----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VA-ALERT archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/727/=now
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bloomberg giving gun-control groups millions to use in key Virginia Senate races
2. VA-ALERT archives now available back through 2012!
3. Gun-friendly Virginia does not have a single city in the top 100 most dangerous cities in U.S.
4. Wrap up on gun-panel at Liberty University
5. Coverage of Amherst County’s proposed shooting ordinance
6. Reminders: Elections are November 3rd and Lobby Day is January 18th!
7. Candidates speaking on gun control
8. VCDL in the media
9. Clinton supports gun confiscation
10. GOA doesn’t like Paul Ryan as Speaker candidate
11. We can all carry in Maine now!
12. McAuliffe takes it on the chin in poll on his executive orders
13. Think Tank wants McAuliffe’s government-building ban nationwide
14. Universal background check items
15. Will McAuliff’s orders create victim-disarmament zones?
16. Washington Post hit-piece lacks real-world understanding
17. More thoughts on “duty to inform” if carrying
18. More thoughts on using “verbal warnings”
19. Korwin: Method to stop shooting rampages emerges
20. Alert reader suggests call to action regarding Goodyear
21. Number of concealed carry permit applications double [VIDEO]
22. The left still blames guns after Smith Mountain Lake
23. More paperwork not a solution to evil
24. Renewed calls for gun control laws spur sales
25. Kaine gun bill reflects opportunistic deception [VIDEO]
26. Owning a car is 80% more dangerous than owning a gun
27. NY SAFE Act gun registration numbers released
28. Billboard slammed over gun control message [VIDEO]
29. [OH] Tired of being robbed, female homeowner shoots
30. [AZ] The staggering safety of living with conceal carry among us
31. If gun control works...where do terrorists get their weapons?
**************************************************
1. Bloomberg giving gun-control groups millions to use in key Virginia Senate races
**************************************************
Besides targeting pro-gun Senator Dick Black in Loudoun/Prince William by providing $1.5 MILLION to his opponent, Bloomberg is contributing $700,000 to support anti-gun Democrat Daniel A. Gecker (Gecker, Sturtevant, and Durfee have not returned a VCDL survey. Gecker is clearly anti-gun based on his public statements in strong support of gun control). Ads are now running in the Richmond area:
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/g ... 5e029.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/qgn2g2k
—
Also $1.5 MILLION is going to anti-gun Democrat Jeremy McPike:
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/g ... 0a374.html
or
http://tinyurl.com/poau7ho
**************************************************
2. VA-ALERT archives now available back through 2012!
**************************************************
You can get to the archives of VA-ALERTs on the VCDL.org web site under the menu “VA-ALERT”, and then “VA_ALERT Archives”.
Or you can click here:
http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/727/=now
The archives are kept automatically and will be up to date going forward.
**************************************************
3. Gun-friendly Virginia does not have a single city in the top 100 most dangerous cities in U.S.
**************************************************
Well, well, well. So good, old, pro-gun Virginia doesn’t have ANY cities listed in the top-100 most dangerous cities in the U.S. in 2015. Well, then, what about 2014? None. Nor are any Virginia cities listed in 2013. Nor in 2012, which is as far back as this seems to go.
But, let’s take a look at the gun-control poster-boy states of NJ, NY, MD, IL, CA, and DC:
Number of cities in the top 100 most dangerous U.S. cities in 2015:
NJ - 6 (has the number 1 most dangerous city on the list)
NY - 6
MD - 2
IL - 4
CA - 8 (has the number 5 most dangerous city on the list)
DC - 1 (is the 29th most dangerous city on the list)
VA - ZERO
Number of cities in the top 100 most dangerous U.S. cities in 2014:
NJ - 6 (has the number 3 most dangerous city on the list)
NY - 4
MD - 2
IL - 5 (including the number 1 most dangerous city on the list)
CA - 10 (has the number 9 most dangerous city on the list)
DC - 1 (is the 46th most dangerous city on the list)
VA - ZERO
Number of cities in the top 100 most dangerous U.S. cities in 2013:
NJ - 6 (has the number 7 most dangerous city on the list)
NY - 4 (had the number 9 most dangerous city on the list)
MD - 2
IL - 7 (including the number 1 most dangerous city on the list)
CA - 6
DC - 1 (is the 46th most dangerous city on the list)
VA - ZERO
Number of cities in the top 100 most dangerous U.S. cities in 2012:
NJ - 7 (has the numbers 5 and 9 most dangerous city on the list)
NY - 8 (had the number 9 most dangerous city on the list)
MD - 2
IL - 7 (including the number 1 most dangerous city on the list)
CA - 7DC
DC - 1 (is the 40th most dangerous city on the list)
VA - ZERO
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/neighb ... dangerous/
**************************************************
4. Wrap up on gun-panel at Liberty University
**************************************************
On Thursday, over 60 people attended a panel discussion with Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America and me (photos on the VCDL.org main page).
A good time was had by all, and I would like to thank Jordan K. Stein with Students at Liberty for Gun Rights for setting up the event. Also, I’d like to thank some stalwart VCDL members from SW Virginia who came to show support: Sherrill Smith, George Overstreet, Ed and Connie French, EM Ken Modica, James Evans, and Baxter Stegall.
Great to see so many millennials and lots of women!
**************************************************
5. Coverage of Amherst County’s proposed shooting ordinance
**************************************************
Media mostly ignored big turnout opposing proposed shooting restrictions in Amherst County. Here is some coverage:
http://m.newsadvance.com/new_era_progre ... l?mode=jqm
or
http://tinyurl.com/p7meqwb
Opponents blast no-shoot proposal
Nicole SteenburghPosted 3 days ago
Decorated with bright orange stickers that read "Guns SAVE Lives," an overflowing crowd attended the Amherst County Board of Supervisors' meeting Tuesday to register protests against a no-shoot draft ordinance.
Opponents overflowed the room at Tuesday's meeting, which began with a motion from the board to take the ordinance off the agenda. Chairman David Pugh invited those gathered to give their input and opinions about the draft.
With the exception of a single voice, the majority of those gathered stood in opposition to the proposal.
The draft presented to the board on Oct. 6 detailed a prohibition on outdoor shooting on or along any public road and a 100-yard buffer around any residence or public gathering place that is not the shooter’s own dwelling. The proposal also restricts shooting across someone else’s property, unless permission has been given.
County Administrator Dean Rodgers said this proposal basically applies hunting rules, which already are established, to shooting in general.
Timothy Evans, of Monroe, was among the many who expressed displeasure with the idea of another shooting restriction. He told the board the proposed ordinance is “a solution looking for a problem.”
“I moved here from Maryland to escape government overreach,” Evans said. “I’m just absolutely incredulous that it appears here in Amherst County.”
Board members withheld discussion of the draft at Tuesday's meeting.
**************************************************
6. Reminders: Elections are November 3rd and Lobby Day is January 18th!
**************************************************
Election day is coming up fast: Tuesday, November 3rd. Be there or be square.
Lobby Day is fast approaching, too: Monday, January 18th at 8:30 AM in Richmond at the General Assembly Building. Carry is OK (OC or CC) with a CHP.
