VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/8/112

[Taggure]

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/8/112

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. VCDL picnic on August 6 at the Pocahontas State Park in Chesterfield
2. More on the Attorney General's opinion on university carry
3. FOIA Council Meeting on FOIA & criminal records - July 18
4. 'Project Gunrunner' whistleblower says ATF sent him termination notice
5. Gun Runner program's sacrificial lamb
6. DOJ neck deep in Gun Runner
7. Mexico and the global arms trade
8. Mayors Against Illegal Guns group releases terrorist-inspired video
9. Shoot an invader, have your guns confiscated?
10. House Democrats propose new gun control bill to curtail trafficking
11. Advocates' voices heard in hundreds of new laws
12. Looking back at allowing guns in National Parks
13. Warning to firearms dealers about anti-gun survey
14. Who needs a gun at a college-town restaurant?
15. How to write a no-guns policy for colleges/universities - per the Brady's playbook
16. Another success story: Ohio Governor signs restaurant carry into law
17. USA gun dean launches Judeo-Christian right of self-defense blog
18. U.K.: Right to self-defence in homes to be 'much clearer'
19. Ladies day at the shooting range
20. Thanks to all those who make the VCDL Update possible each week
21. BREAKING: Obama promises gun control is coming


**************************************************
1. VCDL picnic on August 6 at the Pocahontas State Park in Chesterfield
**************************************************

Mark your calendars!

To celebrate the Governor McDonnell's directive earlier this year to allow both open and concealed carry in State Parks, VCDL is having a picnic on Saturday, August 6, at the Pocahontas State Park in Chesterfield County from 11 AM to 2 PM.

Pocahontas State Park is located at:

10301 State Park Road
Chesterfield, VA 23832

And don't forget that State Forests will be allowing carry on July 7th!

We are planning some guest speakers, who will be announced at a later date.

The picnic is open to the public and is free (there is a $5 parking fee that the parks charge for each vehicle entering the park, with exceptions for military and the disabled). If you are planning on attending, please RSVP to:

picnics@vcdl.org

Use a subject line that says "Attending" followed by the number in your party, like this, "Attending 3"

If you can help with set up and tear down, please indicate so in your email to picnics@vcdl.org


**************************************************
2. More on the Attorney General's opinion on university carry
**************************************************

The person who asked Senator Emmett Hanger to get an Attorney General's opinion on whether the University of Virginia (UVA) can ban CHP holders from carrying on University property is Michael Wegner.

Michael, who has a concealed carry permit, was nearly arrested for trespass on UVA property for carrying his handgun there as a visitor. He was issued a trespass warning, but that was later rescinded. Michael worked the issue hard and his efforts paid off.

Getting an Attorney General's opinion can be useful, but we DO suggest that VCDL be contacted before doing so (Michael did contact us) just to make sure that 1) we aren't already working the issue and 2) that your request isn't potentially harmful to the cause (some questions might be better left unasked).

Whether or not any universities are now going to try to ban guns by creating a regulation is unknown. But if they do try to do so they MUST have a public hearing before any regulation can be finalized. That's because the regulation would be affecting the general public not just students, faculty, and staff.


**************************************************
3. FOIA Council Meeting on FOIA & criminal records July 18
**************************************************

On Monday, July 18, at 11 AM in House Room C at the General Assembly Building (9th and Broad in Richmond), the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Council will be holding a public hearing on SB 1467, a bill put in by Senator John Edwards (D). SB 1467, which is supported by VCDL, would make police criminal investigative files on cases that are NOT active or on-going, available to FOIA requests. VCDL is interested in this because if a gun owner is unlawfully detained or harassed by a police officer, records of that event could be obtained by a FOIA request to the police department.

If you are interested in speaking at this hearing in support of SB 1467, please do so! I will be there to speak on behalf of VCDL and if you just want to come to show support, that would be appreciated as well.

Thanks to EM Hal Macklin for bringing this hearing to my attention.


**************************************************
4. 'Project Gunrunner' whistleblower says ATF sent him termination notice
**************************************************

The whistleblower for BATFE's "Fast and Furious" debacle has been fired! Must have been a total coincidence - couldn't possibly be because he was a whistleblower. Nah, just a coincidence, surely he had it coming all along.

You couldn't make this stuff up. A pretty blatant message to others in the BATFE to NOT come forward with any more information.

Thanks to Jim Kiser for the link:

From Fox News: http://tinyurl.com/3d3na2r

By Maxim Lott
June 27, 2011

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is being accused of retaliating against an agent who helped publicize the agency's role in allowing thousands of guns to cross the U.S. border and fall into the hands of Mexican drug gangs.

The agent, Vince Cefalu, who has spoken out about the ATF's so-called "Project Gunrunner" scandal, says he was served with termination papers just last week, and he calls the move politically motivated.

"Aside from Jay Dobyns, I don't know of anyone that's been more vocal about ATF mismanagement than me," said Cefalu, a senior special agent based in Dublin, Calif. "That's why this is happening." Dobyns, an ATF special agent based in Tucson, has appeared several times on Fox News to discuss the scandal.

