----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. VCDL membership meeting in Charlottesville area on April 7th to discuss insuring guns
2. 4th Circuit guts Second Amendment
3. New gun-control legislation would prohibit those arrested but not convicted of drug crimes from possessing firearms
4. Police justify use of SWAT team in raid due to couple's concealed carry permits
5. RTD LTE: Senate democrats sought to curb rights
6. Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn't have anyone to ask)
7. Wells Fargo flip-flops on firearm carry policy, becoming anti-freedom
8. 25 colleges where you can carry a gun
9. Rape victim testifies in favor of guns on campuses
10. Armed beauty queen fatally shoots intruder in Florida home invasion
11. Police say Norfolk officer shot wife, self in home
12. SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint
13. Mayors Against Illegal Guns: A reality check
14. Show a little shame: Hubris and the gun lobby
15. John Schneider: Author says kids' book on guns offers 'positive message
'16. Bill would allow guns to be carried uncovered
17. To shoot or not to shoot: When an aggressive dog bites
18. Hidden holster horror revealed
19. Thought for the day
**************************************************1. VCDL membership meeting in Charlottesville area on April 7th to discuss insuring guns**************************************************
A VCDL meeting with food - hard to beat that
=46rom EM Patricia Webb:
In an effort to make membership meetings more accessible for those in western portions of the state, Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club (RRPC) has been very generous in making their clubhouse available for VCDL meetings. We are most grateful for this.
The next VCDL meeting at Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club will be on Thursday, April 7th. Preceding the meeting there will be a pot-luck dinner beginning at 6:30 p.m. The meeting will begin at 7:30PM. We will be discussing the advancements made this year in the General Assembly and EM Patricia Webb will talk about insuring your firearms.
Please come join us. Membership in VCDL or RRPC is not required. In fact, we encourage you to bring guests who have never been to a VCDL meeting. In addition, if you live in the vicinity and have never been to RRPC, this is an excellent opportunity to check out the range. RRRC is dedicated to the shooting sports and firearms education.
Those planning to attend the dinner please RSVP to pat.webb*vcdl.org, placing the number attending in the subject line. Example: 4/7 VCDL meeting, 2 for dinner. The drinks and a main course of homemade meatloaf will be provided. Please bring a side dish to share if you can, but don't let that stop you from coming if you can't.
RRPC's address:
1570 Old Lynchburg RoadCharlottesville, VA 22903
Hope to see you there!
**************************************************2. 4th Circuit guts Second Amendment**************************************************
James M. Mullins (with the West Virginia Citizens Defense League) emailed me this:
--
WARNING: Grab the Maalox before reading further.
I have what cannot be described as anything less than horrendous news for those of us who believe the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms and that this right does not end at the walls of our homes.
On Thursday, March 24, 2011, a divided panel of the 4th Circuit decided in U.S. v. Masciandaro that the 4th Circuit will not read into Heller and McDonald anything beyond their core holdings relating to the right to have a gun in the home and that the only way the recognition of Second Amendment rights will be expanded will be by the U.S. Supreme Court itself.
To add final insult to injury, on page 30 of its opinion (http://tinyurl.com/45uyfod), the court declared that they based this decision on a pair of recent, identical decisions by the (horridly anti-gun) Maryland Court of Appeals and D.C. Court of Appeals (not the D.C. Circuit, the local appellate court). They argue that any willingness by the lower courts to grant a more receptive ear to gun rights litigation will trigger a tidal wave of endless litigation that will paralyze the federal courts (in other words, the alleged violations of our constitutional rights that would be litigated if the court took a more receptive attitude toward gun rights cases are too vast and numerous for the courts to handle and thus the court will surrender the Second Amendment rather than righting wrongs and tackling the admittedly numerous and tough legal issues that are brewing).
As someone who is litigating a pair of Second Amendment cases (http://tinyurl.com/4ht5xod) in federal court, I am absolutely sick to my stomach right now. I'm now awaiting a flurry of motions to dismiss citing Masciandaro.
I (and undoubtedly many other gun rights attorneys and other activists) will be researching other areas of civil rights law to see what the Supreme Court has done in any prior cases where the Courts of Appeals have summarily refused to seriously consider legitimate arguments for expanded views of individual rights and argued that the Supreme Court alone will be the venue for deciding the matter. Obviously, we need Masciandaro to be reversed; if Masciandaro is not reversed en banc, I hope that the Supreme Court will see it for the red flag being waved in front of a bull that I think it is.
If Masciandaro is not reversed, the Second Amendment will become a dead letter in the 4th Circuit and other circuits will likely cite to it to achieve similar results.
James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
**************************************************3. New gun-control legislation would prohibit those arrested but not convicted of drug crimes from possessing firearms**************************************************
Imagine this: you are stopped by an officer for speeding
Officer: "What's in the baggie on the seat?"
You: "Oregano"
Officer: "I don't think so - I'm booking you for possession of a controlled substance"
You are then arrested and a test of the substance shows that indeed it was oregano. The officer apologizes and you are released, all charges dropped.
Under a new bill by anti-freedom New York Senator Chuck Schumer you would now be prohibited from owning a gun!
VCDL Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
=46rom The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/4uzyzh4
By Jeff WinklerMarch 23, 2011
Get collared years ago on a bogus drug charge because the oregano in your back pocket looked like was a bag of weed? Or maybe a judge back in 2006 dropped those charges because you were able to provide proof for that Adderall prescription? Under proposed legislation, it will not matter if you were innocent all along or even proven innocent by a court of law.
Either way, you can forget about buying a gun.
The Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 would greatly expand the definition of those legally prohibited from owning firearms to include anyone who's ever been arrested - even if never convicted or found guilty - for drug possession within a five-year period. The legislation is certainly troubling for those who want a "common sense" debate about drug decriminalization. And it would seem fears that any new national gun-control legislation would be used to limit the gun-rights of law-abiding citizens is at least partially justified.
Sponsored by New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and introduced earlier this month, the expanded background checks bill includes a "clarification of the definition of drug abusers and drug addicts who are prohibited from possessing firearms." Under Schumer's bill, the definition of a "drug abuser" would include anyone with "an arrest for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past 5 years."
Current federal law already specifies that two kinds of drug users can be barred from owning a gun: (1) Those who have been convicted of possessing or using a controlled substance in the past year and (2) Anyone who has had multiple drug arrests in the past five years, including one within a year of applying for a firearm, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
The rules surrounding what "inference" the federal government can make about a current "drug user" are complicated. Add to that regulations stating who is prohibited from owning a firearm; a cumbersome background check system; and inter-departmental communication and, suddenly, the combination of firearms and drugs becomes a confusing bureaucratic mess of regulations and codes.