**************************************************
7. Candidates speaking on gun control
**************************************************
This was at VCU, covering the 4 candidates for the 10th Senate District (Republican Glen Sturtevant, Democrat Dan Gecker, Libertarian Carl Loser and Independent Marleen Durfee):
http://wric.com/2015/10/20/senate-candi ... cs-at-vcu/
-
Here is April Moore, who is running against pro-gun Senator Mark Obenshain, spouting the usual anti-gun junk, supporting Universal Background Checks/Registration, etc. Her comments on guns start at 7:45:
http://wmra.org/post/conversation-april ... e-district
-
http://www.nbc29.com/story/30318774/del ... un-control
**************************************************
8. VCDL in the media
**************************************************
I was interviewed on Freedom & Prosperity Radio about using mental health laws to disarm veterans and elderly [AUDIO]:
Part 1: http://www.tertiumquids.org/092615%20D.mp3
Part 2: http://www.tertiumquids.org/092615%20E.mp3
-
Here is an interview with Joe Thomas out McAuliffe’s government-building gun-grab [AUDIO]:
https://soundcloud.com/monticellomedia/ ... dium=email
or
http://tinyurl.com/o27bzlm
-
Article on McAuliffe’s state-agency gun ban:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/prominent- ... buildings/
**************************************************
9. Clinton supports gun confiscation
**************************************************
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10 ... ing-fears/
or
http://tinyurl.com/pmz272t
Clinton suggests she'd consider mandatory gun buy-backs, sparking fears of ‘confiscation’
Published October 18, 2015
FoxNews.com
Hillary Clinton said Friday that mandatory gun buy-back programs like ones in Australia are “worth looking into,” sparking criticism that the Democratic presidential front-runner would, if elected, impose gun-confiscation efforts.
Clinton made the comments during a campaign stop in Keene, N.H., when an attendee asked about Australia’s 1996 and 2003 buy-back programs that collected roughly 700,000 banned semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.
“I think it would be worth considering doing it on the national level, if that could be arranged,” Clinton responded.
“This validates what the NRA has said all along,” said Chris Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The real goal of gun control supporters is gun confiscation.”
Cox said Clinton’s comments echo recent ones by President Obama, making “very clear” that the underlying goal of gun-control advocates is confiscation.
The issue of tighter gun control and targeting the NRA as leading efforts to keep Congress from passing laws on firearms and background checks resurfaced earlier this month, after a gunman killed nine people at Umpqua Community College in Rosenburg, Oregon.
The NRA also says that Clinton believes that the Supreme Court incorrectly determined that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to self-defense. The group made the argument in part based on a purported audiotape obtained The Washington Beacon in which Clinton says, “And I am going to make that case every chance I get.”
"Hillary Clinton just doesn’t get it," Cox said. "The NRA’s strength lies in our five million members and the tens of millions of voters who support the Second Amendment.
"A majority of Americans support this freedom, and the Supreme Court was absolutely right to hold that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms," he added. "Hillary Clinton's extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people."
**************************************************
10. GOA doesn’t like Paul Ryan as Speaker candidate
**************************************************
Link for more information and to take action:
http://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/wri ... BnE_w&lp=0
or
http://tinyurl.com/p5zyyl2
**************************************************
11. We can all carry in Maine now!
**************************************************
Maine is no longer requiring a permit to carry concealed - Constitutional Carry became law back on October 1st!
**************************************************
12. McAuliffe takes it on the chin in poll on his executive orders
**************************************************
Here’s a link to the poll:
http://wric.com/2015/10/16/8news-daily- ... r-on-guns/
or
http://tinyurl.com/pqey4le
**************************************************
13. Think Tank wants McAuliffe’s government-building ban nationwide
**************************************************
Disarmament of the population is the goal, of course:
http://wtop.com/virginia/2015/10/libera ... s-country/
or
http://tinyurl.com/ob9ugb4
**************************************************
14. Universal background check items
**************************************************
Colian Noir takes on the reality behind Universal Background Checks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IN9GiyRzKI
————
Member Tom Patton forwarded this to me from one of his friends living in Washington State:
In Washington we now have a law based on initiative 594 that does many of the things "Universal Background Checks" would do - example - if you and I were standing on the firing line at our local range and you admired my new 1911 pistol and asked if you could fire it - if I said yes and handed it to you without an FFL holder filling out the proper paperwork and doing a background check for our "Transfer" under the new law I would have committing a misdemeanor and when you handed it back to me we both would be felons.
Another example - I purchase a guided Elk hunt - I have all of the required licenses and permits and my guide is licensed - we go hunting, find an Elk and I take the shot and my rifle malfunctions - if I hand it to the Guide to help clear the problem without the proper transfer paperwork the same violations apply unless he has an Elk tag and the other proper licenses even though he was not "hunting" or planning to harvest an Elk.
The new law is 18 pages long and is very poorly written - most County Sheriffs have said they will not actively enforce the new law but I would hate to be the "Poster Child" for the 1st arrest - since the law was enacted by an electorate vote it can not be challenged for 2 years - I love being a "Red" person living in a "Blue" state controlled by the voters in King County (Seattle).
Good Grief!!!
**************************************************
15. Will McAuliff’s orders create victim-disarmament zones?
**************************************************
http://www.examiner.com/article/will-vi ... ament-zone
or
http://tinyurl.com/qbc3zw3
[SNIP]
Early on the morning of 15 October, 2015, Bristol, Virginia resident and gun rights attorney John Pierce was eating breakfast and reading an article about the state of Maine’s first day as a “Constitutional carry state,” that is, a state where citizens need no permit to conceal or open carry handguns. And then Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org “nearly choked” when he came upon Virginia Governor McAuliffe’s announcement to unilaterally ban gun carry “in all state offices,” such as Department of Motor Vehicle buildings and Virginia Employment Centers.
The Governor’s decrees shocked many in the Old Dominion who for years enjoyed living in a state where Governors, Attorneys General, and legislators from both parties had gradually worked to improve gun rights for citizens of Virginia and its visitors. Interestingly, neither federal Senator Warner (D-Va.) nor former federal Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) attended Governor McAuliffe’s announcement of these executive orders.
. . .
**************************************************
16. Washington Post hit-piece lacks real-world understanding
**************************************************
http://www.examiner.com/article/washpos ... orld-works
or
http://tinyurl.com/nkumrgv
Michael Rosenwald’s essay, “Most gun owners support restrictions, Why aren’t their voices heard,” Washington Post, October 9, 2015, broadly assails Americans opposed to yet even more gun control in the United States. Rosenfeld’s writing displays both lack of respect for the factual foundation of gun policy matters, as well as a failure to explain to readers how collective political decisions are actually made in any polity, especially an American one.
For example Rosenwald quotes “Patrick Tomlinson, a science-fiction writer and gun owner in Milwaukee who favors universal background checks and longer waiting periods for gun purchases.” But in real-life – not science fiction - neither federal nor Wisconsin law imposes ANY waiting periods for gun purchases as the Brady Act was sold on the system working "instantly."
. . .
**************************************************
17. More thoughts on “duty to inform” if carrying
**************************************************
Regarding 8. More on “duty to inform” for DC and Virginia” in the Update on 9/16/15:
From a member who is a police officer:
I'm a police officer and I couldn't care less if somebody discloses their permit or that they're carrying to me. So long as I can see their hands at all times, I consider myself safe. When I can't see their hands, and they don't immediately show me their hands when asked, that's when a peaceful situation begins to morph to something else. Cops who try to take someone's gun for the "duration" don't, in my opinion, know anything about the law, much less common sense. I mean, so you've completed a stop, and now you're handing a loaded gun back to somebody, and now it's IN their hand preparatory to holstering it. Unsafe. And if you unload it, how long does it take to slap a mag into a semi-auto, rack and shoot? Otherwise, are you going to also disassemble a gun you may have never handled before? And anyway, where's your legal authority to do any of that absent an articulable threat?
The permutations just keep going.
Hands where they're always visible when the cop approaches or is with you. If a person makes you wary for whatever reason, then you've got an articulable fear for your safety and you can pat them down and confiscate any weapon for the duration. But that makes it a very different stop than "normal." A good cop has to know the difference right off the bat.
———
This is from Doug, a VCDL member:
The article about notifying officers brought back two instances I once had, one positive and the other extremely unsafe.