Cefalu first told FoxNews.com about the ATF's embattled anti-gun smuggling operation in December, before the first reports on the story appeared in February. "Simply put, we knowingly let hundreds of guns and dozens of identified bad guys go across the border," Cefalu said at the time.

Since then, Cefalu's claims have been vindicated, as a number of agents with first-hand knowledge of the case came forward. The scandal over Project Gunrunner led to congressional hearings, a presidential reprimand - Obama called the operation "a serious mistake" - and speculation that ATF chief Ken Melson will resign.

Yet last week, Cefalu, who has worked for the agency for 24 years, was forced to turn in his gun and badge. He can appeal but will be on "paid administrative leave" during the process.

Cefalu's dismissal follows a string of allegations that the ATF retaliates against whistleblowers. When the Project Gunrunner scandal broke, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote the ATF that an agent who had been giving his staff members information about the scandal had been "allegedly accused... of misconduct" by the agent's boss for talking with Grassley's staffers.

And two days before Cefalu was served with termination papers, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a letter to the ATF warning officials not to retaliate against whistleblowers.

ATF spokesman Drew Wade denied in a statement to FoxNews.com that the bureau is retaliating, but he declined to comment about Cefalu's case. "ATF will not comment on specific, ongoing personnel matters. It is illegal to use disciplinary actions to retaliate against employees, and ATF does not engage in such improper reprisals."

The ATF's termination letter to Cefalu, obtained by FoxNews.com, makes no mention of Cefalu's role in the latest scandal.

"You think they would just come out and say that?" Cefalu said.

The letter instead says that Cefalu should be fired because he leaked documents on a website he helped create, CleanupATF.org, and showed a "lack of candor" on past projects, in particular a 2005 operation that Cefalu led. Cefalu admits he made information about the case public but says he did so only after redacting sensitive parts and exhausting internal channels.

In the 2005 case, local police wanted to wiretap a suspect to gather evidence, but Cefalu objected, saying it would be illegal to use wiretaps until all other options for gathering evidence had been tried.

Cefalu was then removed from the case. But he continued to speak out and file internal complaints about what he viewed as illegal ATF wiretapping. And that's when his life became difficult.

"That was the beginning of the end," Cefalu told FoxNews.com.

"I had never had a disciplinary action in 18 years. Outstanding evaluations -- above average -- and on the 19th year, when I filed a complaint, I get my first unsatisfactory evaluation ever."

Cefalu showed a copy of his 2005 evaluation to FoxNews.com, in which his supervisor, Dennis Downs, noted: "Not only have you meet [sic] performance expectations, you have exceeded them."

But that changed after 2005, Cefalu said. He received unsatisfactory evaluations complaining about his use of foul language. The termination letter also notes there were complaints about his smoking and "even your hygiene."

Another ATF agent, who requested to remain anonymous but who has provided accurate information on the Project Gunrunner case to FoxNews.com in the past, discussed what he knew about Cefalu.

"Common knowledge in the agency is that Cefalu outed an illegal wiretap quite some time ago, and he has been in the crosshairs since," the agent told FoxNews.com. "My impression of him is that he has probably ruffled lots of feathers and delicate egos in his time. He is very direct and honest."

But this agent said he'd "prefer that to a 'go along to get along' type."

"We don't avoid or learn from mistakes if we just lie to each other about how we never do anything wrong -- which is pretty much standard operating procedure from what I have seen of our HQ people," the agent said.

Cefalu said his work on the Project Gunrunner scandal likely was the last straw for his bosses.

"I think it's obvious why they're doing this. It was my willingness to expose (Project Gunrunner) and support other people to come forward," Cefalu said.


**************************************************
5. Gun Runner program's sacrificial lamb
**************************************************

Monty Oakes emailed me this:

--

From Investors.com: http://tinyurl.com/676ql3c

June 21, 2011

Editorial: Who OK'd 'Guns To Gangs' Program, And Why?

Law: After getting caught doing the unbelievable arming Mexico's cartels word is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms boss is out, and the gun-controller the White House wanted all along is in. How far up does this go?

Acting ATF director Kenneth Melson is apparently ready to take the fall for what may be the most morally repulsive scandal to befall the Obama administration so far.

Our neighbor Mexico lies bleeding from a long, vicious war to fight seven major drug cartels at once. Some 38,000 have been left dead since 2006.

Amid all this, U.S. ATF agents had orders from on high to supply U.S. weapons to cartel middlemen buying them on U.S. soil for the odd purpose of "tracing" them.

The news that Melson is resigning seems to be a bid by the Obama administration to paint this as simply an example of Keystone Kop-style bungling being corrected.

But many things suggest the operation may have been done for political purposes, and not merely stupidity.

The idea behind "Operation Fast and Furious" was to let gun dealers sell weapons to cartel middlemen, who would then ship them to criminal gangs in Mexico, and damn the consequences.

The operation was so contrary to the goals of ATF that its agents repeatedly raised anguished protests only to be rebuffed from their superiors, according to testimony presented to House Oversight Committee chair Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who is investigating the scandal.

Nearly 2,000 weapons flowed south to Mexico based on this U.S.-taxpayer-financed program. Not surprisingly, two of these "gunwalker" weapons turned up at the Arizona murder scene of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, killed by illegal aliens in December 2010.

