."

Levine, who last week went for chicken wings at the Buffalo Wing
Factory in Sterling with 34 friends all packing pistols, said that
"carrying a gun is like wearing socks. It's part of your wardrobe.
Like an accessory -- but one that saves lives".

Gun sales rose 39% last year and 24 states passed laws to ease
restrictions on gun ownership. Arizona and Virginia recently approved
bills making it legal to carry concealed weapons in bars. Tennessee
voted to allow guns in playgrounds.

The Supreme Court is expected to end a 30-year ban on handguns soon in
Chicago. The appeal comes 18 months after it lifted a similar ban in
Washington. A wave of similar challenges is expected across the
country.

Gun control lobbyists say President Barack Obama has failed to deliver
on campaign promises to close loopholes that allow unlicensed dealers
at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks or to clamp
down on the trafficking of illegal guns.

Instead, Obama has signed bills allowing guns to be carried on trains
and in national parks. "He's signed a couple of pieces of legislation
that weakened the few gun laws on the books," said Paul Helmke,
president of the pro-gun control Brady campaign.

**************************************************
33. Starbucks lauded for best business practice on customer gun carry
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/yb7e3la

http://www.examiner.com

[SNIP]
Under attack by anti-gun rights lobby groups for several weeks now,
Starbucks has stuck to its guns in maintaining its policy regarding
serving customers who are legally carrying firearms. Explains the
Starbucks' press release:

"Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. . . .

**************************************************
34. Starbuck's poll on The Consumerist
**************************************************

Shawn Sloan emailed me this.

--

Philip,

I was browsing The Consumerist this morning, and I found their second
article about the new Starbuck's policy.

There's a nice poll at the bottom, if you want to send that out with
your next alert.

-Shawn Sloan


http://tinyurl.com/y9ds6zo

http://consumerist.com

Starbucks Caught In Crossfire Over Gun Debate
By Chris Morran on March 4, 2010 10:35 AM

If you'd asked us a while back what company would find itself at the
center of a power struggle between anti-gun activists and gun-rights
supporters, we probably would not have guessed caffeine powerhouse
Starbucks. But as the news that the 'Bucks is okay with customers
carrying guns into their stores where it's permitted by law, there's
been a backlash by those now asking the company to rethink its policy.

But in a statement released yesterday, Starbucks not only defended its
position, it also asked to just be left out of it all.

Reads the statement in part:

"We have examined this issue through the lens of partner (employee)
and customer safety. Were we to adopt a policy different from local
laws allowing open carry, we would be forced to require our partners
to ask law abiding customers to leave our stores, putting our partners
in an unfair and potentially unsafe position.
As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties
to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of
this divisive issue. As a company, we are extremely sensitive to the
issue of gun violence in our society. Our Starbucks family knows all
too well the dangers that exist when guns are used irresponsibly and
illegally. Without minimizing this unfortunate reality, we believe
that supporting local laws is the right way for us to ensure a safe
environment for both partners and customers."

After the release of this statement, gun-control activists The Brady
Campaign staged a rally in Seattle, where Starbucks calls home.

"Starbucks put out a statement today saying they don't want to be in
the middle of this fight. Well, they are. They are the middle," said
Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "Why are they in middle? Because
they chose -- they chose -- not to bar guns, so far, in their stores."

Heidi Yewman of Million Mom March also spoke at the rally. She said
that by allowing customers to openly carry guns in their stores,
Starbucks is "violating the public's trust, they're violating their
customers' trust, they're violating their employees' trust and their
violating the community's trust."

Where do you come down on this topic [click article link to answer
poll question]?

**************************************************
35. More articles on Starbucks
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/yedahvd

http://www.aolnews.com

Facing Gun Issue, Starbucks Throws Up Its Hands
Updated: 2 days 8 hours ago

SAN FRANCISCO (March 3) -- The Starbucks coffee chain announced today
that it will continue letting customers openly wear unloaded handguns
in its coffee shops.

At the same time, the company asked members of the "open carry" gun
movement and their opponents to refrain from putting Starbucks in the
firing line of the national debate over the right to bear arms.

"The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in
the legislatures and courts, not in our stores," the Seattle-based
company said in a statement released to the media.

Forty-three states allow citizens to openly wear a handgun in public.
State laws vary on whether the handgun must be unloaded.

The informal open-carry movement apparently originated in Virginia
several years ago but has come to unlikely prominence in the San
Francisco Bay Area.

