04/24/11 - VCDL Update 4/24/11

Post by **allingeneral** » Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:31:28

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. VCDL on Freedom and Prosperity Radio this weekend
2. Gun insurance information
3. Correction to Utah concealed handgun permit information
4. Update on photographs being taken of CHP applicants
5. TV interview: VCDL Vice-President Jim Snyder explains new AG ruling on concealed carry in churches
6. Cuccinelli says gun in worship service permissible
7. Another story on guns in church
8. Editorial: Pistols in the pews
9. Who needs a gun in a barber shop?
10. 'Off-duty' deputy apprehends armed suspect involved in domestic assault
11. Illinois Supreme Court victory
12. Barbara Boxer at it again -- S. 176 would require all states to be "may issue" CCW
13. Media Matters' potentially lethal distortions on guns (NICS false positives)
14. High cap freedom: The sixth reason
15. Gun control group challenges Obama on "clips"
16. Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley
17. Video: What to do when stopped by the police
18. Video: 750 lb gator killed by NAA mini revolver
19. Duct tape alert: "Every gun owner is responsible for all crime."
20.VCDL a strong presence at the Shad Planking!
21. VCDL NRA convention get together

**************************************************1. VCDL on Freedom and Prosperity Radio this weekend**************************************************

I was interviewed about the push to register private sales of guns by Joe Thomas with Freedom and Prosperity Radio. The interview will air this weekend, April 23 and 24. It will be available in the show's archives, as well:

http://tertiumquids.org/freedom-and-pro ... radio.html

**************************************************2. Gun insurance information **************************************************

EM Patricia Webb did an important presentation on insuring your guns at the last VCDL membership meeting in Charlottesville.

ARE YOU COVERED?

Do you know how much your firearms are worth? Do you know how much your insurance covers in the event of a fire or theft? We found out the hard way when my son's house was broken into. The thief stole a small safe which was temporarily not bolted down due to some painting going on. This safe held 3 handguns. The insurance covered up to $5,000.00, which sadly did not cover the cost of replacing these guns. That led me to my search for affordable insurance without having to provide the insurance company with an itemized list of all of my guns.

What I found was that there are companies out there that specialize in insuring collections. Some specifically insure gun collections. The company that I settled on does not require that you provide them with an inventory of your guns, nor do they call for an appraisal. It is important to note that the exception is when a single item is valued at over $5,000.00. In that case, that one item must be listed on the policy. In addition, this policy covers ammunition and accessories (think reloaders, holsters, scopes, safes, etc.).

So how does this work? You would need to make a list of all your guns that you wish to insure. You keep the list. I have a form in my computer that I fill out each time I purchase a new gun (or sell one for that matter). The form lists a description of the firearm, the serial number, any distinguishing marks, the date of purchase and purchase price, the current value and date of valuation, any included accessories, etc. It also has a place for the date sold and to whom. When I buy a new gun I fill this form out and include pictures of the gun making sure to photograph the serial number and any special features. You can also incorporate a scanned copy or a photograph of any receipts. This goes into a file that is backed up off site. Let me say that again=85the file is backed up off site! That way if there is a fire and my computer burns up with my collection I have a surviving record to give the insurance company.

After you make your list you must do a little research to value your collection. This can be done online pretty easily. Once you assess the value, simply fill out the application and submit it. The company I chose has an online application process complete with online payment options. It is important to note that filling out the application does not bind the policy. You will have to receive confirmation from the carrier before your coverage takes effect. Also, as you add to your collection you must be careful that you notify the insurer if your new value exceeds your coverage limits.

I have included a link to three different insurance companies, but I encourage you to go online and do your own research. There are several companies out there that insure collections and you may find that another firm better suits your needs. Here are some sample rates for Collectables Insurance:

Stated Value No Safeguards With Safeguards

10,000 $56.00/year $56.00/year

25,000 140.00/year 140.00/year

75,000 420.00/year 380.00/year

These are just a few figures off of a rate chart that goes from $3,000.00 to $200,000.00 in value. As you can see, these rates are pretty affordable. From what I have researched, these prices are much more reasonable than adding a rider to one's home-owners policy. Requirements about the safeguards can be found on the web site listed below and individual quotes will likely vary depending on circumstances. Here are the links:

www.collectinsure.com

info*collectinsure.com

Collector's Insurance11350 McCormick RoadEP #1 Suite 700Hunt Valley, MD 21031(888) 837-9537 toll free(410) 876-9233 fax

Another alternative is ArmsCare Plus, an NRA endorsed company. They require scheduling any one item valued at over $2,500.00, but do not require serial numbers. There contact info is:

http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/ArmsCarePlus.htm

Individual NRA Members Insurance 1-877-NRA-3006 (Option #3)NRAIns*locktonrisk.com

Club Affiliates & Business Affiliates1-877-487-5407NRAClub*locktonrisk.com

NRA Endorsed Insurance ProgramProperty & Casualty PlansPO Box 410679Kansas City, MO 64141-0679

The third company is Core-Vens Insurance. Their rates begin at $300.00/year, but they specialize in larger collections and also insure big game trophies and so forth. They tell me that if your collection is over $60,000.00 in value that they are usually very competitive. They can be reached as follows:

www.corevens.com

Core-Vens InsurancePost Office Box 10282301 N. 2nd Street,Clinton, Iowa 52733-1028

800-796-9907 phone5633-242-5242 fax

Email: GunInsurance*corevens.com

Again, I urge you to do your own research. Whatever company you consider, ask them to provide you with a sample policy to look over. Also review your homeowner's policy, life insurance policy and auto policy. It would be a shame to have a claim denied because your policy doesn't cover you in a self defense situation! This is a time when you most need your insurance. The important thing to keep in mind here is that you need to read and understand your policy. If you don't understand it, ask your agent for clarification. In addition, when you renew you need to read and compare the renewal to the old policy. Insurance agencies can change terms, covered items and exclusions. When done during a policy period they must send you notice, but when done at renewal it is a whole new contract and they can easily slip things past you if you are not alert. I hope you never need to file a claim, but if you do I hope you have found this information helpful.