The Issa hearings are having an effect, with Melson's rumored resignation the first sacrificial offering.

But does it really end there? So much doesn't add up.

First, as operations go, this one was "felony-stupid," as Issa put it in the hearings. There was no effort to trace the weapons even after letting them get out. If the weapons weren't traced, why was this operation sanctioned?

The White House made a big deal about U.S. weapons flowing south to Mexico, claiming 90% of all weapons in the hands of cartels came from U.S. gun merchants.

But that argument was false, based on the cherry-picked samples Mexico offered for inspection. For Mexico, it was a chance to divert attention from their loose border controls and blame the gringos.

As for Obama, he wanted to reinstate an assault-weapon ban in 2008, but said he did not have the political capital to do it. Bob Owens, writing for Pajamas Media, noted that the administration seemed to want to whip up a crisis requiring a crackdown on guns in the U.S.

It gets worse. President Obama has long wanted gun-control-oriented ATF agent Andrew Traver to head the agency. Now, with Melson rumored to be ready to quit this week, he may get his way and benefit.

There are real questions that must be answered about who knew about this, and when. An American lies murdered for what may be political aims. He has a right to justice as high up as it goes.


**************************************************
6. DOJ neck deep in Gun Runner
**************************************************

Monty Oakes emailed me this:

--

Phil,

DOJ neck deep in the anti-gun Gun Runner affair. They'll sacrifice a mid-level BATFE lamb and they go scot -free. Holder is the man who should be accountable for his people's actions, not some mid-level administrator. Unknown if DHS Napolitano is involved or not.

Here are some related stories:

From Opposing Views: http://tinyurl.com/5ubjpe9
From The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/5u394ew
From New York Post: http://tinyurl.com/6e839lk
From Newsmax: http://tinyurl.com/3lyg7yg
From Senator Jon Tester: http://tinyurl.com/6j6xc7v
From The Cap Times: http://tinyurl.com/6brlxyv
From Portsmouth Daily Times: http://tinyurl.com/63owse6
From OakLeaves: http://tinyurl.com/3saeavu
From New Jersey.com: http://tinyurl.com/6j85g8j


**************************************************
7. Mexico and the global arms trade
**************************************************

Matt Summers emailed me this:

--

Mr. Van Cleave,

I wanted to share with you two reports done by a private intelligence group. I found the reports very enlightening, and more thoughtful than anything one would read from media outlets (the lack of analytical skill in reporters these days is disturbing).

Mexico's gun supply and the 90 percent myth
From Stratfor: http://tinyurl.com/65nnvvh

Mexico: Economics and the arms trade
From Stratfor: http://tinyurl.com/ntcwo9

If the anti's keep spewing the same lies, and the media keeps echoing them without challenge, investigation, or thoughtfulness, I am going to need something stronger than duct tape around my head.

Matt


**************************************************
8. Mayors Against Illegal Guns group releases terrorist-inspired video
**************************************************

Surprise, surprise - the anti's are trying to make hay out of the al-Qaeda "spokesman" telling Jihadists to buy machine guns at gun shows without a background check and then go on a shooting rampage.

No one is taking the advice so far.

Michael Stevenson emailed me this:

--

From The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/3h59py5

By Jeff Winkler
June 30, 2011

If stricter gun control laws aren't passed, the terrorists win. At least, that seems to be the message of a new video ad campaign from one of the country's most prominent gun-control advocacy groups.

In the fight to close the so-called "gun show loophole," the Coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns is promoting recent statements made by an al Qaeda spokesman in a hefty ad campaign entitled "What Are You Waiting For?" that will run nationally on several major networks.

The video ad features the American-born al Qaeda member Adam Gadahn informing budding terrorists that "America is absolutely awash in easily obtainable firearms. You can go to a gun show and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle. So what are you waiting for?"

"Call your member of Congress," intones the voice-over. "Tell them to close the loopholes that let terrorists and criminals buy guns."

While the video may strike a frightful cord in the hearts of law-abiding citizens, the message is a bit misleading. Individuals cannot purchase fully automatic assault rifles at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" allows individuals to purchase and sell certain guns, including semi-automatics, without a federal license (or instant background check) at gun shows. Although they're not required to have a federal license, many of the guns nevertheless must be registered with an owner.

Terrorist plots aside, the ad echoes talking points gun-control advocates have stressing for years, that "gun show loopholes" allow firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. A 2001 report from the National Institute of Justice, however, found that 45 percent of those already banned from purchasing a gun - usually because of prior criminal conviction - obtained one through illegal means. Another 12 percent of convicted criminals said they would make their purchase from a gun shop, as current laws - along with slow, out-of-date databases - already on the books are not enforced. According to Bureau of Justice statistics gathered by the 2nd Amendment Foundation, less than .7 percent of criminals obtain firearms at gun shows.

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, spearheaded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has attempted to interject itself into the national debate following widely-covered tragedies, such as the Virginia Tech Massacre. Shortly after the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Mayor Bloomberg, along with several Democratic lawmaker called for a "common sense" gun debate.