The first a positive response:
While leaving a republican dinner event in Hanover one evening I was driving with my mother and a close family friend talking etc as one does. While going through town I must have crossed slightly the middle line and was pulled over by a Hanover Country police officer. Two officers got out, one approached the drivers side and asked for my ID, etc. I had the vehicle cut off and both hands on the wheel and calmly stated that I have a concealed carry permit, my gun is located on my right side above my wallet. He smiled and said "Just don’t shoot me"... After giving him the requested information he asked did I know why he pulled me over, I didn’t at the time, and he explained I had crossed the line and since it was a Friday evening he suspected drinking and driving, which of course I was not and he stated he didn’t smell any alcohol or had an suspicion anymore. He wished us a good evening and let us go. I was pleased Hanover was keeping a keen eye out for suspected drunk drivers (and thus protecting the public) and also very professionally and politely interacted with me.
Now the second very unsafe response:
A friend and I were driving to Greentop Sporting Goods one Saturday in an old Ford truck I had with antique tags on it. I knew the law and was well within my right to "pleasure driving". While driving down 295 North I was pulled over by a young State Police Officer. I did the same as before, had the engine off, hands on the wheel, and when asked for my drivers license, I explained I had a concealed carry permit, I had a gun on me... and that’s when he quickly stepped back, had his hand on his gun, and asked me where exactly was the gun, I explained I had a small pistol in my pocket, one beside me between the seats, and that my friend also had a concealed carry permit and was also carrying. He demanded I get out of the vehicle and quickly asked what pocket was the gun in, I told him and he quickly started going for my pocket. I explained I do not feel comfortable with him reaching into my pocket with the gun loaded, but he told me to let him get it.
At this point he seemed to start to calm down a little and allowed me to get the gun out and hand him the other two. We gave him both drivers permit, both concealed carry permits, and three loaded pistols. He preceded to carry them back to his car. After about 20 minutes he returned with all three guns bundled in his arms, they had all been unloaded and the magazines emptied.
He was walking down the side of the interstate with three guns, maybe 25 or so loose bullets, and our permits. He asked me to step out of the truck and "dumped" the load onto my driver's seat...
He began to explain he pulled me for antique tags, I explained politely that I had studied the law and since we were truly enjoying a nice Saturday driving my truck, we were pleasure driving, which was the truth, and that I was within the law. He stated he wasn’t going to give me a ticket (how nice), but he new of other Troopers that would. I explained I have no problems if they did, as I have no issue explaining the law to a police officer in front of a judge.
He then left us on the side of a busy interstate to reload our guns.
I never filed a complaint, as I could tell he was nervous and seemingly fresh out of the academy. But he in the end put many people in a very dangerous situation not to mention myself several times between the loaded guns, him reaching into my pocket, and having me stand on the side of the interstate.
Police Officers have a very dangerous job, risking their lives all the time for very little compensation. Not only this we tend to be working towards a very dangerous trend in this country of persecuting our officers time and time again.
They are simply humans like us all, they want to go home to their families just like I do, and have to deal with a majority of very disgruntle hard to deal with people most of the time. So I always try to have grace and understanding when I have done nothing wrong.
I just wanted to share two different responses I have gotten in the past…
[PVC: My main comment on the second encounter is that the driver has no need to volunteer the carry status of other passengers. If they wish to divulge that they are carrying, that is up to them.]
**************************************************
18. More thoughts on using “verbal warnings”
**************************************************
An gun-friendly attorney sent me this:
I tell people that Virginia law doesn't recognize warnings at all. The
phrase used over and over again in opinions is, "The law of self-defense is
the law of necessity." That is to say, a present need to use deadly force against another
person. If there's no need, no necessity, then there's no basis for
self-defense/defense of innocent others. As "Tuco" (played by Eli Wallach)
said in "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly", "When you need to shoot, shoot;
don't talk." So warnings whether verbal or by discharge of the firearm,
provide evidence that there was no present necessity to use deadly force. Thus, the
"defender" is committing at least a misdemeanor by making any reference to
the firearm at all; I recently participated in the defense of a case in
which the defender was convicted of several felonies and is looking at five
years, minimum, in the penitentiary, because he fired a warning shot and was
charged with attempted malicious wounding. If you don't actually need to
use deadly force against someone, leave the gun in the holster; don't talk about it, don't look
at it, don't touch it, don't make any reference to it, and don't think about
it. When you need to use deadly force, take the gun out, and shoot
to stop. It's a binary choice, and there is no middle ground.
That said, I'd point out that the brandishing statute contains an explicit
exception for self-defense. My view is that the exception applies when one
pulls the gun out because he reasonably believes he needs to use deadly force
and then changes his mind. The law does not require you to shoot once you've
pulled the gun out, even if you decide you were wrong to do so, you can
always change your mind. But the critical thing is that you had a
reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or
another innocent person was faced with the threat of imminent and serious
bodily injury at the time you pulled out the gun. Most people who get into
trouble do so because they acted out of uncertainty or fear, when there was
no objective fact indicating a present need to use deadly force.
**************************************************
19. Korwin: Method to stop shooting rampages emerges
**************************************************
Method for Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges
by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Hard evidence -- not doctor theories, news commentary, conjecture, hyperbole, rumor, innuendo or any other proposals -- clearly shows that the only known way to actually stop spree murderers is to shoot them -- or scare them into shooting themselves. Time and again society has found this works.
According to the evidence, every mass murder in recent times has been halted, in the final analysis, by shooting the murderers, or threatening to shoot them, with guns. Members of the press corps continue to debate the subject, despite the evidence. Sources speaking privately say the media consciously reject this fact. In stark contrast, self-defense incidents using guns are suppressed, by news-media policy, and do not appear on the public stage.
An excellent write up about the censorship of firearms used in self defense appears here --
http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/usa-today-ad ... med-heroes
and here --
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/09/since ... d-gun-news
Multiple reports of self-defense, accomplished by shooting criminals, appear as paid space in USA Today, which otherwise censors such reports:
http://www.gunlaws.com/TheFirstRespondersReport.htm
Although knowledgeable commentators are still debating the merits of shooting murderers, the visible evidence clearly demonstrates that shooting the perpetrators does take care of the problem. No other solutions have worked.
The only problem identified is the relative slowness of this effective remedy, due mainly to the delay in getting guns to the scene where innocent victims are assaulted. The scenes have virtually always been in supposed "gun-free zones," with posted signs flatly rejected by the perpetrators.
President Barack Hussein Obama, whose middle name is not supposed to be used, went on national TV, twice in the past week, to propose other solutions, which he announced as "politicized." He promised to "continue talking."
Further analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, has determined that background checks, or newly proposed additional background checks, recommended by Mr. Obama and others, would be pointless for people who already own guns, since they already own guns. The best estimates indicate this is about 100 million armed Americans.
And in other analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, waiting periods have no meaning whatsoever for Americans who already own guns, when they go shopping for guns, since they already own guns. That is also 100 million Americans.
Waiting periods have one additional drawback overlooked in mainstream reports. They require the public to trust psychotic individuals who wait five days to get their first gun, to remain calm for the balance of their lives. Somehow, the five-day waiting period doesn't seem like a long enough "cooling off" period, but this has not made it into nightly "news" reports, or the President's commentaries, for reasons that were unclear at press time.
The murderer in Oregon who sparked the recent repetitive debates owned more than a dozen guns, according to early reports, all legally acquired. While Hillary, Mr. Obama and others are still calling for more background checks, they have apparently failed to notice these obvious errors in their plan.
Only new, or "virgin" gun buyers would be affected, most of whom would pass checks anyway, according to leading experts and past experience. The point of adding even more checks, when current checks are not used to take criminals off the streets, was not clear as this report was prepped for release.
"News" commentators have also failed to make this connection, so far, and have repeated the calls from politicians on both sides of the aisle, who are discussing background checks and waiting periods.