**************************************************3. Correction to Utah concealed handgun permit information**************************************************

A correction to item #15 in the VCDL Update 4/14/11 "Utah permit changes":

For NEW Utah non-resident Concealed Handgun Permits, you must have a Virginia CHP to qualify after May 10th, 2011. For renewals of existing Utah non-resident permits, if you renew after January 1, 2012, then you will need to have a Virginia CHP to qualify.

**************************************************4. Update on photographs being taken of CHP applicants**************************************************

VCDL EM and Richmond defense attorney Mark Matthews has taken on the task of contacting all the offending localities who are photographing CHP applicants. Thanks to all of you letting us know which localities were offenders, we now have the following list:

RoanokePortsmouthSuffolkBotetourt CountyWestmoreland CountySussex County

The first to respond so far is Chief Hargis with the Portsmouth PD, who has now stopped the practice. It seems there was never a policy by his department on this and it was probably something that was done because it had always been done that way. Prior to 1995, such photographs would have been legal, as judges had discretion in issuing permits.

Thank you, Chief for doing the right thing quickly!

**************************************************5. TV interview: VCDL Vice-President Jim Snyder explains new AG ruling on concealed carry in churches **************************************************

Jim Snyder emailed me this:

--

=46rom NBC Washington: http://tinyurl.com/62fgesy

**************************************************6. Cuccinelli says gun in worship service permissible**************************************************

Bruce Jackson emailed me this:

--

=46rom the Richmond Times-Dispatch:http://tinyurl.com/3egx5wc

[SNIP]Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has issued a legal opinion that it is lawful in Virginia to carry a weapon into a worship service for personal protection.

But he also says a place of worship, like any other owner of private property, can bar guns.

Cuccinelli issued the opinion Friday in response to a query from Del. Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania. Cole had tried unsuccessfully this year to win passage of a bill that would have codified the right to carry a firearm in church.

**************************************************7. Another story on guns in church **************************************************

=46rom hamptonroads.com: http://tinyurl.com/3oopogu

Cuccinelli concludes guns in church are legalBy Julian WalkerThe Virginian-Pilot(c) April 12, 2011RICHMOND

Packing heat is permissible in churches and other religious facilities in certain circumstances, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has advised a state lawmaker.

A section of state law specifies that individuals who carry firearms or blades into a place of worship while a religious meeting is being held "without good and sufficient reason" are guilty of a Class 4 misdemeanor. A conviction carries a maximum fine of $250.

Responding to a request from Del. Mark Cole, R-Spotsylvania County, for an interpretation of that law, Cuccinelli wrote that "carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason."

Cuccinelli's Friday opinion, which is not legally binding, added that places of worship can restrict or ban firearms from their premises just as other private property owners can.

The advice was heralded in an email by Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, who said Cole requested an opinion on behalf of the league.

He called Cuccinelli's guidance "excellent news," adding that he has been asked about the issue by clergy.

In his response to Cole, Cuccinelli said the statute has "been the source of multiple inquiries to this office."

Cole sought the advice after constituents contacted him about the legality of carrying a weapon to church for personal protection.

Cole argues that the current law is poorly written and vague, raising questions about whether it can be enforced.

Seeking to clarify it, Cole last year sponsored a bill to permit people with concealed handgun permits to bring firearms to church if they receive permission from a faith leader. That measure failed to advance. [PVC: Republican Leadership never assigned that bill to a subcommittee, so it never had the chance to be voted on at all.]

**************************************************8. Editorial: Pistols in the pews**************************************************

More panicking over something that was nothing more than a clarification on the law. Do those who don't want this clarified realize it is a JIm Crow law? The anti-freedom members of the press need to take a deep breath, hold it for a few seconds, and let it out slowly while thinking pleasant thoughts. (Although I expect their version of pleasant thoughts would be to picture everyone holding hands with Charlie Manson, Cho, and Loughner while singing Kumbaya...)

Bruce Jackson emailed me this:

--

=46rom dailypress.com:http://tinyurl.com/3c8l43v

Editorial: Pistols in the pewsKen Cuccinelli offers another opinion that will make Virginia the butt of jokes9:16 a.m. EDT, April 13, 2011

Is it going to come to this: Will the ushers who pass the offering plates "pass the ammunition," too?

That's the scenario that comes to mind following state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's latest contribution to the fund of things that will doubtless make outsiders poke fun at Virginia. It's an opinion that says that people are free to carry guns into places of worship, unless the church bans or restricts them.

We thought state law said differently. Specifically, it says that it's a misdemeanor to carry a dangerous weapon into a place of worship while a "meeting for religious purposes" is going on unless an individual has a "good and sufficient" reason to be armed. We thought that meant something like having a threat made against you.

To Cuccinelli, "Because you want to" is a good enough reason. Basically, his argument is that the right to bear arms is grounded in the right of self-defense, and that personal protection is a "good and sufficient" reason to stash a semi-automatic next to the hymnal.

The carve-out of churches never made much sense. We allow guns practically everywhere on public property, including streets and libraries, parks and public buildings. The exception are obvious ones: schools, airport terminals and courthouses. On private property, the choice is up to the owners. So why were churches set aside as a special category of place?