But the "arrest" language of Schumer's bill and a clarification from the ATF indicate that a greater number of innocent Americans would be barred from owning a gun if the Senate bill becomes law.
"Under the definition of 'unlawful user' ... an inference of current use could be drawn if the one arrest resulted in a conviction for use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year," the ATF told the The Daily Caller.
To clear up any confusion, Schumer's bill would expand that "inference" to say: if you've ever been arrested for any kind of drug use or possession in the past five year, you can be denied the lawful possession of a firearm.
The bill's definition of an "unlawful user" also includes anyone arrested for drug paraphernalia within the past five years if the paraphernalia is found have traces of a drug, and those who make an "admission" to using or possessing a controlled substance in the past five years. The meaning of "admission," however, is not defined.
Schumer's office was unavailable for comment. One thing is clear, though: the senator's legislation would prohibit a lot more innocent-until-proven-guilty people from possessing firearms.
A little more than 1,600,000 people were arrested in 2009 on drug violations, according to statistic from the Federal Bureau of Investigations. About half of those people were arrested on marijuana charges, with simple drug possession - rather than sale or manufacturing - accounting for nine-tenths of those collars, according to Reason magazine. It's those last set of figures that could very well rally two groups most people might consider odd bed-fellows: pot-smokers and firearms enthusiasts.
Aaron Houston, director of government relations for Students for Sensible Drug Policy, said adding even more penalties to those thousands of people arrested for marijuana "doesn't do anything to solve the problem."
"It makes criminals out of law-abiding Americans. Clearly, [similar drug policies] have not worked up until now," said Houston. "Heaping criminal penalties onto otherwise law-abiding Americans just because they possess a little bit of marijuana is a failed policy."
The SSDP doesn't have an official position on the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011, but Houston said that if the "arrest" language was removed, the group "certainly wouldn't find it as problematic as we do now."
The current National Instant Background Check System (NICS) only requires a check on those purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer. Gun-control advocates have pushed for those checks to include guns exchanged between individuals, which is often referred to as the "gun show loophole." The addition of Schumer's drug legislation plays directly off public fears that accused Tucson shooter Jared Loughner - apart from allegedly being determined to kill no matter wat - also admitted to using marijuana. No research, however, has proven a causal link between marijuana use and violent acts.
New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is expected to introduce a companion background check bill - modeled after Schumer's - in the House very soon. Houston called Schumer "terrible on this stuff," and expressed dismay that McCarthy would include similar language in her bill. McCarthy's office said it was moving forward carefully but wants to ensure that "the most dangerous people who shouldn't be allowed to buy guns are in the NICS database.."
"Everyone agrees on the goals of the bills to require a background check for every sale and to make sure more names of people who should be in the database are actually put into the database," said a spokesman for McCarthy. "As for any more specifics, that's being discussed."
Even the nation's largest gun-control advocacy group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has problems with Schumer's drug language.
"It's a concern we've raised about this proposal, too. I've got the same concerns," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign. "[There is] the whole innocent-until-proven-guilty concept coming into play here. So that alone is a legitimate concern."
Helmke said the Brady Campaign was working closely with McCarthy's office, noting that the representative's legislation hasn't even been introduced yet.
"It's not going to be introduced after this recess week, and they're going to be making some changes," said Helmke.
**************************************************4. Police justify use of SWAT team in raid due to couple's concealed carry permits**************************************************
William Fitzhugh emailed me this:
--
I thought you might find this case interesting. Their legal concealed carry permits were apparently used to justify the SWAT team raid.
=46rom The Agitator: http://tinyurl.com/4mbug9w
March 23, 2011
On May 31, 2007, Sam Bellotte printed some photographs from a memory card at a self-service station in a Winchester, Virginia Wal-Mart. When he went to pay for the prints, a clerk insisted on inspecting the photos. Mr. Bellotte admitted that some contained nudity and surrendered them, then made other purchases and left the store.
The Wal-Mart employees charged with discarding the photos noticed one depicting male genitalia seemingly next to a child's face. Concerned that the photograph was child pornography, the employees notified the Frederick County police. An investigation of the surveillance camera footage and credit card receipts showed that Mr. Bellotte, a resident of Jefferson County, West Virginia, had printed the photo in question. A Frederick County police officer placed the photo in a file container and notified the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department, which then took responsibility for the investigation. After reviewing the file, verifying Mr. Bellotte's address, and learning that both Mr. and Mrs. Bellotte held concealed carry permits, Detective Tracy Edwards sought a search warrant for the Bellotte residence. Around 9:00 that evening, the magistrate reviewed the application and signed the warrant.
In order to execute the warrant, Detective Edwards sought and received approval from the ranking Jefferson County law enforcement officer for the assistance of the Jefferson County Special Operations Team ("SORT Team"). The SORT Team leaders decided that their involvement was justified due to the possibility of a violent reaction from Mr. Bellotte and the concealed carry permits held by both Mr. and Mrs. Bellotte. After the three SORT squads were assembled and briefed, they arrived at the Bellotte residence around 10:15 p.m.
The three squads took positions around the house, wearing tactical vests and helmets and armed with flashlight-equipped.45 caliber Sig Sauer pistols and "hooligan" pry bars for a possible forced entry. Then, the Bellottes claim, the SORT squads opened the unlocked front and rear doors without knocking or announcing their presence. They immediately executed a dynamic entry-a technique that the SORT Team had recently been trained in-by which all squads simultaneously rushed into the home from multiple entry points. After the SORT squads were inside the house, they repeatedly identified themselves as law enforcement officers executing a search warrant.
The first member of the family to encounter the SORT Team was E.B., the Bellottes' teenage son. When the officers found him upstairs walking out of his bedroom and talking on a cell phone, they subdued and handcuffed him. E.B. asserts that the officers also poked a gun at the back of his head. In another bedroom, the team found C.B., the Bellottes' young daughter, and led her downstairs unhandcuffed.
When the SORT Team came to the parents' bedroom, Tametta Bellotte raced out of bed and ran screaming toward the closet. When she reached for a gun bag, the officers forced her to the ground and handcuffed her. Later, when the house was secured, the SORT Team allowed Mrs. Bellotte to get fully dressed under the supervision of a female officer. The search of the Bellotte residence concluded shortly before midnight.
Sam Bellotte was actually on a hunting trip at the time. When he learned of the raid on his family, the same man police thought was so dangerous that they had to send a SWAT team to his home late at night walked into the police station, explained the situation, and provided documentation that the person depicted in the photo was a 35-year-old Filipino woman.