The role of ultra-violent body-rending video games, horrific grizzly blood and all gore movies on nightly TV and a debasement of popular American culture at every level has not figured prominently into the president's prolific pronouncements.
The public -- not some famous vilified "the gun lobby" -- rises up loudly to condemn the assault on their fundamental civil and human rights. This is the same 100 million armed Americans mentioned earlier. Some reports suggest it is "only" 80 million armed Americans. The NRA, often cited as "the gun lobby," has only 5 million members.
**************************************************
20. Alert reader suggests call to action regarding Goodyear
**************************************************
Member Jessie Cartlidge emailed me this and suggested members follow suit:
Thanks for the posting about Goodyear (https://www.goodyear.com/en-US/company/contact-goodyear). I contacted them though the website link and posted this message...
I recently was advised of your policy for no guns on your property. I would like to advise you I will not ever step foot on your property again, nor any of my family ( 10 vehicles) as well as many of my friends that will hear about your decision to ban law abiding citizens from your place of business. In addition, I would also like to relieve you of concern about having your branded tires on vehicles that transport those of us (10 + vehicles ) who have gone to the trouble to be finger printed back ground checked and legally permitted to carry a firearm for our protection and in some cases others. It is likely the criminals will still be around your business but we will not.
Sincerely ...
**************************************************
21. Number of concealed carry permit applications double [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Member John Wilburn emailed me this:
From wdbj7.com: http://tinyurl.com/pq962zr
or
http://www.wdbj7.com/news/local/number- ... g/35206246
Number concealed carry permit applications double after SML shooting
by Amanda Kenney
September 10, 2015
More people are trying to buy guns in Franklin County. Since the shooting at Smith Mountain Lake on August 26th, the Franklin County Circuit Court has issued 93 concealed handgun permits.
Ever since the shooting, the Circuit Court Clerk says everyone from families to attorneys are walking in, applying for Concealed Handgun Licenses.
The past two weeks have been busy for the Franklin County Circuit Court Clerk's office.
"We have seen a large volume of concealed handgun permit applications," said Clerk Teresa Brown.
Browns says her office typically sees 86 concealed carry applications a month but in the last eight business days there have been 93. "It is unusual. It's a high volume," she said.
Just down the road at Franklin Outdoors, Sean Purdue says his business has been just as busy. "An 83 year old grandmother was here three hours after the shooting and said I need something," says Purdue.
He says, "lots and lots of people bought lots and lots of guns. For one thing they didn't know where the guy was and they were looking for copycats.
Through the week, Perdue says he was selling out of guns. And he says they're the type of guns people use for protection.
"Conceal carry handguns, big handguns. it doesn't matter," he says, "A lot of people are just like, you tell me what I need."
But he says he was expecting it. And so did the clerk's office.
"We were, I think we were," says Brown. "I think the community is concerned.
Brown says the only other time she's seen so many applications for concealed carry was in 2013. That year they filed 1,385 permits. That's about 300 more permits than they typically process in a year.
**************************************************
22. The left still blames guns after Smith Mountain Lake
**************************************************
Member Montford Oakes emailed me this:
https://patriotpost.us/articles/37247
Black Homosexual Murders Two Whites and Leftists Still Blame Guns
By Allyne Caan
August 27, 2015
Yesterday, it happened again: People were going about their daily lives only to be struck down by a crazed murderer. This time, the backdrop was Smith Mountain Lake, Virginia, where 24-year-old reporter Alison Parker and 27-year-old cameraman Adam Ward were up early on a Wednesday morning, delivering a live broadcast for WDBJ, the local CBS News affiliate where both worked.
During the 6:45 a.m. broadcast, the murderer walked up and shot dead both Alison and Adam. He also wounded Vicki Gardner, executive director of the Smith Mountain Lake Regional Chamber of Commerce, whom Alison was interviewing. In an act of psychotic narcissism, he filmed his crime and posted the video online before taking his own life. Due to the fire-like speed of social media, many people unintentionally found themselves viewing both versions of the horrific footage as videos auto-played in their browsers or on their phones.
The killer faxed ABC News a 23-page manifesto showing just how deranged he was. In it, he praised by name the killers in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre as well as the man who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech in 2007. Yesterday’s murderer was a former WDBJ employee who claimed discrimination as a homosexual black man and wrote that the Charleston mass murder, in which a white man killed nine black churchgoers in June, was the last straw motivating his homicidal targeting of white individuals.
His anger and instability were no surprise to some. According to his former supervisor at WDBJ, the killer had a history of lodging complaints against co-workers — none of which were ever validated. Eventually, he was fired for bizarre and threatening behavior, and police even had to escort him out of the building.
Yet despite the overwhelming evidence that yesterday’s tragedy was perpetrated by a sick man bent on vengeance, almost immediately Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and other leftists used the tragedy to blame their favorite scapegoat — guns.
First, Obama spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters, “This is another example of gun violence that is becoming all too common in communities large and small across the United States.”
Then Obama himself said, “What we know is that the number of people who die from gun-related incidents around this country dwarfs any deaths that happen through terrorism.” So in one astonishingly stupid statement, he managed to blame the tool and minimize the (jihadi) terrorist threat that has claimed hundreds of thousands of victims around the world just during his presidency. And, by the way, 3,000 Americans were killed on 9/11 without a single firearm.
His comments also come on the heels of his lament last month that the area he feels “most frustrated and most stymied” is that the U.S. “is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws.”
Not to be outdone, Hillary Clinton declared, “We have got to do something about gun violence in America. And I will take it on.”
Likewise, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe used the killings to call for stricter gun control, saying, “There are too many guns in the hands of people who should not have guns. That is why I’ve long advocated for background checks. … This is why we need to restrict access to guns.”
Unfortunately, emotion plays better than facts in times of tragedy — and that’s what Obama, Clinton and McAuliffe are banking on. Contrary to McAuliffe’s insinuation, the murderer passed a background check in order to buy his gun. But leftists won’t stop with more checks because, as McAuliffe said, they’re after “restricting access.”
And despite Obama’s claim of increased gun violence, such violence has actually drastically decreased over the last couple of decades. In fact, in 2010, the gun homicide rate was 49% lower than in 1993, according to a 2013 Pew Research Center study. The downward trend appears to have remained steady since 2011 — all while gun laws have been loosened and gun ownership has increased.
Thanks in part to leftist rhetoric, though, just 12% of Americans believe gun crime is lower now than in the early 1990s. In fact, the 2013 Pew study reveals 56% erroneously believe it’s higher.
Unavoidably, false information leads to faulty judgment, such as one absurdly ignorant tweet saying the county where yesterday’s murders occurred supported Romney in the last presidential election, so it must be gun-friendly. Evidently this person hasn’t heard of Chicago, Baltimore, Ferguson, or any other inner city Democrat poverty plantation where murder and violent crime are rampant.
Yesterday’s killings were perpetrated not by a county, a community, a tool, or the Second Amendment but by a sick individual driven by racial and anti-heterosexual hatred. His hatred — not his gun — drove him to kill. More to the point, the killer wasn’t a Romney voter but reportedly was reprimanded for wearing an Obama button during campaign coverage. That’s a report the American Leftmedia won’t bother getting around to.
Heartbreakingly, this unchecked hatred cost the lives of Adam Ward, who was engaged to be married to a coworker (who saw the murder happen while watching the broadcast in the control room), and Alison Parker, who was also dating a coworker and by all accounts was a vibrant and joyful woman.
Adam and Alison’s deaths should not be used as props for political gain. Instead, they should motivate us to counter the hatred that drives killers to take innocent lives and inflict unspeakable heartache to satisfy their delusional sense of vengeance.