In recent months, Bay Area gun advocates have staged frequent open-
carry "meet-ups" at Starbucks coffee shops and other restaurants. Some
of the events have attracted dozens of men and women wearing handguns.

Last weekend, about 20 members of the movement -- 12 of them sporting
guns -- came to Presidio National Park in San Francisco to pick up
trash at scenic Baker Beach.

"We decided to do a serious activity while educating the public about
responsible firearm ownership," said Jon Schwartz, a leader of the
informal movement. He was wearing a Smith & Wesson .45-caliber semi-
automatic on his left hip.

"It's not just law enforcement and criminals that have guns but law-
abiding citizens as well," he said.

Schwartz, like other participants in open-carry events, was carrying
two magazines on his belt with the maximum 10 bullets each. It takes
about two seconds for him to load his weapon.

In California, much of the open-carry movement is focused on
protesting county rules that sharply restrict the number of concealed
weapon permits that are issued.

Bill Shelbrick, who also took part in the beach cleanup, said many of
the open-carry advocates are former police officers and members of the
military who believe they can protect themselves and the people around
them by carrying weapons.

For Shelbrick, an electrician who said he once worked as a police
officer in a Pennsylvania township, wearing his Ruger 9 mm automatic
is an attempt to show the public that law-abiding citizens can go
around armed.

"It's my right and I want to exercise my right," he said. "I think
everybody should. We are not the gun-toting crazies that anti-gun
organizations make us out to be."

The sight of armed men drinking a venti latte at a Starbucks or dining
out at a restaurant can be unsettling for some customers.

Police are frequently called to the scene of open-carry events, where
they typically check to make sure all weapons are unloaded and in
plain sight.

For business owners, open-carry events can create a dilemma. Employees
risk offending armed customers by asking them to leave. But other
patrons might walk out because of the presence of weapons.

Peet's Coffee & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen have banned customers
from wearing handguns on their premises. But Starbucks has allowed the
practice to continue in the states where open carry is legal.

As a result, Starbucks has come under fire from gun-control advocates,
particularly the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which has
urged the chain to ban guns on its premises.

"Tell Starbucks: Espresso Shots, Not Gunshots," the group says on its
Web site. "The practice of packing heat in places like Starbucks is
intimidating and could be potentially dangerous to our families and
communities -- and it must be stopped."

Last month, the Brady campaign sent a letter to Starbucks CEO Howard
Schultz urging him to reverse the company's policy. The campaign noted
that three Starbucks employees were shot and killed at a Washington,
D.C., outlet in 1997 during a robbery attempt.

"These gatherings of armed individuals have provoked a strong and
adverse reaction from members of the public who are appalled that
coffee shops and restaurants would allow guns on their premises," the
letter said.

Starbucks did not cite the Brady Campaign by name in its statement
today, but appeared to be responding to the anti-gun group.

"We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion
surrounding the issue of open-carry weapons laws," the company said.
"Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use
Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions."

The company noted that if it prohibited weapons in its shop, its
employees would have to ask law-abiding citizens to leave, placing
them in "an unfair and potentially unsafe position." The statement
also said the company is "extremely sensitive to the issue of gun
violence in our society" but believes "that supporting local laws is
the right way for us to ensure a safe environment for both partners
and customers."

Whether Starbucks' attempt to disassociate itself from the issue will
work remains to be seen.

"I can't speak for everybody, but I might think twice about having a
large-scale event at Starbucks," said Schwartz, the Bay Area open-
carry advocate. "But I wouldn't think twice about taking myself and my
family and meeting a couple of friends for a great cup of coffee while
participating in unloaded open carry."

**************************************************
36. Buzz and bullets: Gun fans cheer Starbucks' policy
**************************************************

Steve Palmore emailed me this. EM Dale Welch is front-and-center in
this article:

--

http://tinyurl.com/yc4t5m4

http://finance.yahoo.com

Buzz and bullets: Gun fans cheer Starbucks' policy
Gun-rights advocates across the country take their coffee with heat --
and Starbucks abides
Greg Bluestein, Associated Press Writer, On Sunday February 28, 2010,
3:28 pm EST

Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun
strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a
cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one
customer, but not a peep from the baristas.

Welch's foray into the coffeehouse was part of an effort by some gun
owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow
people to openly carry firearms.

Even in some "open carry" states, businesses are allowed to ban guns
in their stores. And some have, creating political confrontations with
gun owners. But Starbucks, the largest chain targeted, has refused to
take the bait, saying in a statement this month that it follows state
and local laws and has its own safety measures in its stores.