The result was New York Sen. Chuck Schumer's proposed legislation that would ban the purchase of firearms for anyone arrested, but not actually convicted of petty drug offenses, within a six-year period. Carolyn McCarthy's sister bill in the House, meanwhile, would greatly expand the definition of who is mentally incapable of purchasing a firearm.

Neither the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, nor alleged Arizona gunman Jared Loughner purchased their firearms at gun shows. There is also no concrete evidence that terrorist do purchase their firearms at gun shows, which - considering the crowds easily-mocked rabidly Patriotic, vaguely Islamophobic concerns about dark men with beards - should come as no surprise.

The week-long national ad campaign will run MSNBC, Fox News and CNN, according to Huffington Post's Sam Stein.


**************************************************
9. Shoot an invader, have your guns confiscated?
**************************************************

One of our lawyer members emailed me this in response to VCDL Update 6/26/11, item #15 "Va Beach homeowner won't face charges in home invasion shooting".

--

I was talking to a guy in Alexandria who'd been charged with brandishing when he took a picture of youth-gang people trespassing in his yard, and with whom he'd had a long history of problems.

He was taking the picture with his cellphone from behind a closed window. No way it could have been mistaken for a firearm. When they served the warrant on him, they searched his house and confiscated his valuable collection of knives. Nothing whatsoever to do with the offense charged. I think they just want to take "weapons" out of people's houses every chance they get and have absolutely no intention of giving them back.

A former client and his wife in Loudoun Co. had a sizable firearms collection in his house, stored in a locked room. They had a gun safe in the room also locked, in which their class-3 NFA stuff was kept. Cops got a warrant to search the house on the basis of a stabbing that allegedly occurred outside their kids' entirely separate basement apartment (kids are adults and pay rent, and there's a deadbolt on the door separating the two residences). The cops took all the guns and a sizable amount of cash money stored in the gun safe (thousands of dollars). The guns had nothing to do with any crime charged, and there was no basis for a search of the parent's separate residence, particularly since the cops had complete knowledge of the nature of the place (having been there the previous evening).

They're just confiscating "weapons" because they want to do so. So far, I haven't encountered anyone who'd rather pay me to get them back (or the reasonable value of the property taken) than to suffer the loss.

One important note for the membership, however: make a really complete inventory of every item that is susceptible to seizure, lawfully or unlawfully, including all the information relating to the purchase (from whom, where, when, for how much), as well as the make, model, sub-model (e.g., S&W 29-8), kind of action, caliber, photographs, etc.; and keep an up-to-date copy off-premises with someone trusted, a relative, attorney, safe-deposit box, close friend, etc. Such a record would be essential in recovering after an unlawful seizure and detention of the items.


**************************************************
10. House Democrats propose new gun control bill to curtail trafficking
**************************************************

James D. Durso emailed me this:

--

From The Talk Radio News Service: http://tinyurl.com/3la9oc2

June 30, 2011

In what Democratic lawmakers have described as a response to an appeal from Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) are proposing a bill to curtail weapons trafficking across the U.S. border to Mexican drug cartels.

This bill allows law enforcement officials to track the sales of multiple guns, end unlicensed gun purchases, formally define gun trafficking, and ease evidentiary requirements to revoke gun licenses.

During a forum on the topic Thursday, the lawmakers continually referred to an Al Qaeda video that urges members to buy their guns in the United States.

The representatives hope this bill receives bipartisan support, noting that it only strengthens current laws on gun ownership and does not curtail the average american's right to own a gun.


**************************************************
11. Advocates' voices heard in hundreds of new laws
**************************************************

Board member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:

--

Snip:
"We've never had a win," said Mr. Goddard,


From The Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/4yxze6m

By Paige Winfield Cunningham
June 29, 2011

...For other groups, the General Assembly didn't dazzle.

Lawmakers approved a bill that bars local jurisdictions from prohibiting people from shooting BB guns and other air-pressure guns on private property - as long as the shooting is done safely. The issue received attention in Fairfax County, where the board voted last week to align county code with state code.

Andrew Goddard, president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, said it was the only major bill opposed by the gun-control group that was voted into law. Six other bills the center supported went nowhere.

"We've never had a win," said Mr. Goddard, acknowledging Virginia's reputation for being a gun-friendly state. "It's kind of a little bit ridiculous when you think about it. We'd just like to see some sensible things like background checks."


**************************************************
12. Looking back at allowing guns in National Parks
**************************************************

Doug Olivo emailed me this:

--

From MSNBC: http://tinyurl.com/3pm3xm6

Philip,

I thought with 7 July approaching when the law allowing Virginians to carry in State Forests takes effect we should look back to when state gun laws were applied to National Parks.

Here is an article typical of the time:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said national parks are now among the safest places in America, but that could change under the new law. Current rules severely restrict guns in the national parks, generally requiring them to be locked or stored.

"It really is sad that we've become such a paranoid society that people want to take guns pretty much everywhere - including national parks," he said Friday.

"When you are at a campfire and people are getting loud and boisterous next to you, you used to have to worry about them quieting down. Now you have to worry about when they will start shooting," Helmke said.

(To date this has happened zero times but you know how anti-gunners love to sound the blood bath alarm!)

Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, called the new law a sad chapter in the history of the park system.