A couple other points here. First, I still wonder why gun rights groups like the NRA aren't more disturbed by the ubiquitous use of SWAT teams. Here, the fact that the Bellotte's were legal, registered gun owners was used as justification for the violent, volatile entry into their home. It isn't the first time this has happened. You'd think that's something that might concern Second Amendment acitivists.
Second, the police were right. Tametta Bellotte did immediately go for her gun when the SWAT team entered. But not because she's a cop-killing, child pornographizing criminal. As it turns out, she was innocent. She went for her gun because she thought her life is in danger.
That said, it's good to see the Fourth Circuit decline qualified immunity here. And it would be nice to see federal courts allow more liability for botched raids.
**************************************************5. RTD LTE: Senate democrats sought to curb rights**************************************************
=46rom the Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/4w99l7a
March 26, 2011
The hypocrisy in Sen. Henry Marsh's Letter to the Editor, "Voters will decide who best represents state," was jaw-dropping. He claims that under the control of Democratic leadership, they "protect(ed) citizens' rights."
Oh, really? What about the citizens' right to keep and bear arms? Last year the Democratic-controlled Senate intentionally broke the Senate's own rules to create an ad hoc subcommittee stacked with anti-freedom senators whose mandate was to kill a series of pro-gun bills that had passed the House. These were bills that strengthened and protected the right of Virginians to be able to protect themselves. The rule-breaking and stacked subcommittee were proudly admitted to by the Democratic leadership.
Protecting a citizen's rights? Not by a very long shot.
Philip Van Cleave.Midlothian.
**************************************************6. Everything you need to know about the most recent gun-control debate (but didn't have anyone to ask)**************************************************
VCDL Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
=46rom The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/4hvzahb
By Jeff WinklerMarch 17, 2011
This is Part I of II
After some relatively quiet years, the national gun debate locked and loaded for another round last week after President Obama hinted his desire to reform the current background check system. Plenty has happened in the past few years with both sides entrenched in deep partisan arguments. To prepare readers for the onslaught of over-exaggerated political rhetoric, ambitious policies and former victims crying before the camera, The Daily Caller is launching a multi-part guide for readers not entirely up to snuff.
So much for a new non-partisan discussion
On Sunday March 13, President Obama took his first tiny steps into reigniting the debate over America's oldest pastime: firearms.
He pleaded that we "find a sensible way to make the United States of America a safer, stronger place." Avoiding the word "debate" in all but one instance ("... we can get beyond ... stale political debates"), President Obama called for a "common sense" discussion.
That lasted less than 72 hours.
On Tuesday March 15, some of the staunchest liberals in Congress appeared with New York Mayor Michael "No Labels" Bloomberg in front of the Capitol to call for a "common sense" debate that just happens to include a whole host of new gun-control proposals. The centerpiece to this common sense discussion are two bills in the House and Senate that would be the first major reforms of national gun laws since the 1993 Brady Bill.
Nary a Republican has commented on the issue. The NRA has essentially refused to join in on the "discussion" aside from responding to Obama's plea with a strong 'yeah-thanks-but-no-thanks' letter.
So, for those curious about the firearms debate but unsure what to think without conservative leadership, here's the idiot's guide to the 2011 "common sense" discussion.Background
Gun-rights advocates have come a long way, particularly in recent years. Two Supreme Court rulings, Heller v. the District of Columbia (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), have affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms does indeed apply to individuals and not just the neighborhood ticker-tape militia. What's more, gun-control advocates who thought they might have had another pistol-whipping ally in Obama have been sorely disappointed. Even since he was candidate Obama, he has extensively praised the 2nd Amendment.
Apart from offering plenty of lip service to gun-rights advocates, Democratic leaders and the Obama administration have also tried not to anger the NRA or a bread-and-butter base that enjoys its 2nd Amendment rights. The gun-shy Democrats saw what happened when a pro-gun-control candidate ran for the nation's highest office. That former-candidate had a cooling-off period before beginning to advocate for an issue with more international appeal - global warming.
Despite dire warnings from gun-control advocates, the liberalization of gun laws hasn't resulted in the bullet-ridden corpse of America. The rates of violent crimes and school violence have both decreased as legislation and court decisions continue to favor 2nd Amendment enthusiasts.
This isn't to suggest the gun-control advocates and lawmakers have given up.. They do get politically riled up, but it happens, more often, immediately following a tragic event.
As of this writing, 12 pieces of legislation dealing specifically with stricter gun-control have been introduced to Congress in the two months since the Tucson shooting. During a similar period after the Virginia Tech massacre, that number was seven. A whopping 40 acts, bills and amendments were introduced after Columbine.
How does that compare to quieter years? In the same time period, after Obama's victory in 2008, the 111th Congress proposed two gun-control acts. In President George W. Bush's first couple of months after Democrats took control of the House in the aftermath of the 2006 midterm elections, that number was three. No such legislation was introduced in 1995 after the Republican Revolution.
Since politicians on both sides are guilty of taking Rahm Emanuel's aphorism to heart, a better reflection of gun-rights advocates' gains can be seen in the opportunities they took in the months immediately following a crisis.. After Columbine, no politician would be caught dead introducing legislation favorable to gun-rights advocates. Following Virginia Tech, however, two gun-rights bills were introduced. The current Congress has penciled in six pieces related to expanding gun-rights.
The big guns in the upcoming debate
The types of legislation, usually sponsored by Democrats, introduced after an infrequent tragedy run the gamut of really bad idea to probably a bad idea. Republicans, however, have a monopoly on just-plain-laughable legislation - like the proposal to enclose the House visitors' gallery with Plexiglas as well as creating firearm-free-zones wherever an elected federal official may be meandering at the moment.
Most of the gun-control bills won't get very far, either for that first reason, that second reason or a whole host of other reasons. Democratic Texas Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee introduced a bill in January that would ban the use of guns for everyone under the age of 21 (unless you're going to war). Republican Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns has a history of introducing a bill that would set a national standard for allowing "nonresidents of a State [to] carry concealed firearms."
These particular pieces of legislation have as much chance of passing as successfully using an antique gun (which, incidentally, are the subject of a couple acts themselves). That said, there are a few proposals that will hold most of the country hostage in the coming months.
Gun-controllers have generally focused their attention on two areas that really stick in their craw - and 2011 will be no exception. The first is background checks for all firearms purchases made in the United States. The second is banning the sale and use of high-capacity magazines by civilians (while gun clips and gun magazines aren't the same, TheDC will use the word "clips," lest anyone think Congress is trying to ban publications promoting particularly potent weed).