Cuccinelli's opinion is just that; it carries some weight, because it can be cited in court cases, but it doesn't have the weight of law.

But just in case, the elders/deacons/vestry/pastors/rectors of Virginia churches might want to decide whether they want guns in their sacred spaces and, if they don't, make that known. Unless they do that, if a problem arose, the case might be made that the default position is that guns are permitted.

The opinion was requested by Del. Mark Cole, who has tried to get the General Assembly to pass legislation permitting concealed guns in churches with the permission of a meeting's leader. The get-an-AG-opinion tactic succeeded where bill-writing failed.

What is lamentable is that gun bills that addressed real needs also failed. Like legislation that would close the loophole that enables people who by law can't buy guns to do so, so long as they buy from private sellers at gun shows. Licensed dealers at the shows have to run purchasers through background checks, to weed out those who aren't allowed to have guns (like convicted felons and people who have protective orders against them). Private sellers don't have to vet their customers.

Never-give-an-inch gun rights activists insist there's no such loophole. There is. It helps make Virginia a leading exporter of illegal guns. Sloppy procedures at some guns shows and some dealers put into the wrong hands guns that cause a lot of carnage.

Also unfortunate is the state's refusal to let localities tailor gun laws to their own needs. Alexandria got slapped down when it tried to ban guns from city offices. You can see why that might be a good idea to protect city workers, like those who have, for example, to tell people that their children will be put in foster care or their benefits will be cut. When tempers flare, guns shouldn't be at hand. But the powers in Richmond insisted that they know what's right for Alexandria. Just as they know better than the localities that want to ban guns in their parks.

It's no surprise to find Cuccinelli taking a position that endears him to the far right. That's comfortable territory for him, and though it takes him places he ought not go, like rummaging around in UVa's records to try to discredit a climate scientist, it doesn't mean he isn't sometimes correct, like when he challenged the constitutionality of the health care reform law. He made no bones about his views when he was running for office. Virginians elected him, and they have to live with being the butt of the occasional joke as a result.

**************************************************9. Who needs a gun in a barber shop?**************************************************

=46rom the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/3us8g6n

Worker dispute led to barbershop shooting, Fairfax police sayBy Matt Zapotosky, Thursday, April 14, 6:31 PM

A man who allegedly opened fire Wednesday at a Fairfax County barbershop, killing one man and wounding another, was an ex-employee motived by a dispute with his former co-workers, police said Thursday.

Hung T. Nguyen, 44, of the 7800 block of Heritage Drive in Annandale, surrendered at the county's Sully District police station about 11 p.m. Wednesday, authorities said. He was charged with murder in the fatal shooting of barber Le D. Hoang, 39, of the Alexandria section of Fairfax, and he will soon be facing other charges in the shooting and wounding of Hoang's 38-year-old co-worker, authorities said.

The wounded co-worker, whom police did not identify, is expected to survive, authorities said.

Officer Tawny Wright, a Fairfax police spokeswoman, said Nguyen used to work at the barbershop in the 1600 block of Belle View Boulevard, but left voluntarily within the last few months. She said detectives think he returned to the shop and opened fire after 2 p.m. Wednesday because of a dispute with employees at the shop. She declined to elaborate.

The shooting rocked the close-knit group of grocers, jewelers and other retailers who work in the quiet strip mall in Fairfax's Alexandria section. On Thursday, someone had affixed a piece of notebook paper to the barbershop's front door that read "Closed Today." People inside declined to comment.

Truc Ngo, who works at a nearby nail salon, said employees of the barbershop told her that the shooter came by Wednesday to pick up a tax document. She said she was told that he had "some problem" with his former co-workers, but didn't know the details. NBC4 reported that Nguyen's roommate had shared letters he wrote with the TV station indicating the shooting "stemmed from an incident involving the suspect's lunch being thrown away."

No one answered the door at Nguyen's home on Thursday. Two women who pulled up in a car said they lived there, but they knew only that Nguyen rented a room. Family members could not be reached.

A neighbor of Hoang's who declined to be identified to protect his privacy said Hoang and Nguyen were friends, and Nguyen would occasionally visit Hoang at his townhouse. He said nothing seemed amiss with either man.

Hoang, the neighbor said, came to the United States from Vietnam in the mid-1990s with his mother, father and three younger siblings. He said the family felt unsafe in Vietnam.

In the United States, though, the family prospered, the neighbor said. Hoang and his siblings all attended college, he said.

A man who said he used to live with Nguyen on Heritage Drive described Nguyen as a "good man" with a "hot temper." He said he had eaten lunch with Nguyen, who is single and has no children, on the day of the shooting and that Nguyen seemed "a little sad."

But the former roommate said it wasn't unusual for Nguyen, who he said seemed unhappy living in the United States. He said Nguyen never talked to him about the barbershop, including on the day of the shooting.

The former roommate said Nguyen had recently returned from Vietnam and was staying elsewhere. The neighbor said Hoang, who was single, was living with relatives in the family home on Staghorn Court.

"They're all good people," the neighbor said. "They really supported each other."

**************************************************10. 'Off-duty' deputy apprehends armed suspect involved in domestic assault**************************************************

Steve Carrick emailed me this:

--

Don't know if you subscribe to police alerts, but this off duty cop's "off duty firearm" sounds suspiciously like a personally owned concealed firearm.

Either way it's still a good guns save lives story.

From: Loudoun Sheriff alert26403*alert.loudoun.gov

'Off-Duty' Deputy Apprehends Armed Suspect involved in Domestic Assault

Loudoun County, VA: It was a typical Sunday afternoon as Deputy First Class James D. Spurlock, Jr., was running some errands with a family member in the Front Royal, VA area. Spurlock was off-duty- If there is such a thing when you are a member of law enforcement.