"People go to national parks to get away from things that they face in their everyday living, where they live and work. Now I think that social dynamic is really going to change," he said.

Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, said the law would place an unfair burden on park service employees, who will have to wade though a variety of state and local laws to determine whether visitors are breaking the law.

(So because people capable of enforcing laws are going to have to actually understand them and this is a HUGE burden we should not allow people to exercise their rights?)

In any case I thought this might put things in perspective.


**************************************************
13. Warning to firearms dealers about anti-gun survey
**************************************************

EM Hal Macklin emailed me this:

--

A recent "Duct Tape Alert" posted here was in reference to a "study" by Garen Wintemute, a notorious gun-hating researcher.
David Codrea has a new warning concerning him:

Do not help this zealot!


From Examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/6587nze

By Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea
June 30, 2011

NRA warns firearms dealers of anti-gun survey

[SNIP]

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman has reported on Wintemute studies being used to push an anti-gun agenda, as has St. Louis Gun Rights Examiner Kurt Hofmann in his expose. And The War on Guns blog documented how Wintemute would go sneaking around gun shows with a cell phone camera/voice mail setup with the stated intention of training others to follow suit, and in spite of the fact that no (unauthorized) cameras is a common rule at most gun shows to protect attendees, dealers and promoters.


**************************************************
14. Who needs a gun at a college-town restaurant?
**************************************************

Charles Winkler emailed me this:

--

From Newsplex.com: http://tinyurl.com/3bkk9eh

By Frankie Jupiter
June 20, 2011

Zazus Restaurant Robbed, Police Search for Suspects

Police are searching for suspects involved in a robbery Sunday night at Zazus Fresh Grill on Ivy Road in Albemarle County.

Witnesses say two men walked into the restaurant with their faces covered. The men claimed they were armed with a gun but did not show the weapon. They demanded money after hitting one of the employees.

Police say an undisclosed amount of cash was taken. One suspect was described as wearing a hoodie to cover his face. The other suspect was wearing a mask.

"We got a call there was a robbery at the Zazus restaurant. We responded and found that the subjects had already left," said Cpl. Gary Pistulk with the Albemarle County Police Department. "One of the employees stated that two males came into the store assaulted them and claimed to have a weapon."

Police used a tracking dog in hopes of catching the men. At this time no suspects are in custody. The robbery is still under investigation. Anyone with information is asked to call Crime Stoppers at 434-977-4000.


**************************************************
15. How to write a no-guns policy for colleges/universities - per the Brady's playbook
**************************************************

From The Chronicle: http://tinyurl.com/5we8ryq

By Josh Keller
June 26, 2011

Colleges get advice on crafting weapons policies that will hold up in court

When seeking to restrict people from carrying guns on campus, colleges should carefully explain their motivations and should avoid absolute bans that could face trouble in court, a panel of experts advised on Sunday during a gathering of university lawyers here.

Two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions expanding the reach of the Second Amendment and a flurry of activity by state lawmakers seeking to limit anti-gun policies at colleges have left campus gun bans largely intact. But the panelists said the activity illustrates the need for carefully tailored policies that will hold up in court in the future.

They spoke at the second day of the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Attorneys.

The Supreme Court decisions, which invalidated some municipal gun restrictions, leave open a critical exception for restrictions that apply to "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings." George Mason University successfully argued in front of the Virginia Supreme Court that its gun ban was legal because its campus qualifies as a sensitive place.

Patrick O'Rourke, a senior managing counsel at the University of Colorado, implored colleges to carefully write gun restrictions to improve the chances that judges will consider the uniqueness of a college environment. When he recently defended his institution's gun ban in front of the Colorado Supreme Court, Mr. O'Rourke said, one scowling judge asked a pertinent question: "Well, what makes you so special?"

"That's really the first thing I think you need to think about when you're talking about a weapons policy, which is, Why are you going to have one? Why is this environment that you have unique?" Mr. O'Rourke said.

In particular, he said, colleges could explain that their campuses have heated discussions as a natural part of teaching, or that they house 18- to 24-year-olds who are prone to make poor choices with alcohol. He pointed to potential resources provided by the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Panelists also warned that campus gun bans that lack some exceptions could be riskier. The George Mason policy, for instance, was upheld in part because it applied only in places where people congregate and are the most vulnerable, they said.

"The loser cases all tend to follow a pattern, which is an absolute ban," said Leonard M. Niehoff, a law professor at the University of Michigan. "Even within those special environments, like schools, if you can have a more moderated policy, one that is not an absolute ban, it increases the likelihood of winning."

In comments after the panel, Mr. O'Rourke said there still has not been a decision that colleges can look to as a benchmark for their policies. "But one of these is going to trickle up to the Supreme Court," he said.


**************************************************
16. Another success story: Ohio Governor signs restaurant carry into law
**************************************************

Dave Troxel emailed me this:

--

From Yahoo News: http://tinyurl.com/3uemdwv

By David Bailey & Greg McCune
June 30, 2011

COLUMBUS, Ohio (Reuters) - Ohio Republican Governor John Kasich on Thursday signed into law a bill that allows gun owners in the state to carry concealed weapons into bars and other places where alcohol is served.