The biggest-name proposal comes from Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, whose bill expanding the National Instant Criminal Background Check system will be replicated in the House by New York Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy. The representative is also on a crusade to ban high-capacity clips and several bills specifically targeting those have been introduced in both chambers of Congress.
Coming up - Part II: The 'common sense' winners in the large-capacity ammo and background check debate
---
Part II - From The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/49d5kst
On Tuesday March 15, some of the staunchest liberals in Congress appeared with New York Mayor Michael "No Labels" Bloomberg in front of the Capitol to call for a "common sense" debate that just happens to include a whole host of new gun-control proposals.
The centerpieces of this "common sense" discussion are bills that would expand and "strengthen" the current National Instant Background Check System (NICS) and a ban on high-capacity ammunition magazines. (While gun clips and gun magazines aren't the same, The Daily Caller will use the word "clips," lest anyone think Congress is trying to ban publications promoting particularly potent weed).
Where 'common sense' favors pro-gun advocates
Since the 10-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) expired in 2004, gun-controllers have been gunning for high-capacity clips. Legislation introduced in both the House and Senate would ban any ammunition-fed device that allows more than 10 bullets. Gun-controllers have made repeated references to Tucson shooter Jared Loughner's 33-round Glock pistol spray, which allowed him to kill six people and wound 19.
Gun-controllers offer the most common sense talking points - not to mention confidence - when it comes to the issue of high-capacity clips.
Illinois Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley, one of the Democrats who appeared at the Tuesday Bloomberg press conference, reminded the public that the recent Supreme Court rulings (Heller v. the District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago) don't mean that there can't be "reasonable" restrictions on gun access. While both the McDonald and Heller cases found that those "reasonable" restrictions were actually an impediment to basic 2nd Amendment rights, Quigley made clear what high capacity clips are designed for.
"[They] aren't for protecting your home or hunting deer, they're for hunting people," Quigley told TheDC. "The Supreme Court made it crystal clear the 2nd Amendment is not an unlimited right - not everyone has a right to own whatever gun they want, wherever they want - and that includes limiting access to these weapons that serve no purpose other than to cause catastrophic harm."
Gun-rights advocates say that law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from using high-capacity clips at gun ranges and competitions, although the NRA dismissed legislation offering such exemptions as "rationing freedoms.."
Perhaps that's why Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, says the NRA "has a tough time making a case for why anyone needs to shoot 30 rounds in 15 seconds." There's also a whole list of common sense reasons that the head of the country's most prominent gun-control group feels confident about the passage of the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, introduced by Democrats Carolyn McCarthy in the House and Frank Lautenberg in the Senate.
"It's a shorter bill, it's easier to understand, it ties directly into the shooting in that [Jared Lee Loughner] had a 30-round clip," said Helmke, who continued down the list. "It also ties to a law that used to be on the books, so people in the past who voted for the Assault Weapon Ban and are already on record as supporting this."
The AWB was an amendment to the Senate version of the 1993 Crime Bill, which later became law. Of those 56 Senators who specifically voted for adding the amendment, 18 remain in the Senate. The entire crime bill itself passed
with an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate.
Helmke also noted that conservative luminaries such as former Vice President Dick Cheney, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol have come out in support of a ban. Even the libertarian Cato Institute has acquiesced to the legal argument for a high-capacity clip ban, despite personal ideological beliefs.
While gun-rightists may argue that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," gun-control advocates are making a strong case that "yeah, but people with more bullets kill more people." The same, though, can't be said for gun-control advocates' biggest push
Where 'common sense' favors gun-control advocates
Two nearly-identical bills, one for each chamber of Congress, have been given the star treatment (Deputy Sheriff Joe Biden has just entered the debate). In the Senate, New York's Chuck Schumer introduced the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011 earlier this month, and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is days away from introducing its twin in the House.
The two key provisions of these proposals, which Obama hinted at in his March 13 Arizona Daily Star op-ed that launched the 2011 gun debate, would drastically overhaul the existing national firearms background check system. First is the issue of current exceptions to the required national background checks. The second is the entire background checks system.
Gun-controllers like to call the exception the gun show loophole, which allows individuals not officially in the firearms "business" to sell their combustible wares without processing a background check on the buyer or keeping any real records. Gun-rights advocates hate the "loophole" term. Like selling a car or your dead mother's gold earrings, they say transactions between individuals should not be that closely regulated by the state.
This exemption has been in gun-controllers' sights for years. Legislation specifically closing the loophole has been introduced during nearly every congressional session since the Brady Bill passed, including this year. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made limiting this exception a crusade of his. As co-chairman of the gun-controllers group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Bloomberg has been on a tear recently. Apart from serving as guest of honor at Tuesday's "common sense" press conference, he's launched the cross-country FixGunChecks.org truck tour and has conducted O'Keefean video stings across the country.
The problem with these objections to individual sales highlights an even greater blind spot in gun-controllers' push for expanding background checks.
In his op-ed, Obama calls for "enforcing the laws already on the books." On this point, the NRA totally agrees, although they're mainly encouraging prosecutors to punish violators more strenuously. Right now, background checks are slow, cumbersome and often records are missing important details. It's partially the reason gun-rights advocates object to loophole legislation - the system's broken as is and requiring more people to go through the federal process (which to some is the first step toward a freedom-hating, totalitarian government) won't solve gun violence.
That's not where the real "common sense" kicker hits gun-controllers' talking points the hardest though.
The Democrats and Bloomberg, pushing for the background checks act at Tuesday's press conference, repeated over and over that the government has a very specific role in the future of firearms control.
"One fact is imminently clear," said Schumer at the presser," we need to do a better job of making sure that people who aren't supposed to get guns don't get them. Let's be clear, we're not talking about restricting a hunters access to get a gun or the ability of law-abiding citizens to get guns." He was echoing Bloomberg, who had said, "If we're going to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals, the mentally unstable and other already-prohibited dangerous persons, we need a comprehensive background check system with no loopholes."
When TheDC asked Mayor Bloomberg how the expanded checks were supposed to prevent those "already-prohibited dangerous persons" from continuing to be "dangerous persons," he became a little testy. Others in the crowd turned their head when the question - if 99.9 percent of gun owners are "law-abiding" citizens already following the current legal measures, how will increased measures stop the one percent of bad guys who already engage in illegal activities in the first place? - was asked.
"They don't," Bloomberg responded. "But we're talking about dealers, sellers of guns, having to check so that those people that you just listed would not have guns. The reasons we don't want them to have guns is, you're right, they wouldn't obey the law. Those are dangerous people you don't want to have guns in their hands."