DFC Spurlock was in the area of Route 522 and Water Street on April 10, 2011 when he observed a man running in the middle of the street and in between cars with what appeared to be a knife in one of his hands. The suspect then became agitated as he approached a pick-up truck occupied by a man and woman. The suspect reached into the vehicle and grabbed the driver and then punched the hood of the pick-up truck. He approached the female passenger as she was exiting the vehicle. The suspect grabbed the woman by her neck and started to shake her in what was later to be determined a domestic assault. Spurlock called 911 and parked his car to secure his family member before taking action.

As DFC Spurlock approached the scene he saw the female involved in the altercation running towards him. He continued towards the suspect and displayed his off-duty firearm. He then ordered the suspect to get on the ground. The suspect eventually complied and he was found to have two knives in his pockets.

A few moments later members of the Warren County Sheriff's Office and the Front Royal Police Department arrived on the scene and took the suspect into custody. The suspect was charged by the Front Royal Police Department with destruction of property and two counts of assault and battery.

"Often we hear the terms 'routine patrol' and 'off-duty' when it comes to law enforcement. I can tell you nothing is routine when a deputy is patrolling the streets and in law enforcement - you are never off-duty," said Loudoun Sheriff Steve Simpson. "Deputy Spurlock's actions in this case and Deputy Heller's potentially life-saving actions last week are two prime examples of members of law enforcement expecting the unexpected and taking the proper actions," Simpson added.

Last week Loudoun Sheriff's Deputy Robert Heller was waived down by a distraught mother on Route 7 near Inova Loudoun Hospital. Her 14-year-old daughter was in the car and had gone into anaphylactic shock after an asthma attack. Heller quickly assessed the situation and decided based on the child's grave medical condition and his close proximity to the Lansdowne campus of INOVA Loudoun Hospital, it would be best to place the teenager in his cruiser and rush her to the emergency room. Emergency room personnel said Heller's meritorious actions likely resulted in the child's recovery.

DFC Spurlock has over 17-years of law enforcement experience and is currently assigned to the Special Operations Division in the Crime Prevention Unit.. In 2009 he received the Virginia Veterans of Foreign Wars Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer of the Year Award.

Sent to E-mail accounts through Alert Loudoun.... powered by the Roam Secure Alert Network

**************************************************11. Illinois Supreme Court victory **************************************************

That is great news! It confirms that as far as transporting goes, a permit holder from another state has the same rights as an Illinois Firearms Owner Identification card (FOID) holder - the gun can be in the passenger area with you, but must be unloaded and encased.

While the ruling implies a permit is something needed to own or buy a gun like the Illinois FOID, the Indiana permit, like the Virginia permit, is only a permit to carry and that was the permit that was ruled as equivalent to a FOID card for transporting a firearm.

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:

--

=46rom The Volokh Conspiracy:http://tinyurl.com/3ckbhlu

linois Supreme Court Victory for (Some) Nonresidents Who Transport Guns in Their CarsEugene Volokh * April 14, 2011 4:37 pm

The case is People v. Holmes (Apr. 7); the court overturned an appellate court decision that essentially barred people who don't live in Illinois from transporting guns in their cars (since those people can't get Illinois Firearm Owners Identification cards).

Under the court's interpretation of Illinois statutes, people who are "licensed or registered to possess a firearm" under the laws of their states of residence are treated the same -- at least for this purpose -- as people who live in Illinois and have Illinois Firearm Owners Identification cards. The decision, however, doesn't benefit people who lawfully own guns in their home states, but don't have a license or registration for the gun because their home states don't require such licenses or registration.

This is just a decision under Illinois statutes, and has no broader constitutional dimensions; for information about the constitutional challenge to Illinois restrictions on nonresidents, see this post. Still, I thought the decision might be interesting to our readers. Thanks to Tim Nuccio for the pointer.

**************************************************12. Barbara Boxer at it again -- S. 176 would require all states to be "may issue" CCW**************************************************

I don't see Boxer's bill going anywhere. But she does hate the freedoms that the "little people" enjoy. The second bill is a pro-freedom bill by Senator Tester.

Bob Johnson emailed me this:

--

=46rom www.govtrack.us:

S. 176 - REQUIRES "may issue" CCW laws in all states http://tinyurl.com/3dca4eq

S. 570 - Bill to prohibit the DOJ from tracking and cataloguing the purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns (Tester)http://tinyurl.com/3zchqjj

**************************************************13. Media Matters' potentially lethal distortions on guns (NICS false positives)**************************************************

=46rom biggovernment.com:http://tinyurl.com/4x92eqb

Media Matters' Potentially Lethal Distortions on Gunsby John R. Lott, Jr.Posted Apr 5th 2011 at 10:01 am

Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals, but gun control advocates, such as Media Matters, don't want to acknowledge that there are costs to disarming law-abiding citizens. Lately Media Matters has particularly been incensed that anyone would point out that the vast majority of denials from Brady Act background checks involve so-called "false positives" -- law-abiding citizens incorrectly being identified as banned individuals.

Media Matters claims that all those stopped by the background checks from buying guns are prohibited individuals, that no mistakes are made by the government. And Media Matters is willing to engage in any amount of name calling and fraudulent photos to attack those who question their claims.