"Starbucks is a special target because it's from the hippie West
Coast, and a lot of dedicated consumers who pay $4 for coffee have
expectations that Starbucks would ban guns. And here they aren't,"
said John Bruce, a political science professor at the University of
Mississippi who is an expert in gun policy.

Welch, a 71-year-old retired property manager who lives in Richmond,
Va., doesn't see any reason why he shouldn't bear arms while he gets
caffeinated.

"I don't know of anybody who would provide me with defense other than
myself, so I routinely as a way of life carry a weapon -- and that
extends to my coffee shops," he said.

The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun
enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and
other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry
weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun
control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in
local stores.

Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a
store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking
into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

In one case, about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a
California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, Calif., but after it became
clear they weren't welcome they went to another restaurant. That chain
and Peet's Coffee & Tea are among the businesses that have banned
customers with guns.

Just as shops can deny service to barefoot customers, restaurants and
stores in some states can declare their premises gun-free zones.

The advocacy group OpenCarry.org, a leading group encouraging the
demonstrations, applauded Starbucks in a statement for "deciding not
to discriminate against lawful gun carriers."

"Starbucks is seen as a responsible corporation and they're seen as a
very progressive corporation, and this policy is very much in keeping
with that," said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org. "If you're
going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I
applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every
manager of every Starbucks I pass know that."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has responded by
circulating a petition that soon attracted 26,000 signatures demanding
that Starbucks "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its
coffeehouses "gun-free zones."

Gun control advocates hope the coffeehouse firearms displays end up
aggravating more people than they inspire.

"If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political
theater by frightening children in the local Starbucks, if that's what
you want to spend your energy on, go right ahead," said Peter Hamm, a
spokesman for the Brady campaign. "But going out and wearing a gun on
your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile."

The coffeehouse debate has been particularly poignant for gun-control
advocates in Washington state, where four uniformed police officers
were shot and killed while working on their laptops at a suburban
coffeehouse. The shooter later died in a gun battle with police.

Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire, an advocacy group that seeks
to reduce gun violence, said allowing guns in coffeehouses robs
residents of "societal sanctuaries."

"People go to Starbucks for an escape, just so they can get peace,"
Fascitelli said. "But people walk in with open-carry guns and it
destroys the tranquility."

Gun control advocates have been on the defensive. Their opponents have
trumpeted fears that gun rights would erode under a Democrat-led White
House and Congress, but President Barack Obama and his top allies have
largely been silent on issues such as reviving an assault weapons ban
or strengthening background checks at gun shows.

Gun rights groups are looking to build on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, and cheered
legislation that took effect Monday allowing licensed gun owners to
bring firearms into national parks. Obama signed that legislation as
part of a broader bill.

Legislators in Montana and Tennessee, meanwhile, have passed measures
seeking to exempt guns made and kept in-state from national gun
control laws. And state lawmakers elsewhere are considering
legislation that would give residents more leeway to carry concealed
weapons without permits.

Observers say the gun rights movement is using the Starbucks campaign
to add momentum and energize its supporters.

"They're trying to change the culture with this broader notion of gun
rights," said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University government
professor who has written a book on the politics of gun control. "I
think they are pressing the notion that they've got a rout going, so
why not just get what they can while they're ahead?"

**************************************************
37. Woodbridge man gets life sentence in murder of woman, 80, reading
in park
**************************************************

Bruce Jackson emailed me this about the sentencing of a man who
murdered the wife of VCDL member Roy S. Gillinson in 2007. Justice
was a long time coming. Our condolences again to Roy:

--

http://tinyurl.com/yhz9484

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Woodbridge man gets life sentence in murder of woman, 80, reading in
park

By Tom Jackman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, March 6, 2010

A mentally ill Woodbridge man who shot and killed an 80-year-old woman
as she sat reading on a Fairfax County park bench was sentenced Friday
to life in prison.

After killing Joan M. Gillinson, a retired nurse and mother of four
adult children, Kevin C. Kline, who was 18 at the time, dashed out of
Huntley Meadows Park in the Hybla Valley area and onto a Fairfax
Connector bus with blood on his shirt. Traffic was shut down on Route
1 for hours until Kline was convinced to surrender.