**************************************************
23. More paperwork not a solution to evil
**************************************************
From wnd.com: http://tinyurl.com/pxfucs3
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/more-paperwo ... n-to-evil/
MORE PAPERWORK NOT A SOLUTION TO EVIL
Jeff Knox targets latest proposals meant to deal with America's 'gun culture'
by Jeff Knox
September 3, 2015
Once again a disturbed, disgruntled deviant with a chip on his shoulder has chosen to make himself famous by killing people, and once again the media, politicians and some heartbroken family members of the victims are using the tragedy to call for “solutions” that can’t work to prevent such tragedies and only hurt the innocent.
This time the culprit was a homosexual, African-American, self-avowed racist who considered himself a victim. In retribution for perceived slights from former colleagues at a Virginia TV station, the murderer decided to create a media sensation by committing his crimes on live television. But that wasn’t enough. To be sure that his act would be seen and replayed as much as possible, he also videoed the entire thing himself, including the actual act of shooting. He then posted that video, along with long lists of the “wrongs” he had suffered, to social media.
As is The Firearms Coalition’s longstanding policy, I will not mention the name of the murderer, and will only refer to him in the derogatory terms his actions have earned. When the clear and often openly stated objective of committing a heinous act is to generate media, and make the culprit famous, we believe it is irresponsible for the media to fulfill those desires. If more media would adopt a similar position, we might see less of this sort of infamy-seeking.
In this case, as in so many cases before it, the atrocity was actually an elaborate suicide in which the suicidal individual makes his death “newsworthy” by taking innocents’ lives along with his own. And like most of the similar events in recent decades, the murderer planned his actions out in detail well in advance of the event, fully complying with existing laws right up to the moments preceding the atrocity.
It’s easy to look at events like these and point an accusing finger at America’s “gun culture,” that is, the lawful acquisition and ownership of guns. After all, if we didn’t have all of these guns everywhere, the murderers wouldn’t have been able to commit their crimes. If we just had one more layer of checks, one more set of administrative hoops, if guns were just a little more inconvenient to obtain and own, couldn’t we keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them? I don’t think so. This approach holds that the solution to the problem of evil acts by deranged humans is simply more paperwork for everyone.
The paperwork “solution” du jour is an idea proponents call “universal background checks.” They say that because Americans are able to legally buy and sell guns amongst themselves without having to get the blessings of the government, criminals and crazy people are able to get guns with “no questions asked.” What they neglect to offer is any clear evidence that this is actually a problem or that their proposal is actually a solution. They don’t mention that the TV murderer in Virginia passed a standard FBI background check when he purchased the gun he used in his crimes. They also neglect to mention that virtually all of the other murderers anyone can name also either passed background checks or bypassed the system completely by stealing the guns or obtaining them through other illegal means.
In fact, the incidence of a criminal buying a gun from a private individual to bypass the background required of dealer sales is so rare that supporters of “universal background checks” are only able to produce a handful of examples from the past two decades. Those who commit elaborate, “I want to be on TV” type murders rarely have any serious criminal or mental-health records that would cause them to fail a background check or disqualify them from legally buying a gun, and real criminals find it easier and safer to keep their firearm acquisitions in their familiar, illegal channels.
Reports about criminals buying guns “over the Internet” are misleading at best. There is no such thing as legally buying a gun “over the Internet.” All legal firearm sales under current law must take place in face-to-face transactions, except transfers between federally licensed dealers. What restriction advocates call “Internet sales” are actually private sales involving some sort of Internet advertising, either through a firearm-oriented advertising site or a regular classified ad site. In all cases, the actual sale must take place in a face-to-face transaction, and most private sellers require, for their own protection, ID and driver’s license information before they will agree to the sale.
It is natural for people who have suffered a tragic loss to want to make sense of a tragedy, to see some good come out of the event. Unfortunately, in the case of those advocating for expanded background checks or other restrictions on individual rights, not only are these efforts useless at preventing similar tragedies, they can actually enable other types of tragedies. Not to mention, they are also a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
Instead of responding to heinous crimes with calls to make life more complicated for innocent people, let’s focus attention on programs, measures and institutions that can actually have a positive impact. Let’s stop the divisive politics of racial, gender and other victimhood categories and work toward actual fair and equal treatment of everyone.
More laws, which only apply to the law-abiding, and more paperwork are no solution to the problems of madness and evil. Calls for expanding firearm purchase background checks are just another case of emotion demanding action, even if the action makes no sense at all.
**************************************************
24. Renewed calls for gun control laws spur sales
**************************************************
From usatoday.com: http://tinyurl.com/pto8p8q
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /71703118/
Renewed calls for gun control laws spur sales
by Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY
September 5, 2015
WASHINGTON — Renewed calls for more restrictive gun laws, following a succession of fatal shootings in the United States, immediately appear to be generating a boost for the gun industry.
Newly released August records show that the FBI posted 1.7 million background checks required of gun purchasers at federally licensed dealers, the highest number recorded in any August since gun checks began in 1998. The numbers follow new monthly highs for June (1.5 million) and July (1.6 million), a period which spans a series of deadly gun attacks — from Charleston to Roanoke — and proposals for additional firearm legislation.
While the FBI does not track actual gun sales, as multiple firearms can be included in a transaction by a single buyer, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System's numbers are an indicator of a market upswing in the face of growing anxiety about access to guns.
"Whenever there is a call for gun control, sales increase,'' said Larry Keane, general counsel for the firearm industry trade association National Shooting Sports Foundation. "Unfortunately, this is a pattern that repeats itself.''
The summer trend is not on par with the panic buying boom that followed the 2012 Newtown massacre, which jump-started state and federal campaigns for a host of new firearm measures. During the months that followed the Connecticut attack, which featured new calls for an assault weapons ban and expanded background checks, apprehensive gun buyers emptied the shelves of dealers across the country. Yet, the recent uptick represents a similar buying pattern that dates to the uneasy period before 1994 adoption of the assault weapons ban. (That ban expired in 2004.)
Virginia Del. Patrick Hope, a Democratic member of the state Assembly who proposed an expansion of background checks following last month's shooting deaths of two journalists near Roanoke, said the stockpiling of weapons represented an "over-reaction.''
"We're not at all threatening any one's ability to get a gun,'' Hope said. "What we're talking about here is common sense legislation. I don't think any one is threatened by background checks.''
In the recent Virginia shootings, an attack carried out on live television, gunman Vester Flanagan passed a background check prior to last month's purchase of two Glock handguns, including the weapon used in the Aug. 26 assault in which reporter Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, 27, were killed. A third person, a local chamber of commerce official, was wounded. Flanagan later used one of the weapons to kill himself.
Hope said his expanded background check proposal, supported by a petition containing 28,000 signatures, is aimed at the unchecked market of private firearm transactions, mostly over the Internet and at gun shows, that account for about 40% of firearm sales.
"I chose background checks, not because it would have prevented (the Virginia shooting) but because this would be easiest to pass,'' Hope said. "We will not be able to prevent every single incident. We need to do something.''
But Keane said the legislative proposals commonly offered in the emotional wake of fatal shootings often do not account for specific circumstances leading up to the attacks.
"These things are being offered up before the person is even arrested or before (investigators) even know what happened,'' Keane said. "For people concerned about their Second Amendment rights, the concern never goes away.''
Keane said the gun purchases prompted by calls for new restrictions are "certainly legitimate to the person exercising their fundamental civil liberties protected by the Second Amendment.''
"The concern that anti-gun politicians are seeking to infringe and restrict the right to keep and bear arms is very real and well-founded,'' he said.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said there is risk during periods of increased sales when all purchases are not covered by background checks.
"When gun sales rise, more and more weapons find a set of dangerous hands to call home,'' Gross said. "There are people in this country, people like felons, fugitives, and domestic abusers who we all agree simply should not have guns.’'