Still the question remains: why would criminals hellbent on illegal activities not continue to engage in the illegal purchase of guns? Why would they care one iota about intensified background checks of law-abiding citizens?
A 2001 report from the National Institute of Justice found that 45 percent of those already banned from purchasing a gun - usually because of prior criminal conviction - obtained one through illegal means. Some would get it from family or friends. Others would "get one from off the street, perhaps from a drug dealer or addict." For the record: drug dealing is an illegal activity. So is most everything "on the street."
When Obama and the Democrats said that the current background checks need to be streamlined, made "faster and nimbler" and actually enforced, the NRA agreed: for good reason. According to the NIJ's report, another 12 percent of convicted criminals supposedly banned from obtaining a firearm said that "if they need a gun, they would buy one form a gun shop."
For those counting at home, 57 percent of criminals obtained firearms either because they don't care about existing laws or because existing laws are not enforced.
Still, how do you prevent the deaths of innocent people? More immediately important, how do you prevent attacks like those in Tucson, at Virginia Tech or Columbine - the ones that politicians continually use as reasons for expanded gun-control laws? How do you stop those determined to commit violent crimes with firearms in the first place?
"Well there's little we can do to stop that," said an aid for one of the Democrats pushing for gun-control legislation. "We can't stop somebody from selling a gun in an alley out of a paper bag. But the folks at the gun shows, they're not looking to break the law. They're just working within the law, and if the law required them to do a background check, we're sure that they would do it."
A conversation with an aid of another gun-controlling Democrat went in a similar direction.
"It's impossible to keep all guns ... even this legislation isn't air tight," said the aid.
TheDC pressed. How would more legal restrictions on legal gun-owners affect criminals and their illegal possession of firearms?
A moment of silence.
"Did you ask this question [at the press conference]?
Yes, actually. In between the questions from some frantic, half-crazed woman. The aid wasn't the first political flak to take interest in TheDC after the question was asked; a question that didn't seem that weird. Did it?
"I just remember the question," said the aid. "I sort of think it sort of speaks to a larger issue of guns in society. I guess the question is, if legislation affects people who don't follow the law. I think, ultimately, more guns on the street isn't the answer."
But the problem - which Democrats kept hammering home during the press conference - isn't about guns that kill people. It's about the people that kill people.
"We have to be clear, we've been over and over again, this is not about telling law-abiding citizens that they can't have a gun," said Virginia Rep. Jim Moran at the Tuesday Bloomberg press conference. He continued, saying, "It's about saying that some people in this country should not be anywhere near a gun and we have to close these loopholes."
The second Democratic aid, still being pressed, said, "I guess the simple answer is, there is no place for them in society. What purpose do they serve?"
At least the aid didn't say it was a "common sense" answer.
**************************************************7. Wells Fargo flip-flops on firearm carry policy, becoming anti-freedom**************************************************
VCDL Board Member Dale Welch emailed me this:
--
Wells Fargo/Wachovia has apparently reversed their postion on honoring local standards on being allowed to carry in their branchs.
See Jan. 14, 2011 letter:
=46rom opencarry.org: http://tinyurl.com/4ueqhna
**************************************************8. 25 colleges where you can carry a gun**************************************************
Dave Briggman emailed me this anti-freedom piece's link:
--
=46rom CBS Money Watch: http://tinyurl.com/69pyuky
By Lynn O'ShaughnessyMarch 17, 2011
How's this for a great idea?
Let's allow college students to carry guns. And then let's encourage these kids to stuff them in their backpacks and bring them to class. They also should keep their guns close when they are downing tequila shots and playing beer pong.
Of course, allowing a college student, drunk or not, to pack a weapon makes as much sense as keeping a loaded Glock pistol in a baby's crib. But it's happening.
Pro-gun extremists seem bent on arming college campuses. They have been pursuing legislation and filing lawsuits to force colleges to allow guns on campuses. Since the shooting rampage earlier this year in Arizona, for instance, state legislators have been pushing to arm campuses, as has about 15 other legislatures in states such as Texas, Tennessee and Florida.
Campuses Where You Can Carry a Gun
The gun enthusiasts efforts are paying off. According to Armed Campuses, these 25 colleges allow students to carry Weapons:
Colorado
* Colorado State University * Arapahoe Community College * Colorado Northwestern Community College * Community College of Aurora * Community College of Denver * Front Range Community College * Lamar Community College * Morgan Community College * Northeastern Junior College * Otero Junior College * Pikes Peak Community College * Red Rocks Community College * Trinidad State Junior College
Michigan
* Michigan State University
Guns aren't allowed in campus buildings.
Utah
* University of Utah * Utah State University * Southern Utah University * Utah Valley University * Weber State University * Dixie State College of Utah * College of Eastern Utah * Snow College * Salt Lake Community College * Blue Ridge Community College (sic)
Virginia
* Blue Ridge Community College
Why College Students Shouldn't Carry Guns
The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators has stated that "concealed carry laws have the potential to dramatically increase violence on college and university campuses that our members are empowered to protect." [PVC: "Potential"? There's always "potential." But in REALITY, there haven't been any problems.]
If you think the prospects of gun-toting college students is frightening, head over to the website of The Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus. The organization's petition has already been signed by more than 250 colleges and universities.
There are plenty of reasons why guns and college don't mix. Here's one of them:
One study, Guns and Gun Threats at College, found that two-thirds of gun-owning college students engage in binge drinking. Gun-owning students are more likely than unarmed students to drink frequently and excessively and then engage in such risky behavior as driving drunk, vandalizing property and getting into trouble with the law. [PVC: And I'm sure that study was done by a reputable research firm that would never fudge their data for a political purpose. And I'm also sure that the study was not done on behalf of any anti-freedom groups.]
**************************************************9. Rape victim testifies in favor of guns on campuses **************************************************
Surprisingly, I did not see this story on NBC's Nightly News. Gee, I wonder why.
VCDL Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
=46rom Lahontan Valley News: http://tinyurl.com/673sljo
March 18, 2011
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - A woman sexually assaulted in a campus parking garage by a convicted killer and rapist told state lawmakers Friday that she could have defended herself if she were allowed to carry a concealed weapon at the University of Nevada, Reno.
"I would have at some point during my rape been able to stop James Biela," Amanda Collins told the Senate Committee on Government Affairs during emotional testimony.
Collins testified in favor of a bill sponsored by Sen. John Lee, D-North Las Vegas. The bill would remove a requirement that people who hold a concealed weapons permit obtain permission from a college or university president to carry a gun on campus.