The measure, which was forwarded to Kasich on June 22 by the Ohio General Assembly, was signed on Thursday afternoon. Kasich is scheduled to sign the Ohio budget later Thursday.

Businesses can ban concealed weapons on their premises for safety reasons if the want to and some, like the Cincinnati Bengals football team, have indicated they will continue to bar gun owners from bringing firearms into the stadium.

The law also prohibits gun owners from consuming alcohol or being under the influence of alcohol or drugs when they carry their weapons into bars.

The new laws allow residents to carry concealed handguns into licensed establishments in the state, including shopping malls and sporting venues.

The new law also allows a person with a concealed carry license to transport a loaded handgun in a motor vehicle without securing it in a holster, case, bag or box -- and allows them to remove a handgun from a secure location.

Opponents of the laws had said that mixing guns and alcohol would endanger public safety. Supports argued that the laws bring Ohio into line with other states that have concealed carry rules.


**************************************************
17. USA gun dean launches Judeo-Christian right of self-defense blog
**************************************************

John Snyder emailed me this:

--

USA Gun Dean Launches Judeo-Christian Right of Self-Defense Blog

Contact: John Snyder, gundean@gmail.com, (202) 239-8005

WASHINGTON, D.C. - We're inaugurating on this Fourth of July weekend the Gun Rights Policies blog, John Snyder announced here today. www.GunRightsPolicies.org

Snyder is the Gun Dean, according to Human Events.

Our Declaration of Independence proclaims that our rights and freedom are God-given, Snyder added. This is the historic basis for our American commitment to our individual Second Amendment civil right to keep and bear arms.

The Declaration of Independence itself has roots in the ancient tradition of Judeo-Christian thought and morality.

GunRightsPolicies.org presents the right of self-defense and the right to keep and bear arms from that perspective. That standpoint includes the Judeo-Christian concept of personal and public morality.

That morality stipulates both freedom and responsibility.

It proclaims a God-given right to life. This is the basis for the right to defend life. This is the basis for the right to acquire and use the things necessary for self-defense.

Judeo-Christian morality demands respect for all its precepts to appreciate properly each of its mandates.

The Judeo-Christian system is integral in its parts.

Respect for the right to defend life, for instance, demands respect for the right to life itself. Conversely, respect for the right to life demands respect for the right to defend life, for the right to self-defense, for the means necessary for self-defense.

The Gun Rights Policies site is a project of Telum Associates, LL.C., founded, owned and operated by John and Ling Snyder.


**************************************************
18. U.K.: Right to self-defence in homes to be 'much clearer'
**************************************************

Douglas E. Dyer emailed me this:

--

Hi Philip,

Here's a bit of important news from one of our closest allies, the United Kingdom: There's a push by the UK government to strengthen the self-defense rights of UK citizens by putting into statute law that which has become cloudy in common law. This process was begun with the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, but that legislation erred on the side of caution by effectively making it illegal to use of any more force than is absolutely necessary. When you're fighting for your life, it's a little hard to measure out just the necessary amount of force. As a result, there is "constant doubt" about the issue, according to UK Justice Secretary Ken Clarke. According to the article, PM David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt," and so the push for the new law is to make it legal to use whatever force is necessary to defend not only your life but also your property (the property part is also a big change).

There are two reasons I think this is so important. First, it's a watershed event signaling a change of heart from the UK government. People do have a right to self-defense, and that's not only the most effective method but also the cheapest for government. I see this as an admission of failure in the grand experiment of a liberal theory that the government is the best entity to guarantee defense of citizens.

Second, if self-defense is appropriate, then the tools of self defense should not be denied. This implies that firearms laws in the UK are inappropriately restrictive. It is true that if no one has firearms, then it is slightly more difficult for a nut case to mass murder his fellow citizens (though bombs, arson, poisons, and knife attacks are still options for nuts). However, there is a downside that must be weighed. There are only a few nut cases while there are thousands of citizens who might not be easy crime victims if armed. Overall, I believe restrictive gun laws do not benefit society in a country like the UK. The conservatives there probably believe the same, though certainly not everyone does. But if self-defense is appropriate, then the UK is on a slippery slope toward relaxing gun laws for the purpose of enabling citizens to defend themselves. One of Mr Clarke's examples is as follows. "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear." Pretty obviously, it would be easier and safer for the lady to shoot the burglar with her revolver, a better tool for self-defense.

I believe the success of the US experience with self-defense has not been lost on our Brit friends.

And what is good for the UK is also good for Australia, Canada, South Africa, and many other countries.

That's why I think this is pretty important news.


From the BBC: http://tinyurl.com/3w3knvh

June 29, 2011

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke has said a householder who knifes a burglar will not have committed a criminal offence under plans to clarify the law on self-defence in England.

He told the BBC people were entitled to use "whatever force necessary" to protect themselves and their homes.

David Cameron recently said the issue should be put "beyond doubt".

Labour said the law was "already clear" and the remarks were a "smokescreen" to hide confusion over sentencing changes.

Mr Clarke has come under attack over proposed changes to sentencing policy, but has denied making a series of U-turns on key elements amid pressure from Tory MPs and sections of the media.

He has said he is committed to axing indeterminate prison sentences, despite opposition from many Tory MPs.