**************************************************
25. Kaine gun bill reflects opportunistic deception [VIDEO]
**************************************************
From ammoland.com: http://tinyurl.com/pch52rp
or
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/09/kaine-g ... z3lN2vF1kF
Kaine Gun Bill Reflects Opportunistic Deception, Not Public Safety
By David Codrea
September 10, 2015
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) is looking to crack down on gun dealers that sell firearms to criminals,” The Hill reported Tuesday. “The Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act introduced Tuesday would hold gun dealers liable for sales made to people who are prohibited from owning guns.”
But not just dealers:
It would apply to both federally-licensed gun dealers and private sellers.
What the guy wants to do is outlaw private sales. What he wants to do is everything he can to prevent all sales. And destroy some people who don’t vote for him in the bargain.
In the case of dealers, Kaine evidently wants to make what’s already illegal even more illegal – that and demand impossible clairvoyance from them. That way, even if they’re innocent of the charges, they’ll have their businesses and lives destroyed trying to fight a government that has unlimited resources and is not above using every filthy legal trick in the book, as evidenced by the travesty of a case it pursued against the Reese family.
In the case of private sellers, colleague Kurt Hofmann sized it up pretty well when he sent me a link to the bill, albeit I’m not certain if that copy is complete (it’s not on the Library of Congress THOMAS legislative site at this writing).
“It looks as if the only way to shield yourself from criminal liability is to put the prospective buyer through a NICS check, but doesn’t make the NICS system available to anyone new,” Hofmann remarked. “Talk about a Catch-22.”
We can get a feel for what Kaine is trying to foist on us through his “Fact Sheet” (remembering the truism that for “progressives, every day is Opposite Day, and any claims to presenting facts must be viewed accordingly).
“The Responsible Transfer of Firearms Act provides the ability to bring some measure of accountability for the violence that continues to plague our communities,” Kaine claims. “It would hold a seller or transferor of firearms criminally liable should any of their transactions fall into the wrong hands.
“[The bill] would increase the responsibility of the seller or transferor to take affirmative, reasonable steps to determine that the potential buyer is not prohibited from legally purchasing a gun,” Kaine continues. “In fact, absent a showing the transferor has taken reasonable steps, liability may attach to any transaction, whether by a federally licensed dealer or a private sale.”
And guess who gets to decide what’s “reasonable”?
Let’s break this con job down further. First, get rid of the notion that what the antis want has anything to do with “universal background checks.” It really has everything to do with – well, here, don’t rely on my admittedly biased viewpoint, listen instead to Greg Ridgeway, Deputy Director, National Institute of Justice, in his “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies”:
Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration and an easy gun transfer process.
Ah… so Kaine wants registration.
If those demanding them were truly interested solely in background checks, and nothing else, they’d be pushing something like BIDS, the Blind Identification Database System. That would identify firearms-disabled persons without creating any kind of transaction record that could then be used for registration purposes, and without compiling records of innocent gun owners. I’m not endorsing such a system, mind you, as it’s still an infringement, even though it would inarguably be an improvement over NICS. I merely point to its utility as a “poison pill” to prove those who say they only want background checks would be lying if they objected to BIDS, and to note all the major gun rights groups have been aware of – and deliberately ignored – this much less intrusive alternative for years.
Besides, nothing in his fraudulent bill is really intended to address “the violence that continues to plague our communities” anyway. Kaine deliberately ignores who is committing that violence, and will never acknowledge those are the people who are immune to the registration system he’s trying to impose. Again, don’t take my word for it, take the Supreme Court’s, which ruled in Haynes v United States that “prohibited persons” can’t be required to register guns because that would violate Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination.
Kaine knows all this. He also knows that his bill has, per the GovTrack legislative website, a “3% chance of getting past committee [and a] 1% chance of being enacted.”
That means he’s doing it for the headlines, and to bolster the illusion that he’s a leader. He’s selling out anyone ignorant enough to vote for him so that he can continue to enjoy the perks of being an “important man.” It’s the same reason he did his little blood dance on the Senate floor after the Roanoke murders, even though nothing he’s proposing would have made a bit of difference in that outcome. It’s why he also invoked the memory Virginia Tech, intentionally leaving out that the campus remains one big predator-enablement “No Guns” zone.
He’s doing it because he’s a lying, opportunistic parasite taking a page from the Rahm Emanuel playbook and never letting a serious crisis go to waste.
**************************************************
26. Owning a car is 80% more dangerous than owning a gun
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this (Click on the link to this article to see the graphics embedded in the article):
From freedomoutpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/nnrhkr8
http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/09/ownin ... ing-a-gun/
Owning a Car is 80% More Dangerous than Owning a Gun
by Tim Brown
September 5, 2015
While communist gun grabbers like Shannon Watts' Moms Demand Action and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence would have us believe that we are in grave danger from Americans keeping and bearing arms, the facts continue to allude them. Not only do criminals not purchase their guns through gun stores nor are semi-automatic rifles not used in most gun violence, but now new numbers from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reveals that it is far more dangerous to own a care than a gun.
Chris Conover at Forbes reports that a popular graphic that sees its rounds on Facebook by anti-gunners, who want to compare cars to guns. Here's the graphic:
Not only has this been thoroughly rebutted by Eugene Volokh, as well as many of us who actually believe the right to keep and bear arms is a civil duty, but Conover goes on to point out the following:
There were 310 million guns in the U.S. in 2009 (a Congressional Research Service figure I have no reason to dispute), a figure that likely grew to perhaps 350 million by 2013.
These guns result in ~33,000 deaths in 2013, of which 64% were suicides, leaving ~500 accidental deaths and 11,200 due to homicides (these are official CDC figures reported in Table 10)
There were 269 million registered vehicles in the U.S. in 2013.
These result in ~33,000 deaths a year, roughly half of which are drivers (these are official NHTSA statistics).
In this sharply divided country, there surely is also strong disagreement about the extent to which government ought to be protecting citizens from self-harm. But I presume that a broad spectrum of the public on both sides of the aisle would agree there is an appropriate government role in protecting citizens from being harmed by one another. So if we leave aside self-inflicted deaths, the average car is 1.8 times as risky as the average gun. That is, In light of this simple fact, it is puzzling why gun ownership is so vehemently scorned on the left as somehow being a flagrantly irresponsible act.
Clearly, I don't see gun grabbers going after regulating cars in such a manner as they do guns. It's probably because their gas guzzeling, environmentally polluting SUVs would be off the market and they can't have that.
The reality is that the more people learn about gun safety and how to use their weapon, the safer people are, not the more endangered they are. One does wonder when people will be more cautious using their cars though, right?
**************************************************
27. NY SAFE Act gun registration numbers released
**************************************************
Most are ignoring New York’s law requiring the registration of military-lookalike firearms. I could only imagine the level of civil disobedience here in Virginia if they tried such a thing.
From timesunion.com: http://tinyurl.com/obdmgrx
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/ ... 343080.php
New York SAFE Act gun registration numbers are released
Details given to Rochester lawyer in response to a lawsuit
By Rick Karlin
June 22, 2015
Since New York's SAFE Act gun control law went into effect in January 2013, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their newly defined assault-style weapons with the State Police.
Those individuals have registered a total of 44,485 weapons.
The statistics, hidden from the public for more than a year by state officials, were given to Rochester-area lawyer Paloma Capanna on Monday in response to a lawsuit she filed on behalf of radio host Bill Robinson.
The data had been withheld by the State Police despite a flurry of requests — from members of the media as well as citizens — under the state's Freedom of Information Law. In its rejections, the state pointed to language in the law that made the contents of the registration database exempt from public disclosure.
Robinson's request under the law was submitted in January 2014, and prompted the standard response letter from a State Police Records Access Officer noting its receipt and promising another response within 20 days.