The Associated Press does not generally name victims of sexual assault but is in this case because the woman volunteered to testify and chose to identify herself to the committee before recounting details of the attack.
Biela, a former Marine and pipefitter, was convicted last year of killing Brianna Denison. The 19-year-old college student was visiting her hometown over Christmas break when she vanished from a couch she was sleeping on at a friend's house in January 2008. Her body was found three weeks later in a frozen, empty field in Reno.
Biela was arrested 11 months later and later linked to two other rapes committed on the UNR campus in late 2007. He was convicted and sentenced to death for the Denison murder and sentenced to four life prison terms for raping Collins and another woman.
Collins said that four years after her rape, the university has still not found a suitable way to protect students. She said she was raped less than 300 feet from the campus police office and the call box now near the site of her attack would have been out of reach because she was pinned to the ground.
Assemblyman Scott Hammond, R-Las Vegas, who teaches at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, also testified in favor of the bill, telling senators that he would consider carrying a firearm if the bill passes.
"There are times when it is a very barren campus," he said.
Debate focused on whether increased personal safety would put the larger campus community at risk.
Chuck Callaway with the Las Vegas Police Department said the bill is unnecessary because violent crime has dropped almost 13 percent over the past decade. Police also expressed fear that the bill would lead to a lot of guns on campus and make school shootings like the infamous attacks at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School even worse because officers would not be able to distinguish aggressors from so-called protectors.
Jim Richardson of the Nevada Faculty Alliance also spoke against the measure. "I am not an anti-gun nut person. I actually own guns. I do not take them to campus. I see no reason to do that."
Sen. Michael Schneider, D-Las Vegas, shrugged off intimations that gun carriers would lead to safer campus environments, saying "that's just baloney." He asked for statistics to support claims that campuses are unsafe and that the proposed plan could improve the situation.
Lee, the bills' sponsor, said the issue of guns on campus came down to a basic question.
"Why don't you trust your permit holders on campus when you trust them everywhere else?" he asked opponents.
No action was taken by the committee.
**************************************************10. Armed beauty queen fatally shoots intruder in Florida home invasion**************************************************
Note to criminals: a pink colored revolver will stop you just as well as a black one will.
A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this:
--
=46rom FOX News: http://tinyurl.com/4vumqqy
By Cristina CorbinMarch 22, 2011
When a burly ex-convict forced his way into a posh Florida home last week, he had no idea what awaited him -- a 25-year-old beauty queen with a pink .38-caliber handgun.
Meghan Brown, a former Florida pageant queen, shot and killed 42-year-old Albert Franklin Hill during a home invasion March 12 at the 2,732-square-foot house she shares with her fiance in Tierra Verde, Fla.
Hill barged into the home at around 3 a.m. after Brown responded to a knock at the front door, according to a police report. He allegedly grabbed the 110-pound Brown around her nose and mouth and dragged her to an upstairs bedroom. [PVC: Strange that the finance would let a woman answer the door at 3 AM.]
The woman's fiance, Robert Planthaber, said in an interview that he was quickly awakened by the altercation and ran to Brown's side.
"I attacked him and took a severe beating to the head," Planthaber told FoxNews.com. "But I got him off of her long enough for her to scramble to the room where she keeps her pink .38 special." [PVC: Why didn't the fiance save her the trouble of having to get her gun by bringing the gun with him when he came to fight off her attacker?]
Brown, who reigned as the 2009 Miss Tierra Verde, snatched her gun from a nearby bedroom and shot the suspect several times - hitting him in the chest, groin, thigh and back, her fiance said. Hill was pronounced dead at the scene.
Panthaber, a 42-year-old arborist, said he believes he and his fiancee were targeted because of their wealth. He claimed a pizza delivery man and possible accomplice staked out the home for three months before Hill attempted to burglarize it.
"We live in a very prominent area and my fiancee wears a $60,000 engagement ring," he said. "The pizza man knew we had money because sometimes we needed change for a $100 bill when he came to deliver pizza."
Hill had a criminal record stretching back nearly three decades -- including arrests for burglary, battery, drug possession and grand theft. He reportedly served a 13-year prison term in 1987 and was released in September after serving a fourth term behind bars.
Detectives with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Robbery/Homicide Unit are still investigating the crime but believe the motive was robbery, according to local press reports. They say they haven't yet determined the relationship, if any, Hill had with the couple. A police report said the ex-convict demanded money before the altercation between Hill and Panthaber ensued.
Panthaber, meanwhile, said he and his fiancee are lucky to be alive. He said he purchased the pink handgun for Brown last Christmas and that the two had gone to target practice together.
"She was not a good shot at the range," he quipped.
**************************************************11. Police say Norfolk officer shot wife, self in home**************************************************
A sad and tragic story - even with a police officer in your home, you still may need to protect yourself. Such things are a function of an individual's actions and should never taint an entire group, be it police, concealed handgun permit holders, or plumbers.
A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this:
--
=46rom The Virginian-Pilot: http://tinyurl.com/5vrcz2t
By Veronica GonzalezMarch 23, 2011
A Norfolk police officer killed his wife and himself inside their Great Bridge condominium, investigators confirmed, and left their friends and neighbors stunned because they saw no warning signs in what appeared to be a loving relationship.
William Mackenzie, a 52-year-old lieutenant, shot his 55-year-old wife, Patricia, sometime before 9:30 a.m. Monday in the 700 block of Holston River Court, according to police.
Police on Tuesday did not release further details.
Police went to the condo after Pat didn't show up to work before 7:30 a.m. at the Chesapeake Animal Hospital. She had worked there since 2002 as a veterinary technician.
A receptionist, April Archer, said co-workers knew something was wrong when she didn't answer her cellphone, her husband didn't answer his, and no one answered the home phone.
They sent someone to check on her, and no one came to the door.
"Just like that, we knew," she said.
They know what happened, but they may never know why.
"Bill was a wonderful person as well," said Pat's employer, Dr. Alfred Brooks, who co-owns the hospital. "That's why we're in complete shock. Not knowing the reasons behind this tragedy, no one can imagine it happening."
He said the staff knew Pat's husband because he would stop by for lunch and attend office Christmas parties.
Brooks said his employees have talked during the past day, wondering whether Pat had indicated she was having problems. The same answer kept coming up.
"No hints from anyone that something was going awry in their relationship or their lives," Brooks said.
The couple was looking toward the future, and they were planning to remodel the bathrooms in their condo, he said.
In their professional lives, both Bill and Pat were described as competent, hardworking and dedicated.