There are several things to understand about how the Brady Law background check process works. At gun stores or other registered dealers, would-be buyers have to fill out a form asking whether there are any criminal convictions or types of mental illness that would prevent them from legally purchasing the weapon. Falsely answering these questions amounts to perjury. If someone answers the question by saying that they have a background that prohibits them from buying, a gun dealers stop right there and do not even process those forms. And if someone is believed to have knowingly provided false information on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) form and prosecutors believe that they can prove that knowingly false information was provided, the would-be buyer faces prosecution.

Yet, the NICS system accidentally flags many law-abiding people, stopping those who simply have the same name as a prohibited individual from buying a gun. The same problem occurred five times for the late Senator Ted Kennedy when he was placed on a "no fly list." If someone is flagged by the NICS system, it is because it appears that they didn't put down something in their background that disqualified them from buying a gun. Yet, an initial denial does not mean that the individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun. Take the numbers for 2008, the latest year with data available. There were 78,906 initial denials. Of those, only 5,573, or 7 percent, were referred to the BATF for further investigation. As a report on these denials by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, "The remaining denials (73,333 - 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information." To put it differently, the initial review didn't find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun.

Still that isn't the end of the story. Of these 5,573 referrals, over 44 percent, or 2,472 cases, involve "delayed denials," cases where a check hasn't even been completed. Of the rest, 3,101 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. But the government admits that upon further review about a fifth of these referrals involved "no potential or unfounded" violations of the law, leaving about 4,400 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.4%. And it still doesn't mean that the government hasn't made a mistake on the remaining cases. In some cases for example, a person's criminal record was supposed to be expunged, and it had not been?

Up until this point, no discretion about the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that someone is a prohibited individual, they are included. But of these 4,400 cases, only 147 cases involving banned individuals trying to purchase guns being referred to prosecutors. Of those 147 cases, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 105 times.Prosecution may be declined either because further investigation revealed that the person wasn't prohibited from owning a gun, because false information hadn't knowingly been provided, or prosecutors didn't believe that the cases "merited" prosecution. But if someone is indeed prohibited from owning a gun and they left that information off their NICS form, it is relatively easy for authorities to prove they knowingly concealed that information. The most frequently claimed reasons that people failed the background checks are: "restraining orders, domestic violence misdemeanors, non-immigrant aliens, violent felonies, warrants, and indictments." How hard is it for prosecutors to prove that someone hadn't accidentally forgotten that they had a conviction for a violent felony or they had a restraining order?

While prosecutors tend to go forward with their strongest cases, those prosecuted are often not found guilty. By the end of 2009, prosecutors had only 43 convictions, and only 22 of those involved falsified information when buying a gun or illegal possession of a gun, that translates into just 0.03% of the 78,906 initial denials.

So we have two estimates of the false positive rate: 94.4% or 99.97%. The first estimate is obviously too low, it assumes that all the cases identified up to that point are accurate. The second estimate is obviously too high, it only counts as prohibited individuals those who have been proven so beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. These numbers are just one of the reason that no study by criminologists or economists has found that the Federal Brady Law has reduced national crime rates.

Of course, being falsely labeled as being ineligible to own a gun isn't the only cost imposed on law-abiding Americans. Even those who aren't prevented from buying a gun face delays in getting approved. Eight percent of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System checks are "not resolved immediately." Two-thirds of those checks take up to 3 business days, and the rest take even longer, though these further delays can't stop one from obtaining a gun at that point.

Media Matter's Responses

Media Matters comically attacks me as "either willfully or ignorantly misunderstanding the background check system," that I have ignored their past comments (in fact, see here and here for my previous responses), that I am "the gun lobby's apologist-in-chief," and asserts my "apparent disregard for scientific rigor." Those are just a small fraction of their claims. Given that Media Matters has no problem using a doctored picture of me (editing the color of my hair, skin, and clothes and distorting my hair) presumably because they believe that it makes me look bad, it is surprising that even people such as Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong never question whether Media Matters will use doctored screen shots of webpages. (Of course, it is not uncommon for opponents to use doctored information see here and here.)

But aside from the false personal attacks that are Media Matters' trademark, Media Matters claims to have talked to two people who have studied the NICS system: M. Kristen Rand, Legislative Director for the Violence Policy Center, a group that backs banning guns, and in a later post, Ronald Fransen, the researcher whose report on the NICS system that is referenced above. While Ms. Rand's quotes only refer to the 5,573 number discussed above, Media Matters interprets her comments as claiming that all those initial denials stopped "prohibited persons." Mr. Fransen emphasizes that on average only about 8,600 people per year stick it out through an appeals process to get the initial denial overturned, but he fails to discuss that all cases involving evidence that a prohibited person tried to buy a gun are referred to the BATF field divisions for investigation. No discretion is involved at that stage.

Media Matters has even expressed outrage over a post at BigGovernment that it seemed that everyone understood, "[Lott's] assertion that 'The Obama administration has been a consistent opponent of gun ownership.'" Yet, Media Matters doesn't even try to defend Obama's push for the U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty or the nomination of Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms given his anti-gun statements in the past, let alone Obama's appointments to the Supreme Court and other lower courts. It tells us something when Media Matters can't even admit this simple fact.

Conclusion

Media Matters' founder, David Brock, claims that his group is in an all-out campaign of "guerrilla warfare and sabotage" against Fox News and a handful of conservative websites. The term "sabotage" surely sounds like something a group that uses doctored pictures would say. Media Matters has recently made a long string of false claims about my work. Possibly they just want to spend George Soros' money making so many false claims that their political opponents either don't have the time to respond to all the attacks or can get nothing else done because they are responding.