But then the office fell silent, ignoring two letters from Robinson sent in April and June. In July, he filed an appeal based on the contention that the state's non-response was a denial. A Supreme Court justice agreed, ruling that while the direct contents of the database was exempt, there was no reason to withhold data derived from that source material as long as it didn't violate the privacy provisions in the law.
The state declined to appeal the trial court ruling and provided Capanna with the numbers late Monday.
"I'm grinning from ear to ear," said Capanna, whose case had become a cause celebre among Second Amendment supporters and gun enthusiasts opposed to the idea of having to register their weapons.
One of the highlights of the SAFE (for Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement) Act is expansion of the definition of previously banned "assault-style" weapons to include military-type features such as a pistol grip or flash suppressor.
Weapons such as civilian versions of the M-16 military rifle or the Soviet-designed AK-47 are popular examples of the guns banned under the law. Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed the bill though at the start of 2013, just weeks after the Newtown, Conn., school massacre.
People who already owned assault style weapons were allowed to keep them but were supposed to register them with the State Police by an April 2014 deadline.
Second Amendment advocates called it an intrusion into their privacy, and as the logistics of tracking the registration became clear, many predicted that only a handful of people would actually register their guns.
Capanna called the state's tally of fewer than 45,000 weapons a sign that the law was being ignored by many.
While there is no firm count, observers have estimated there could have been hundreds of thousands or even a million assault-style weapons in New York when the law passed.
In Connecticut, which passed a similar registration law after New York's action, 50,016 weapons have been registered.
New York's population five times that of the Nutmeg State, far fewer weapons per capita have been registered in New York — suggesting widespread noncompliance.
Additionally, local police, including several county sheriffs, have opposed parts of the SAFE Act and suggested that enforcement of the registration component was not a priority.
The April trial court decision, from acting Supreme Court Justice Thomas McNamara, directed the State Police to release 15 categories of information related to the state registry, including detailed geographic breakdowns — including county and ZIP code — and the number of applications as opposed to actual registrations.
There also is a breakdown of pistols, shotguns and rifles that were registered.
The SAFE Act remains controversial at the state Capitol: The Republican-led state Senate earlier this month passed a bill rolling back several elements, including the ban on handing down a newly banned assault-style weapon to a blood relative.
The bill has not been taken up by the Democrat-held Assembly.
**************************************************
28. Billboard slammed over gun control message [VIDEO]
**************************************************
EM Greg Trojan emailed me this:
I think this ties in with our upcoming battle over our civil rights.
If only 3 to 5% of the violent crime is committed by the mentally ill how does the UBC cult square that with their plan to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people? With the majority of violent crime perpetrated by those with evil intent they will have to go to some other methodology.
From nbcnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/ouhzm3v
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ken ... ge-n422396
Kenneth Cole Billboard Slammed by Psychiatric Association Over Gun Control Message
by Lauren Prince
September 5, 2015
Fashion designer Kenneth Cole's highly visible stand on the gun control debate is rankling a psychiatric group in the process.
A billboard from Cole above the busy West Side Highway in New York City reads: "Over 40M Americans suffer from mental illness. Some can access care… All can access guns." The message includes two hashtags: #GunReform and #AreYouPuttingUsOn.
Over 40 Mil Americans suffer from mental illness. SOME can access care ALL can access guns. #GunReform #WDBJshooting pic.twitter.com/zstud7ptky
— Mr. Kenneth Cole (@mr_kennethcole) August 27, 2015
But the American Psychiatric Association disapproves of the billboard's suggested correlation between mental illness and gun violence, and wants the message taken down.
Cole "is correct. There are over 40 million people that suffer from mental illness," Dr. Renee Binder, the association's president, told NBC News about the organization's campaign.
But, she continued, there isn't a direct link between those who commit violent acts with firearms and have a mental illness.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has found that only 3 percent to 5 percent of violent acts are linked to individuals with serious mental illnesses. Even more alarming, Binder said, people with severe mental illnesses are more likely to be the victim of a violent crime.
The APA wants the billboard's message cast in a more favorable light. With only 38 percent of adults in the U.S. diagnosed with a mental illness receiving the necessary treatment, Binder said, a positive message could reduce the negative stigmas attached to the issue, which often keeps people needing services from seeking assistance.
Cole tweeted last week in response to some of the reaction from mental health advocates that the ad is "not meant to further stigmatize those suffering from mental illness ... ."
Representatives for Cole did not immediately comment.
This isn't the first time that Cole has taken to social media about gun control. In April 2013, he tweeted:
Regardless of your stance on #backgroundchecks #gunreform – something we definitely don’t condone. #tbt ‘86 pic.twitter.com/4LjJODHyop
— Mr. Kenneth Cole (@mr_kennethcole) April 18, 2013
The designer is no stranger to backlash about his cheeky messaging on sensitive topics. In 2013, when the U.S. was about to put boots on the ground in Syria, Cole tweeted: "Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online ... ."
The company later apologized.
**************************************************
29. [OH] Tired of being robbed, female homeowner shoots
**************************************************
Member Mark Shinn emailed me this:
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/nsmjfu8
or
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... e-invader/
TIRED OF BEING ROBBED, FEMALE HOMEOWNER SHOOTS, KILLS ALLEGED HOME INVADER
by AWR Hawkins
September 9, 2015
On September 9, an alleged burglar entered a home in the 200 block of Richmond Avenue in Dayton, Ohio, and later died from a wound he received when the female homeowner opened fire.
The incident occurred shortly after 4 a.m., and Dayton Daily News reports it was the fifth time in 11 years that the woman’s residence has been “targeted by criminals.”
According to WHIO, the female homeowner “first called police after hearing a man attempting to break into a second story window.” Then, when the alleged invader “confronted” her inside the home, she opened fire. Police say the suspect then turned and fled out the same window through which he had entered and ran about a block before collapsing. He was taken to Miami Valley Hospital “with at least one gunshot wound” to the chest, and he succumbed to that injury later in the day.
The suspect was identified as 22-year-old DeBrandon Jurrod Dickerson from Detroit.
Dayton Daily News reports that the female homeowner shot another alleged burglar at the residence in June 2013. That shooting occurred after two teenagers allegedly “kicked in her back door.” The homeowner opened fire, wounding one of the teenagers in the arm.
**************************************************
30. [AZ] The staggering safety of living with conceal carry among us
**************************************************
EM Dave Vann emailed me this:
From ammoland.com: http://tinyurl.com/p75tckf
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/09/the-sta ... z3l5G6IyNE
The Staggering Safety of Living With Concealed Carry Holders Among Us
by Justin Stakes
September 3, 2015
Tucson, AZ -(AmmoLand.com)-
If I had a nickel for every time I’ve been called “paranoid” for carrying a gun or defending the 2nd Amendment I most certainly wouldn’t be driving around my beater of a truck.
This seems to be the fallback for anti-gun zealots, an accusation they feel is so self-evident that they don’t feel the need to back it up with evidence (which is good for them, because there’s no evidence to back it up).
Interestingly enough, this point always seems to be brought up when anti-gunners talk about their fear of the pro-gun community.
Take for example this recent blog post by Huffington Post writer Carter Gaddis, that went viral, in which a father describes his instant fear and apprehension at seeing an NRA decal. Or there’s the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence encouraging their followers to (criminally) call the police on anyone they see with a firearm, whether open or conceal carried, to “protect the safety of your loved ones.”
It seems to me as though we’re not the paranoid ones – they are.
But just to be sure I decided to run some numbers. What are the odds that their worst fear, a law-abiding gun owner snaps and decides to start murdering people, happens? How do those odds stack up against the odds that we may one day be the victims of a violent crime, a possible situation that is at the forefront of many gun-carrier’s minds?
Since we don’t have a national gun registry (thank God!) we don’t have nationwide numbers on the crime rates of citizens who legally own firearms. However, Texas does keep track of the crime rates of concealed carriers, and since we know for a fact that these individuals have passed a background check and kept a clean record, it provides us with an adequate benchmark.