He said indeterminate sentences - where prisoners can be held beyond their original release date if they still pose a danger to society - had been an "unmitigated disaster" since they had been introduced by Tony Blair and suggested an alternative to them would be in place within two years.

On people's rights to self-defence in their homes, Mr Clarke said there was "constant doubt" about the issue and the proposed legislation would make this "much clearer".

Under the terms of the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, homeowners who use "reasonable force" to protect themselves against intruders should not be prosecuted, providing they use no more force than is absolutely necessary.
'Absolute right'

But the government is set to place people's right to defend their property, long present in common law, in statute law.

"It's quite obvious that people are entitled to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves and their homes," Mr Clarke said.

"We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so"

Asked about what this would mean in practice, he said: "If an old lady finds she's got an 18 year old burgling her house and she picks up a kitchen knife and sticks it in him she has not committed a criminal offence and we will make that clear."

He added: "We will make it quite clear you can hit the burglar with the poker if he's in the house and you have a perfect defence when you do so."

Mr Clarke said legal protection would not extend to anyone shooting a burglar in the back when they were fleeing or "getting their friends together to beat them up".

"We all know what we mean when we say a person has an absolute right to defend themselves and their home and reasonable force.

"Nobody should prosecute and nobody should ever convict anybody who takes those steps."

But Labour said ministers had created confusion by first suggesting they were going to change existing laws before deciding merely to clarify them.

"The law is already clear - under the existing law people can rightly defend themselves and their property with reasonable force," said shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan.

He added: "This government has used spin and smokescreens of new laws in an attempt to distract from what is a justice bill in total shambles."

Mr Clarke has been defending proposed sentencing and legal aid changes in Parliament.

Although no plans to change indeterminate public protection sentences are currently included in proposed legislation debated on Thursday, Mr Clarke earlier made clear his determination to repeal them.

This is a release revolution which will simply catapult more criminals out on to the streets

While some people had to stay in prison for an unspecified amount of time, he said the six-year old policy was "filling up" prisons and it was "indefensible" some prisoners did not know how long they would have to serve.

Ministers dropped plans to offer suspects pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity a 50% reduction in their jail sentences following a public consultation, but Mr Clarke suggested there would be no backtracking on this matter.

Although he would consider carefully any changes, he said more prisoners should get "fixed-length" sentences.

Tory MP Philip Davies said indeterminate sentences - 6,000 of which have been handed down - have reduced crime and Mr Clarke's stance on the issue "shows beyond all doubt that re-offending is not his priority".

"This bill is not the rehabilitation revolution or the reduced reoffending revolution we were promised," Mr Davies told the Commons.

"This is a release revolution which will simply catapult more criminals out on to the streets to commit more crimes."

A No 10 spokesman said the government was looking at the system of indeterminate sentencing "with a view to replacing it".
Legal advice centres

MPs also discussed the government's plans to cut legal aid in England and Wales at the second reading of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill.

Under the plans, aimed at saving 300m from the 2.1bn legal aid bill, people will not be eligible for legal aid in a far broader range of civil cases than at present.

But the proposals have come under fire from lawyers and campaign groups, who claim they will lead to more crime and penalise victims.

In an effort to reassure some critics, Mr Clarke announced an additional ú20m for this financial year to help fund not-for-profit legal advice centres.

"I agree that they do very important work in providing quality, worthwhile advice of the kind required by very many people who should not need adversarial lawyers," he said.

But he added that legal aid was only one of several income streams for many such organisations, with 85% of Citizens Advice Bureaux funding coming from other sources.

At the end of the debate, 295 MPs voted in favour of the bill and 212 voted against. Five Conservatives were among those who voted no.


**************************************************
19. Ladies day at the shooting range
**************************************************

From WCTV.tv: http://tinyurl.com/3ocys3q

By Jerry Askin
June 29, 2011

Wakulla County, FL - One by one, ladies line up at the Wakulla County Shooting Range for their turn to fight back. It's something they look forward to every Wednesday.

"It's Ladies' Day every Wednesday. We made it that way," says Toni Kennedy, who shoots at the range every week.

"We just have a good time. They work with us. They teach us the right way to hold a gun, how to shoot a gun - safety issues that's all really important when it comes to shooting a gun," says Cathy Barefoot.

For an annual fee of $75, these ladies come out to the range and learn skills to keep them safe.

"We just all get together and talk about different situations like how to defend yourself," says Kyle Beckett.

According to the National Victim Center, 78 women are raped every hour in the U.S. Every nine seconds, a woman is physically abused by a man.

The ladies say they come here every Wednesday to have a good time, but more importantly they say they come here to learn how to protect themselves in case they're ever in a dangerous situation.

"If they find themselves in a particular uncomfortable situation, they're not only taught when to shoot, they're also taught, shoot or don't shoot," says Wakulla County Sheriff's Office Major Maurice Langston.

"The more you practice, the better able you are to defend yourself," says Kennedy.

Be sure to tune in to Live at Five on July 7 for our special report "Fighting Back" to learn what other local women are doing to keep themselves safe.