The issue of how frequently the NICS system inconveniences law-abiding Americans needs to be taken seriously. That most of the 1.4% of denials appear to involve false positives or that 8 percent of the checks are delayed, the point is that law-abiding Americans may be more than inconvenienced. It isn't just a cost of doing business that makes it difficult for gun shows and gun stores to operate. If someone is being stalked or threatened, delays in getting a gun may make the difference between life and death.

**************************************************14. High cap freedom: The sixth reason**************************************************

Jay Britt emailed me this:

--

=46rom Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership:http://tinyurl.com/3rghlvv

"High Cap Freedom"

The Sixth Reason

By Kirby Ferris

After having formally launched JPFO's "High Capacity Freedom" campaign (aka "High Cap Freedom"), JPFO's Rabbi Dovid Bendory listed five reasons why you would WANT (not "need") a high capacity ammunition magazine.

We purposely held back at that time the crucial "Sixth Reason". It has "stand alone" significance, and is probably the most important reason for an armed citizenry to "keep and bear" significant weaponry and ammunition capacity.

It has been called the "elephant in the room" of American gun rights. Few in the Second Amendment movement are comfortable contemplating this critical issue. The matter is simple: "We the People", as a coast to coast and border to border conglomerate, must retain the armed might to, FAILING ALL OTHER RECOURSE, overthrow our own government. It is a gut wrenching and heartbreaking option, but an option that must be potently retained for the sake of our liberty and the liberty of our descendants.

The Declaration of Independence spells out this unalienable right to revolt, and lists some of the basic reasons for which it might be exercised. Despite what the liars of the ADL and Southern Poverty Law Center might blather, this concept is not something new that has sprouted from the minds of "seditionists" and "insurrectionists" (their new code words for determined American gun owners).

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights for predominantly this purpose, to warn off tyrants. The States are to remain free. State Militias were to deter the intrusive potential of a national standing army. Defense against foreign invasion was a secondary, not the primary, motivation for penning 2A.

The Founders had an instinctive distrust of government, and especially a centralized Federal government that might someday drift towards the tyranny of a monarchy. At the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights this distrust had become deep and profound. America had just cast off the authoritarian rule of England and was in absolutely no mind to allow such tyranny and despotism to rise again ... from whatever quarter.

To realistically achieve this "detente" or "balance of power" with the Federal government and the heavy handed bureaucracies under its control, the American citizenry must now have, as much as ever, some semblance of parity in regards to weaponry.

The Founders' distrust of government has proven true on an international scale. Governments gone bad have been far too frequent, most horrifically in the last hundred years of world history. The death toll of citizens disarmed and then murdered by their own governments, or factions supported by those governments, is simply appalling. See:"Innocents Betrayed"

The Second Amendment, unarguably meant to establish and maintain a widely armed citizenry, is the guardian against home grown tyranny. It is the only true guarantee that the power resides with the people, regardless of the moral fiber of the politicians in power. Elections are only effective if they remain honest. The somber truth is that freedom's "bottom line" remains the "bullet box", not the ballot box. Were it not so, but it is.

This is why the Second Amendment made no limitation on the type of personal firearms it covered. It was obvious and understood that the citizens' standard would at least be equal to the standard of a common soldier.

Our soldiers can pack 30 round ammunition magazines with their AR15s. Why shouldn't we? Parity of weaponry was the standard in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was penned, and it remained the standard for more than 140 of our nation's first years.

The irony of this modern debate over so-called "assault weapons" and "high capacity ammunition magazines" is accentuated by the fact that, up until 1934, American citizens could lawfully own unregistered machine guns! Again, that's more than 140 years of American history wherein the citizen could arm him or herself on equal to a foot soldier. How come, all of a sudden, this historical parity, this absolutely logical "balance of power", is in question today?

The answer? Because the elitists and authoritarians who lust to rule over us want the citizenry, "We the Little People", completely disarmed. They want a neutered flock of disarmed and obedient subjects, a state of affairs similar to that of Britain, France, Germany or Japan.

But what are the elites in America stuck with now? As citizens, en masse, our combined might comprises at least EIGHTY MILLION GUN OWNERS.

This somber reality remains an armed deterrent, a deep and rumbling reminder to the police forces and military forces that, at present, still loyally serve us.

No, nuclear weapons and other "WMDs" would not be part of the parity equation. This is a flippant red herring bandied about by the shills of the victim disarmament crowd. A Second American Revolution would not take place on battle fields. It would take place door to door, block to block, rock to rock, and tree to tree.

No treasonous cop or treasonous soldier would feel safe anywhere. There are THREE HUNDRED MILLION privately owned firearms out here. And billions of rounds of ammunition. No other nation's citizenry presents that quiet and steady warning to its government. No other nation's citizenry (except perhaps Switzerland) has so many civilians capable of one-inch groups at one hundred yards.

To attempt to counteract this obvious state of affairs, there has arisen a faction of the liberal wing arrayed against gun ownership that embraces the psychological warfare tactic, the "roll over and die" mind set.

This is the "resistance is futile" crowd. These moral weaklings mock the idea that a free man or woman might step up to defend their freedom and the freedom of their loved ones. Many of these types are unreachable with either fact or logic.

However, here is the fundamental reality of the situation:

The combined armed forces of the United States amounts to about 1.4 million soldiers. All the police forces of this nation combined amounts to about 800,000 police officers. Call this combined figure 2.2 million armed individuals who could forcibly inflict a tyrannical government's will upon the citizenry ... if they "followed orders" without question.

In reality, many or most of these loyal men and women would not go along with a despotic turn of events. So let's, in a worst case scenario, assume that there are 500,000 of the "just following orders" types in our police forces and military forces. This amount is purposely inflated. More accurate guesses of the potential for treason in the armed forces and police are at about the five percent level. To verify this estimate, ask any loyal cop or soldier their opinion on how it would pan out.