Soon after the Oct. 17, 2007, slaying, it was revealed that Kline had
attacked a 56-year-old woman in her Culpeper County barn with a stun
gun. He was convicted of malicious wounding, and a jury sentenced
Kline to five years in prison. Culpeper Circuit Court Judge John R.
Cullen rejected a prosecutor's request to jail Kline and allowed him
to remain free on bond. Two weeks later, he killed Gillinson.

Fairfax Chief Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Ian M. Rodway said
Gillinson "was let down by what happened in Culpeper."

"Judge Cullen misread the defendant," Rodway said. "The commonwealth
is asking your honor not to misread him."

Rodway added: "This man has no redeeming social value. . . . Give him
the maximum."

Various mental health evaluations delayed the prosecution of the case,
in which Kline ultimately entered pleas in December to first-degree
murder and use of a gun in a felony. The evaluations found that Kline
has paranoid schizophrenia, and he told doctors he "has discovered
cures for major illnesses and can revivify the dead," according to one
report. But the psychologists concluded that Kline understood what he
was doing when he approached Gillinson with the intent to take her car
keys and that he knew it was wrong to shoot her.

When Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Stanley P. Klein asked Kline, 20, if
he had any statement before he was sentenced, the defendant spoke
briefly about having money stolen from him in the Culpeper case and
made some references to "majority rule."

Referring to Gillinson's murder, he said: "Medically speaking, the
person is dead, but her consciousness is still residing in her body
for 72 hours. I think if I'd been given the opportunity to bring this
person back to life, we wouldn't be here. I'm sorry I wasn't given the
opportunity to do so."

And then he sat down.

Klein had a range of 23 years to life in which to sentence Kline. The
judge reminded Kline that he had killed "an 80-year-old woman who did
nothing other than to go out to a park to relax on a nice day."
Gillinson was a regular in Huntley Meadows, known to park employees,
and was described by family and friends as a sweet and helpful woman.

The judge acknowledged Kline's mental illness and a difficult
upbringing, mostly with his mother, Ellen Wagner, who prosecutors said
never got psychiatric treatment for her son and was once convicted of
child neglect for locking him out of the house. After Kline's
conviction in Culpeper on Oct. 2, 2007, he was ordered to live with
his father, but he told police he swiped a 9-mm pistol from his
mother's boyfriend, then went to Huntley Meadows looking for someone
to rob for car keys. He wanted to drive to New York to see a
girlfriend whom he had met online.

Kline told police he confronted Gillinson, but she refused to give him
her keys, so he shot her. Passersby saw him trying to cover
Gillinson's body with leaves and dialed 911, and Kline ran out of the
park.

"I'm going to do whatever in my power I can," Klein said, "to make
sure no one else meets the fate Mrs. Gillinson had to meet."

Kline's father, Thomas Kline, sat quietly in the back of the
courtroom. Afterward, he offered "my deepest apologies" to the
Gillinson family, but he did not speak directly to them. "He had a
terrible upbringing," Kline said. "I just wish he could have had the
help he needed a long time ago."

Roy S. Gillinson, Joan Gillinson's husband, said he thought the life
sentence was appropriate, although his son Andrew wished the death
penalty had been sought. Roy Gillinson said his wife "was of the most
gentle, sweet-natured character and had been my best friend and life's
companion for 60 years. . . . I leave it to the imagination what a
devastating effect her loss has continued to mean to me and my
family."

**************************************************
38. Bill allows gun safety class for school children
**************************************************

Bill Hine emailed me this:

--

http://tinyurl.com/yjzzuve

http://www.nbc12.com

Bill allows gun safety class for school children

Associated Press - March 4, 2010 12:05 PM ET

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A proposal to require the State Board of
Education to develop a program of firearm safety education for
elementary education students is advancing in the Senate.

The Senate Education and Health Committee voted 10-5 Thursday in favor
of the bill, which will make the program optional for local school
boards.

The bill originally required the program to be modeled after the
National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program. The bill was
amended to include the National Crime Prevention Council's program.
[PVC: Actually, the Senate amendment refers to the National Crime
Prevention Center, an anti-gun Canadian organization."]

Opponents argued allowing the NRA to teach gun safety was a form of
propaganda for the gun-rights organization akin to cigarette makers
using cartoon characters to target minors.

Supporters said the program teaches children not to touch guns found
in a home.

**************************************************
39. Wyoming: CORRECTION
**************************************************

An alert VCDL member emailed me this to clarify Wyoming's CCW
reciprocity rules.