Brooks said Pat was a fixture at the animal hospital. She was irreplaceable, a mentor to newer employees.
"Whenever anyone would have a problem, she would always listen, try to guide them," he said. "She was just an all-around, wonderful person."
Pat had worked as a licensed veterinary technician since 1976 after graduating from Blue Ridge Community College in the Shenandoah Valley. She had been a member of the Virginia Association of Licensed Veterinary Technicians, which had recognized her as Technician of the Year in 1989 and given her a lifetime achievement award in 2007.
The Mackenzies owned three cats of their own, and Pat treated them as her children, co-workers said.
The cats were essentially rescues, and two of them had diabetes, Brooks said, adding that his office is caring for them until other arrangements can be made.
Norfolk police Lt. Scott Evans, who works in the narcotics division, said he had known Bill for a long time, but he also knew Pat because he grew up with her on Kersey Avenue in Norfolk.
Pat's first marriage was to his brother, Tom, whom she had wed in 1979. He said she went to Norview High School, and she attended his graduation from the police academy as well as other family functions.
"When I got this news, I'll be honest with you, I got hit twice," Evans said. "I still cannot believe it."
Evans remembered working in the detective division with Bill and said he was a sergeant in charge of the forensics unit.
Bill had worked for the Norfolk Police Department for 25 years, most recently in the 3rd Patrol Division, where he supervised patrol officers.
Norfolk police Officer Chris Amos, a spokesman for the department who had known Bill for years, said he was well-regarded in the department. He described him as a humble, methodical leader who worked his way up the ranks.
"He was somebody who, particularly as a lieutenant and sergeant - as a supervisor - was very fair," Amos said. "He would look out for his folks, make sure they were taken care of."
**************************************************12. SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint**************************************************
Ben Piper emailed me this:
--
This is what happens when you obey the law in Philadelphia, PA.
=46rom Youtube.com: http://tinyurl.com/4oyok6d
**************************************************13. Mayors Against Illegal Guns: A reality check**************************************************
John Haksch emailed me this:
--
Hi, Phil!
I have been doing a bit of research on Bloomberg's group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns. They claim a membership of 593 mayors. Of these, 399 (over 67%!) are in only four states - New Jersey (40), New York (108), Ohio (71) and Pennsylvania(180). If you throw in California (21) and Florida (36), they account for 456 (over 76%) of their alleged membership.
There are approximately 8,291 mayors, nationally, of localities with over 30,000 citizens. Even disregarding the fact that a fair number of Bloomberg's group are not even included in that count, due to small constituencies, this means that fewer than 7.2% of the nation's mayors agree with his goals and methodsenough to allow themselves to be counted among his supporters.
The vast majority of states (37,74%1) could produce only 5 or fewer members, from the many hundreds of mayors in each state. In fact, they could not persuade a SINGLE mayor in 12 states2 to join in their conspiracy to subvert the constitution. I am saddened to see that they were able to dupe 9 of our own Virginia mayors.
Regards,John Haksch
1 Alabama - 3, Alaska - 1, Arizona - 0, Arkansas - 2, Colorado - 1, Georgia- 5, Hawaii - 1, Idaho - 0, Indiana - 5, Iowa - 2, Kansas - 3, Kentucky - 0,Louisiana - 4,Maine - 4, Maryland - 4, Michigan - 3, Minnesota - 3, Mississippi - 3,Missouri - 3, Montana - 0, Nebraska - 3, New Hampshire - 0, New Mexico - 2,Nevada - 0, North Dakota - 1, Oklahoma - 0, Oregon - 2, Rhode Island - 0, South Carolina - 2, South Dakota - 0, Tennessee - 3, Texas - 2, Utah - 0, Vermont - 2, West Virginia - 0, Wisconsin - 5, Wyoming - 0
**************************************************14. Show a little shame: Hubris and the gun lobby**************************************************
VCDL Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
=46rom the Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel: http://tinyurl.com/4sla238
By Firmin DeBrabander
This month, the NRA refused an invitation by the White House to sit down with gun safety advocates and administration officials to discuss the future of gun legislation, and better enforcement of current gun laws. The horrific shootings in Tucson this past January, and subsequent calls by a group of big city mayors to improve gun safety, prompted plans for this discussion.
In a statement, NRA chief Wayne LaPierre said "Why should I or the NRA go sit down with a group of people that have spent a lifetime trying to destroy the 2nd Amendment in the United States?"
Why indeed?
Apparently the NRA is sufficiently emboldened to throw caution and modesty to the wind, and doesn't even feel the need to be seen at the same table with the opposition-or the President. The organization can spurn the White House, even when any policy changes on the table are vague, and the administration's mood on gun safety is tepid at best. The President doesn't intend to push new gun legislation, and has stated that he is only interested in enforcing existing gun safety laws more effectively. It would seem there's little for the NRA to fear in the President's stance, but even that's not reason enough to sit at the table.
This is a remarkable sign of the times, especially when you consider the carnage wrought at the shooting in Tucson this winter: 8 dead, 13 wounded, including Democratic Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who is recovering from a gunshot wound to the head. If that kind of bloodshed doesn't prompt the NRA to show at least some humility and cooperation on the matter, what will?
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. The massacre at Virginia Tech, which killed 32 people, prompted no anti-gun backlash. If someone can go on that kind of shooting spree on a college campus, and no one utters a peep about gun control, this means the floodgates are wide open. And that they are: the legislature in Arizona is poised to allow the carrying of guns on college campuses in the state by students and professors alike. One representative has gone so far to insist that schoolteachers be allowed to arm themselves in the classroom-in case a deranged killer barges in, no doubt.
Clearly, we have veered off track in the gun debate in this country, and the NRA's refusal to even talk to the administration is further testament to this somber fact. The NRA's decision here is ill-advised on two counts.
For one, this is a poor political decision. Sure, the stars are aligned for the NRA in the current arrangement: Republicans run the House of Representatives, and even the Senate is dominated by gun-friendly Democrats. Aside from some strong gun control positions years ago, the President has remained largely reticent on the issue, in deference to the Independent voters-and moderate Republicans-he aims to cultivate. But as we all know, the political winds are fickle and apt to change quickly, in which case the NRA will likely pay for slapping down the President.
But more urgently, the NRA's behavior sets an ominous tone for gun ownership in this country. With its refusal to even sit at the same table with people who have doubts about broad gun ownership, the NRA has signaled that it is taking its crusade to a higher level: it aims to remove any shame, awkwardness, or modesty in gun ownership. It looks to a day when any soccer mom can casually sport a gun on her hip, and casually order a Latte at Starbucks, kids in tow. Or to a day when a professor can place his revolver on the podium before lecturing.