Therefore, if (at the very most) 500,000 traitors showed their true colors, they would go to work each day with EIGHTY MILLION American gun owners watching their every move.

They would be outnumbered by 160 to 1.

Think about it. It's not a good job description.

This is why the elitists and the authoritarians in our government and burgeoning bureaucracies want the (their?) cops and soldiers to have high capacity ammo mags ... but not you. The Schumers and Bloombergs (and a disgusting line up of big city police chiefs) yelp all day long about "protecting our police", but conveniently forget the fact that few American gun owners want the cops hindered by magazine limitations or rifle function limitations. We simply demand the same for ourselves.

So, the next time someone skirts the issue of the "elephant in the room", quietly and somberly remind that person what the Second Amendment really intends.

Now, in conjunction with JPFO's "High Cap Freedom" campaign, keep buying those "high capacity" magazines for your pistols and rifles.

Let's get millions upon millions of them into citizens' hands. A magazine ban is coming, either now, or when the inevitable "Loughner II" occurs.

Since 1968, modern "gun control" legislation has depended upon the acts of "crazed lone gunmen" to achieve its insidious goals. There will unfortunately be another "crazed lone gunman". Whether propitious or programmed, an act of lunatic mayhem would seem as inevitable as the next earthquake.

Prepare now. Exercise your "High Cap Freedom" while you still can.

**************************************************15. Gun control group challenges Obama on "clips"**************************************************

Bruce Jackson emailed me this:

--

=46rom CBS News:http://tinyurl.com/43erhgy

[SNIP]The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence released an ad today calling on President Obama to come out more forcefully in support of a ban on the sort of high-capacity ammunition clips used by alleged shooter Jared Loughner in the January Tucson massacre. [PVC: Again the press doesn't have a clue about guns. There are no clips that hold more than 10 rounds that I know of.. I guess to the press a motorcycle and a bicycle are the same thing.]

The 30-second spot, at left, features a narrator saying that "a magazine that allows a gun to fire 32 shots in 16 seconds is only good for one thing: killing a lot of people - fast."

**************************************************16. Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve Croley**************************************************

Blair Woody emailed me this:

=46rom the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/3h5mtx6

Over a barrel? Meet White House gun policy adviser Steve CroleyBy Jason Horowitz, Monday, April 11, 10:03 PM

On March 15, two months after a deadly shooting spree in Tucson left a U.S. congresswoman in critical condition, the nation's leading gun-control activists took seats in Room 4525 at the Department of Justice to push the Obama administration for more firearm regulation. In the hour-and-a-half-long meeting, Assistant Attorney General Christopher H. Schroeder, who has coordinated the government's work on the issue, went around a long conference table soliciting views from representatives of the major advocacy and law enforcement groups.

But the official the advocates wanted to hear from most stayed mostly quiet.

The silence of Steve Croley, the White House's point man on gun regulation policy, echoes the decision by Democrats to remain mute on guns as a national issue, even in the wake of the Tucson rampage. Croley's keep-your-head-down approach is in keeping with President Obama's preference for low-key wonks, but in this case, his reticence has more to do with political reality: Democrats have no plans for serious gun-control initiatives, and the Gabrielle Giffords tragedy, as heart-rending as it was, hasn't changed their minds.

The result for Croley is a tree-falls-in-the-woods conundrum: If President Obama, like just about every leading Democrat, has abandoned the issue, does the administration's gun policy even exist? Cro ley is undeniably present, but he doesn't make a sound.

The buzz-cut gun owner with sharp cheekbones and a genius for regulatory law is, according to multiple advocates, on a "listening tour." Activists with whom Croley has conferred described him as enigmatic, though their conversations have yielded certain strong impressions. Croley, who since August has been Obama's assistant for justice and regulatory policy, favors closing a loophole in the law that allows unlicensed gun dealers to sell arms without background checks, especially at gun shows. His background in administrative law has especially prepared him for figuring out how state agencies can make their records readily available to a federal gun database.

One area in which Croley has shown less interest, according to several people who have spoken with him about the issue, is restricting the large-volume ammunition magazines that allowed the Tucson shooter to keep firing. When Paul Helmke, director of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, broached the subject during the March 15 gathering with Croley, officials promptly adjourned the meeting.

Croley, who characteristically declined to speak for this article, has a broad portfolio including good government and transparency issues, civil rights, food safety and criminal justice policy. Guns have accounted for only a small part of his workload, and it's an issue with which he has little experience. But Croley's friends and colleagues describe the 45-year-old University of Michigan legal scholar as an extraordinary man of catholic interests and talents.

In fact, it's hard to imagine a more presentable face for the administration to spotlight on the gun issue.

Croley grew up hunting deer with his father in DeWitt, outside Lansing, Mich., and went on to attend Yale Law School. He founded a boxing club, and was known to hand out black eyes and swollen lips. "He'd take down guys 40, 50 pounds heavier than him," said Robert Riley, a friend at Yale and the son of former Alabama governor Bob Riley. A newsletter at Berkeley Law School, where Croley taught in 2000, advised new students to add the jazz pianist's "Steven Croley Trio" to their CD collection and to "relax and enjoy drinks at Yoshi's with this consummate pianist and tort therapist." This fall, he will preview a documentary about Dutch farmers and gay residents in Saugatuck, Mich., that he made with his wife, Bridget M. McCormack. (She has a D..C.-Hollywood insider in her family: Her sister is actress Mary Catherine McCormack, who played deputy national security adviser Kate Harper in "The West Wing" and Mary Matalin's blond associate in HBO's "K Street.")