--

It isn't quite any other permit, it is any other permitted State that
recognizes the WY permit. This is what the Wyoming statute says
currently, I think since VA already recognizes WY permits the law has
already been updated:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/st ... T6CH8AR1.h
tm

6-8-104. Wearing or carrying concealed weapons; penalties;
exceptions; permits.

(iii) The person holds a valid permit authorizing him to carry a
concealed firearm authorized and issued by a governmental agency or
entity in another state that recognizes Wyoming permits, is a valid
statewide permit, and the state has laws similar to the provisions of
this section, as determined by the attorney general, including a
proper background check of the permit holder.

**************************************************
40. LTE: How can fewer guns equal more safety?
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/yge9g74

http://www.roanoke.com

How can fewer guns equal more safety?

Luanne Traud asks in her column "More guns, less safety" of Feb. 21
how people know that a person with a concealed carry permit is a law-
abiding citizen who "wouldn't think of mixing a six-shooter and a shot
of whiskey."

The simple explanation is that people with concealed carry permits
have gone to the trouble and expense of obtaining a permit, an
indication that they have an interest in being law-abiding citizens.
You can carry a concealed weapon without obtaining a permit if you
have no interest in obeying laws.

The real question is how did she come up with the premise that more
guns means less safety?

To quote Gary Kleck, a professor of criminology at Florida State
University and author of several books based on his research, "if
criminals have guns and use them in attacks on people, the victims are
more likely to die." Additionally, he says that "strong evidence has
found that crime victims who use guns during a crime are less likely
to be injured or killed, and less likely to lose property than crime
victims who adopt any other strategy, including nonresistance."

JACKIE COLLINS
BLACKSBURG

**************************************************
41. LTE pokes fun at Post's one gun a month repeal "mayhem fallacy"
**************************************************

http://tinyurl.com/ygh5z37

http://www.washingtonpost.com

Shooting holes in theories about Virginia gun sales
Saturday, February 27, 2010

In the Feb. 18 editorial "Shoot 'em up in Richmond," The Post claimed
that "mayhem" will result if the Virginia General Assembly repeals its
one-gun-a-month law and dismisses the instant-background-check system
by arguing that "plenty of corrupt gun dealers circumvent the system
by selling guns off the books or to straw buyers."
Selling guns without keeping required dealer records and knowingly
selling to straw purchasers already are illegal acts, regardless of
the one-gun-a-month law. The Post's argument is the unsustainable
proposition that these supposedly "plenty of" corrupt dealers will
knowingly and willfully violate those legal requirements while obeying
the one-gun-per-month limit.

I can see the "corrupt" dealer now: "Okay, if you don't tell anybody,
I'll sell you this gun with no paperwork, and you can give it to your
buddy who's a convicted felon -- but the law says I can do this only
once per month."

Bill Taggart, Richmond

**************************************************
42. Anti-gun Organizations Join Forces To Boost Advocacy Efforts
**************************************************

Bruce Jackson emailed me this. Antis are combining forces to make
their minuscule membership look larger:

--

http://tinyurl.com/yfco4od

http://www.personalliberty.com

Anti-gun Organizations Join Forces To Boost Advocacy Efforts
March 5, 2010 by Personal Liberty News Desk
Two gun violence prevention organizations have announced they are
joining forces in an effort to strengthen state-level advocacy
efforts.

Freedom States Alliance (FSA) merged with States United to Prevent Gun
Violence (SUPGV) and assumed its name on Feb. 23. The new
organizations' stated goal is to support existing state-based gun
violence prevention organizations and expand the network of groups
working to reduce gun violence in America.

"Despite the tragic and ongoing epidemic of gun violence in this
country, policymakers remain unwilling to take any meaningful action
to address this urgent public safety issue," said Sally Slovenski,
executive director of SUPGV.

She added that the merger will increase opportunities for the sharing
of resources and strategies for state groups with a view of
influencing anti-gun agenda "in state houses across the country."

As a an example of grassroots success, SUPGV cited Ceasefire New
Jersey whose advocacy helped pass a one-gun-a-month law in the state.

However, in one commentary after the announcement, a blogger writing
for GunPoliticsNY.com, dismissed the move by stating that "fresh off
their defeat with the new federal law allowing guns in national parks,
[these]organizations are merging in an attempt to remain relevant."

The amendment to the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2009,
authored by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), which permits national park
visitors to possess firearms consistent with the laws of the state in
which the park is located, went into effect on Feb. 22.






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