That’s a rate of roughly .565/100,000.
But keep in mind, that’s the ratio of CHL holders who committed a murder. That is not the murder rate of Texan’s committed by CHL holders.
This is where it gets really interesting.
In 2013 Texas had 26,448,193 citizens. Of those, 4 people were murdered by a CHL holder. That puts the probability of being murdered in Texas by a CHL holder at a mind-blowing –
.0151/100,000
The national homicide rate (or probability of getting murdered)? 4.3/100,000. Only a 28,000% difference.
And we’re the ones you’re worried about?
Just for fun I decided to extrapolate those numbers for the average lifetime of a U.S. citizen, 78.74 years. The odds of being murdered by a CHL holder in Texas during a whole lifetime of living in Texas?
1 in 83,973
Just to put some perspective on that, according to a CNN article the average person today has about a 1 in 12,000 chance of getting struck by lightning during their lifetime. Yes, you’re 7 times more likely to get struck by lightning than get murdered by a CHL holder while living in Texas.
What if you played the Powerball every single week for your entire life? Well, the odds of winning on a single ticket is 1 in 175,223,510, and if you played that every week you’d buy 4,094 tickets. Your odds of winning once? 1 in 42,800, nearly twice as likely as getting murdered by a CHL holder in Texas.
Now you might think I just cherry-picked the best year for Texas CHL holders when I got my numbers, rather than just using the most recent numbers available. So I decided to look back a bit. 2012 saw 2 murders by CHL holders in TX, 2011 saw 4 plus 3 manslaughters, 2010 – well I don’t know, I got bored of looking at consistently low numbers.
So, what are the odds of being a victim of violent crime? In 1987 the New York Times ran a headline titled “83% TO BE VICTIMS OF CRIME VIOLENCE.” That figure was arrived at by the “Government’s National Crime Survey” from 1975-1984, but violent crime has reduced dramatically since then. When I ran some (quick, not very scientific) numbers I arrived at a roughly 25% chance of being a victim of violent crime in modern lifetimes. Now of course crime isn’t totally random, so I’ll use the demographic figures from this article from Crime In America, which states that males have an 18.4% chance to be a victim of violence, and white people a 15.8% chance, or roughly 1 in 6 between the two. These numbers seem very conservative to me, but they’ll do just fine to illustrate the point.
I arm myself so I can potentially protect myself, my loved ones, friends, family, and even innocent bystanders from violent people. The odds that just I, myself, will at some point be the victim of violence according to Crime In America is about 1 in 6. That’s the likelihood that my fear will come true.
Once again, the odds that the anti-gunner’s fear of one of us “gun-toting psychos” snapping and murdering them? 1 in 83,973.
That means they’re 14,000 times more paranoid than we are. And that’s just math.
*Writer’s Note: I’ve obviously taken some liberty with these numbers due to the limited amount of information regarding gun owners nationwide. Most of these figures assume that the murder rate seen in Texas by CHL holders is indicative of legal gun carriers nationwide. I’m sure these numbers would shift given accurate nationwide data, but I believe that they would remain consistent enough to where the message would still be applicable.
**************************************************
31. If gun control works...where do terrorists get their weapons?
**************************************************
Member John Taylor emailed me this:
From danieljmitchell.wordpress.com: http://tinyurl.com/owokjdd
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 ... r-weapons/
If Gun Control Works in Europe, Where Do Terrorists Get their Weapons?
by Dan Mitchell
September 5, 2015
Earlier this year, I argued that it was unfair and immoral to deny European Jews from being able to protect themselves with firearms.
They get targeted by terrorists and other thugs who can strike at any time, often with suicidal intent, and even the most effective law enforcement can’t be in all places at all times.
Leftists argue that gun control is nonetheless the right policy because everyone gets disarmed.
But if that’s true, J.D. Tuccille of Reason asks how terrorists in Europe manage to get so many weapons when there are strict gun control laws.
…how did the misfired terrorist acquire his intended implements of destruction in supposedly gun-phobic Europe? Could it be that firearms aren’t quite so unavailable as right-thinking policy-peddlers assure us on their way to insisting that Americans should be disarmed in (supposed) likewise fashion? It’s a question that was also raised in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attack by terrorists wielding AK-style rifles, pistols, and submachine guns. Observers were puzzled because France’s gun laws are relatively restrictive, and the terrorists clearly hadn’t bothered to navigate the byzantine red tape to acquire their weapons. So, where did they come from? In both cases, the answer is the same. Black markets thrive where legal availability is restricted or forbidden. …Europe has, by and large, more restrictive firearms laws than most American states. But those laws haven’t had much effect on the actual availability of guns, since they’ve been met by defiance and helped breed a brisk underground trade. And they’re certainly no barrier to small numbers of terrorists who have dedicated themselves to harming others and see the law as no hurdle to achieving that goal. The main impact then of restrictive gun laws may be to strip law-abiding people of means with which they might defend themselves while leaving criminals and terrorists well-armed.
Amen. Bad guys obviously aren’t concerned about obeying laws, so gun control simply makes it difficult for honest people to possess firearms.
But terrorists get the weapons they want. That’s true in France. It was true in the United Kingdom when the IRA was active. And it was true when the Black September terrorists attacked during the Munich Olympics in 1972.
But what about the argument that more guns mean more violence?
Also writing for Reason, Steve Chapman looks at gun ownership and murder rates. Many of America’s safest states have lots of guns and few restrictions.
Vermont has some of the loosest gun laws in America. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence gives it an “F.” The state requires no background checks for private gun sales, permits the sale and possession of “assault weapons,” and allows concealed guns to be carried in public—without a license. … In 2013, it had the third-lowest homicide rate in the country—less than one-sixth that of Louisiana. Utah, which also got an “F” on its laws from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, had the fourth-lowest homicide rate. These places refute the belief that loose gun rules and high ownership are bound to produce frenzies of carnage.
And even when there is a lot of crime, there’s little reason to believe that it’s because of guns.
It’s true that many states have a lot of guns and a lot of killings. But that doesn’t mean the former causes the latter. It’s just as plausible that high murder rates lead more residents to buy guns, in self-defense.
Chapman looks at some of the overseas evidence.
Britain is often cited for having few guns and—therefore—few gun murders. As Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck noted in his 1997 book, Targeting Guns, Britain also has a lower rate of murders with hands and feet. But “no one is foolish enough to infer from these facts that the lower violence rates were due to the British having fewer hands and feet.” Homicide is rare in Israel and Switzerland despite widespread public access to lethal weaponry.
For even more data, check out this video.
But here’s the clincher. Take a look at this data from the National Rifle Association.
Wow, tens of millions of additional weapons and a big drop in crime.
Gee, maybe John Lott has been right all along?
While many nations keep trying to impose more and more restrictions on legal gun ownership, at least one country is moving in the right direction.
Here are some excerpts from an encouraging story about developments from Panama.
…the government is set to lift the ban on firearm imports, in an effort to promote personal safety. Public Safety Minister Rodolfo Aguilera said the country will follow in the footsteps of the United States and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms is believed to lead to fewer homicides. …Aguilera…explained that relaxed gun laws have allowed the United States to reduce the homicide rate over the last 20 years. “…for criminals, anything that is prohibited becomes more attractive,” said Hefer Morataya, director of SICA’s Central American Programme of Small Arms Control.
I’m not sure I agree with the final excerpt. Criminals are attracted to the notion of using force and fraud to do bad things and that means they’ll probably have guns whether they’re legal or illegal. Making guns illegal simply makes it easier for them to engage in criminal behavior since they know that law-abiding people are disarmed.
Which is the point I made when putting together my IQ test for criminals and liberals.
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]