Croley himself has movie-star good looks. In 2006, the irreverent legal blog Above the Law named him a finalist in its "Law School Dean Hotties" contest. ("Steven Croley is THE Tom Cruise look-alike.")

More relevant to his current brief, Croley's theoretical perspective of law has steadily shifted to the "the nuts and bolts of how things work," according to his friend and University of Michigan colleague Kyle D. Logue. Croley has moonlighted as a special assistant U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and is now widely cited on regulation and tort law. That reputation for pragmatism hit a snag in 2002 when his fingers were mangled in a snowblower accident. He had disregarded the warning label, and he became an on-campus case study: If one of the country's leading tort scholars fails to heed an advisory label, professors posited, do such warnings carry any weight?

It's just that sort of question about the role of regulation on dangerous products that has informed Croley's approach to the gun issue.

"If you think of guns as the intersection of regulatory policy and torts, then nothing makes more sense than a professor specializing in regulation policy and torts" to work on gun policy, said Roderick Hills, a law professor at New York University and an old friend of Croley's. He suggested that if the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment shaped a keyhole for regulation, Croley's job is to make a skeleton key that fits that keyhole. "He's the right guy," Hills said.

The National Rifle Association, the powerful opponent to any gun restrictions, has yet to make Croley's acquaintance. "He has had zero interaction with us," said Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA's director of public affairs. One reason for that lack of interaction: The NRA turned down an invitation to the March 15 session that Croley attended.

In recent meetings, Croley has been less revealing about his views of regulation than he was in his 2008 book "Regulation and Public Interests: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government." In this tome, Croley writes, "The evolution of the regulatory state has not been gradual, but rather reflects accelerated growth in response to periods of crisis and national trauma. In this light, regulation seems not only ubiquitous but inevitable."

But in Obama's Washington, national trauma does not lead inevitably to reform.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D) of New York, who lost her husband in the 1993 shooting massacre on the Long Island Rail Road, recalled a meeting in 2008 with Croley when he served on Obama's transition team. "Basically it was me doing all the talking, and you know what? I probably didn't know who the guy was," she said. "That didn't make any difference; it was somebody from the White House."

McCarthy and Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) of New Jersey offered a bill that would ban the clips that hold large volumes of ammunition. The pugnacious McCarthy said that if the administration continued to stay on the sidelines, she and Lautenberg would get the job done themselves, but added that she "certainly had higher hopes with the administration."

Lautenberg attempted to express optimism. The senator recalled that Attorney General Eric Holder visited him on March 29 "and tried to give us his assurance to help us with the legislation."

During his campaign, Obama supported reintroducing the lapsed assault weapon ban, promised to eliminate an amendment requiring the FBI to destroy records of gun buyers' background checks and advocated closing the gun-show loophole. Since taking office, the president has done none of that, and before the midterm elections, he shelved a proposal requiring gun dealers to report bulk sales of high-powered semiautomatic rifles. In his State of the Union address, just weeks after the Giffords shooting in January, Obama made no mention of guns.

On March 13, the president wrote an Arizona Daily Star opinion piece that suggested his support for closing the gun-show loophole but made no mention of restricting large clips.

Other leading Democrats, even those traditionally willing to offer full-throated support for gun-control efforts, have grown surprisingly less vocal as they take on more of a national role. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Florida Democrat and close friend of Giffords's, is moving up to become the Democratic National Committee chairman. She declined to comment.

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines." Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.

"He just laughed," Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.

In simpler, pre-administration times, so was the president's point man. In Croley's book, he argued that for all the healthy skepticism, in a complex world, regulation still amounted to "the least-worst solution to pressing social problems."

**************************************************17. Video: What to do when stopped by the police **************************************************

=46rom gunsandammo.com:http://tinyurl.com/3ns6gfn

**************************************************18. Video: 750 lb gator killed by NAA mini revolver**************************************************

Just past the middle (3rd commercial).

A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this:

--

=46rom The History Channel: http://tinyurl.com/4y2t99s

**************************************************19. Duct tape alert: "Every gun owner is responsible for all crime." **************************************************

This person reminds me why I carry a gun. He feels it's his right to use his car as a lethal weapon to run over an open carrier if such open carry makes him "feel threatened." If he tries that, his own idiotic video virtually guarantees him a trip to the "Big House." Of course the other outcome might be that he'll find out the hard way that a bullet penetrates a windshield quite nicely.

--

=46rom responsiblecitizensofcalifornia.org:http://tinyurl.com/3mtav3g

**************************************************20. VCDL a strong presence at the Shad Planking!**************************************************

The VCDL booth at the annual Shad Planking political event in Wakefield was packed with volunteers, many taking a day off work to be there! Guns Save Lives stickers were worn proudly by a large percentage of the participants.

The Shad Planking is always a great opportunity for VCDL to remind politicians of all parties that the right to keep and bear arms is our most important right.

A "thank you" to all the individual VCDL volunteers that made the Shad Planking a success will be in the "Gun Shows and Events" alert next week.

**************************************************21. VCDL NRA convention get together**************************************************

Some of you have asked about VCDL members getting together at the NRA convention in Pittsburgh. Let's meet at 6 PM on Friday at the main entrance. Wear a VCDL hat, shirt, or Guns Save Lives sticker to make it easy to identify you.

Also, carry is allowed at the convention. From the NRA's Annual Meeting page:

Note: Lawfully carried firearms are permitted in the Convention Center, in the Exhibit Hall and in the CONSOL Energy Center. Heinz Field prohibits the possession of firearms. When carrying your firearm, remember to follow all federal, state and local laws.

-------------------------------------------***************************************************************************