**************************************************
20. Thanks to all those who make the VCDL Update possible each week
**************************************************

I want to thank the following people for making the VCDL Update possible each week:

1. Contributors, such as Bruce Jackson and so many others who send me breaking material so that I am aware of everything gun related that is in the news
2. Jay Britt and Benjamin Piper, who, alternating each week, take the contributions and other materials that I forward to them and compile those items into the Update. It is a time consuming operation that saves me hours of work each week. Jay and Benjamin are a blessing. I am sent an initial Table of Contents, which I edit. They then flesh out the Update and I put in my comments
3. Jim Snyder and Dennis O'Connor who proof the final Update before I release it. They check for spelling, syntactic mistakes, and unclear wording and do a great job.

**************************************************
21. BREAKING: Obama promises gun control is coming
**************************************************

VCDL will be watching very carefully for any new gun control that shows up. For now, all we can do is keep our eyes open and wait.

From the Huffington Post: http://tinyurl.com/69buj6x

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future

WASHINGTON -- Half a year after the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), the Obama administration is set to release a series of reforms to the current gun law, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Thursday.

The reforms, which are being crafted by the Department of Justice, come after a series of meetings with relevant stakeholders in the Second Amendment debate. But in a nod to the difficulties of getting legislation through a Republican-run House of Representatives, only executive orders or administrative actions -- and not an actual bill -- are expected to be handed to Congress.

Administration officials were coy on the specifics, from the reforms the Department of Justice would recommend or when it would actually make those recommendations.

"The president directed the Attorney General to form working groups with key stakeholders to identify common sense measures that would improve American safety and security while fully respecting Second Amendment rights," Carney said at Thursday's briefing. "That process is well underway at the Department of Justice with stakeholders on all sides working through these complex issues and we expect to have more specific announcements in the near future."

Just how near? Carney would only say "not far in the future." Another administration official said weeks would be an appropriate measurement.

When the recommendations do come, it will represent the most comprehensive move on the gun control front from this administration to date. The president has largely punted on the issue since entering the White House, save issuing carefully worded reactions to Supreme Court rulings on local gun laws or bans.

The Giffords shooting had, seemingly, upped the pressure to implement reforms. Obama himself used the occasion to pen an op-ed for the Arizona Daily Star advocating for stronger state-to-state coordination with respect to gun data, expedited background checks and greater enforcement of the laws already on the books. The Department of Justice meetings commenced not too long later and have continued over the course of several months, according to an administration official. They are now finished.

The end result, one source close to the discussions said, was a package of reforms "not huge in scope." They are largely expected to mirror the topics covered in the president's op-ed. Gun control advocates have pushed for more, including legislation that would limit the size of magazines -- such as the 32-round clip that Giffords' shooter used -- or a bill that would force private sellers to conduct background checks at gun shows -- which was pushed in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting.

Still, executive actions offer something that legislation doesn't: guaranteed results. And as one gun control advocate told the Huffington Post, there are ways to "use these administrative changes to obtain similar results."

---

As a reminder, here is what President Obama wrote on gun control back on March 13th:

From the Arizona Star: http://tinyurl.com/4elqm3z

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms

It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.

But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.

He used it to murder six people and wound 13 others. And if not for the heroism of bystanders and a brilliant surgical team, it would have been far worse.

But since that day, we have lost perhaps another 2,000 members of our American family to gun violence. Thousands more have been wounded. We lose the same number of young people to guns every day and a half as we did at Columbine, and every four days as we did at Virginia Tech.

Every single day, America is robbed of more futures. It has awful consequences for our society. And as a society, we have a responsibility to do everything we can to put a stop to it.

Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.

I know that every time we try to talk about guns, it can reinforce stark divides. People shout at one another, which makes it impossible to listen. We mire ourselves in stalemate, which makes it impossible to get to where we need to go as a country.

However, I believe that if common sense prevails, we can get beyond wedge issues and stale political debates to find a sensible, intelligent way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place.

I'm willing to bet that responsible, law-abiding gun owners agree that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few - dangerous criminals and fugitives, for example - from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

I'm willing to bet they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas - that we should check someone's criminal record before he can check out at a gun seller; that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to buy a gun so easily; that there's room for us to have reasonable laws that uphold liberty, ensure citizen safety and are fully compatible with a robust Second Amendment.

That's why our focus right now should be on sound and effective steps that will actually keep those irresponsible, law-breaking few from getting their hands on a gun in the first place.

• First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

• Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Porous background checks are bad for police officers, for law-abiding citizens and for the sellers themselves. If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.

Clearly, there's more we can do to prevent gun violence. But I want this to at least be the beginning of a new discussion on how we can keep America safe for all our people.

I know some aren't interested in participating. Some will say that anything short of the most sweeping anti-gun legislation is a capitulation to the gun lobby. Others will predictably cast any discussion as the opening salvo in a wild-eyed scheme to take away everybody's guns. And such hyperbole will become the fodder for overheated fundraising letters.

But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.

As long as those whose lives are shattered by gun violence don't get to look away and move on, neither can we.

We owe the victims of the tragedy in Tucson and the countless unheralded tragedies each year nothing less than our best efforts - to seek consensus, to prevent future bloodshed, to forge a nation worthy of our children's futures.
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
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.