On one hand, who can blame the NRA? Any lobby worth its salt should fight to remove shame attached to its object of devotion. Sitting at the same table as gun control advocates might suggest there is something wrong with guns.. But with respect to gun ownership, I'd argue, shame and modesty are very much needed-and welcome. For, if the NRA succeeds in wholly removing those
much needed-and welcome. For, if the NRA succeeds in wholly removing those feelings from gun ownership, caution will vanish, too. And clearly, caution is already in short supply as it is. How is free, open and widespread gun toting supposed to reverse that trend?
If schoolteachers sport holsters, then surely any wacko will be emboldened to do so, too; indeed, they'll all blend into the crowd. When the law-abiding citizens carry guns-which the NRA advocates ("an armed society is a polite society," it likes to say)-surely any citizen will do so, too, lawbreakers included. And, as anyone knows, when something is close at hand-like a revolver-that makes it far more likely to be used than if it were hard to get to or operate. And the more revolvers are used, the more likely they will be used mistakenly. This is no vain speculation, just the law of averages.
Consider the analogy to smoking: cigarettes are perfectly legal, though we know they kill. To reduce the incidences of smoking-related cancer, cigarettes have been largely marginalized from public spaces. Yes, smokers complain that shame has been attached to their habit in the process-but the habit remains legal, and the effort to make smoking more difficult has saved lives.
We need to cultivate gun ownership that is modest, cautious, reticent, even wary of using firepower unless circumstances are dire enough to warrant it.. We don't need a proliferation of brazen gun toting, because that brazenness will soon bleed into all aspects of gun behavior-and translate into recklessness. From its bully pulpit, the NRA would do well to set the tone and demonstrate requisite politeness and caution to its devotees. [PVC: This guy lives in an imaginary world. Gun owners are already careful and respectful of the power of firearms. What we won't be is cowed by anyone.]
**************************************************15. John Schneider: Author says kids' book on guns offers 'positive message'**************************************************
Sent to me by Mari Thompson, president of Second Amendment Sisters (SAS)
=46rom the Lansing State Journal: http://tinyurl.com/4thzcue
By John SchneiderMarch 11, 2011
DeWITT - Back when my kids were young, I was required to pull a shift now and then in our parish nursery, supervising the tots at play while their parents attended Mass.
Given the venue, and the times, the toys in the nursery were aggressively anti-violent. Nothing remotely resembling a gun was allowed on the premises. Nonetheless, the boys - always the boys - found ways to shoot at each other. With interlocking building blocks shaped into an "L." With their hands (forefinger as barrel; thumb as hammer). Even with graham crackers chewed into vague gun-like shapes.
Pow! Pow! Pow!
So, maybe trying to ignore the ubiquitousness of firearms in American culture is the wrong approach.
Maybe it's about time somebody wrote a children's book like "My Parents Open Carry." If they're going to carry guns, they may as well learn how - and why. Right?Gun rights activists
Meet the authors: Brian Jeffs is a state geologist who lives in Bath Township. Nathan Nephew is a software developer who lives in DeWitt. They're co-founders of Michigan Open Carry Inc., the gun-rights group currently challenging a Capital Area District Library policy that bans guns from the library.
Their soft-cover book was recently published by White Feather Press of Hamilton, near Grand Rapids.
Here's a description of the book from http://www.myparentsopen carry.com:
"Come join 13-year-old Brenna Strong along with her mom, Bea, and her dad, Richard, as they spend a typical Saturday running errands and having fun together. What's not so typical is that Brenna's parents lawfully open carry handguns for self-defense.
"The Strongs join a growing number of families that are standing up for their Second Amendment rights by open carrying and bringing gun ownership out of the closet and into the mainstream."
The book also includes some gun-safety lessons.Self-defense
In a phone interview Thursday, Jeffs said the book's take-away message is this: "You can't rely on others to protect you. You have a natural right to self-defense. The cops do the best they can, but can't be there all the time."
Jeffs said he expects to hear some backfire from the anti-gun folks, but insisted the book conveyed a "very positive message."
Jeffs has a 16-year-old daughter named Brenna. Nephew does not have children.
"My Parents Open Carry" may be ordered through the website mentioned above. It's also available at Michigan Guns & Gear, on Main Street in Bath.
Jeffs acknowledged the book has a "niche market," adding, "It won't make the New York Times best-seller list."
**************************************************16. Bill would allow guns to be carried uncovered**************************************************
Open Carry? Oh, no! Blood will run in the streets! There will be shootouts in grocery stores when shopping carts collide! And don't get me started about fender-benders triggering death and mayhem!!!!
Most states allow open carry and there is no blood in the streets?
Hmmm....
VCDL Board Member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
=46rom WESH.com: http://tinyurl.com/4ftnk89
March 21, 2011
WINTER PARK, Fla. -- In Florida, gun owners can't holster their guns outside of their clothing, but that could change if a piece of legislation turns into law.
It's called "open carry" and it's drawing plenty of attention from advocates and opponents alike.
Charles O'Meara of Shoot Straight, a firearms store, thinks the law would scare those who don't own guns and create opportunities for crime.
"I don't think it's fair to make those people feel uncomfortable, but the bigger part is, what happens when someone walks up behind the gun owner and pulls the gun out of its holster? Now you have someone who should not have one, with a gun in their hands," said O'Meara.
Under House Bill 517, which has already passed in the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee, a person would need to have a valid concealed weapon or firearm license in order to carry a weapon or firearm openly.
Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger is in Tallahassee fighting the bill, which he calls an invitation for more crime with guns. The bill is drawing fire from the Florida Sheriff's Association.
"All it would do is further add to the confusion that the public will have wondering whether or not this person with a gun is in the process of doing something unlawful or not," said Orange County Sheriff Jerry Demings.
Other gun owners said they were against the measure.
"I would not have a problem with open-carry, but I would prefer concealed. I don't like to let anyone know that I have the weapon," said Philip Haugan.. [PVC: Such is your right to choose - God Bless America!]
"I don't see the need for it," said Eric Dayman. [PVC: Your NEEDS do NOT nullify my RIGHTS, Mr. Dayman.]
The bill does prevent openly carrying a weapon in certain locations, such as schools, colleges, airports and bars.
**************************************************17. To shoot or not to shoot: When an aggressive dog bites**************************************************
=46rom examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/4w2x65b
By Dave Workman, Seattle Gun Rights ExaminerMarch 25, 2011
[SNIP]
If one were to click here or here on today's Northwest Firearms forum, they would find discussions about self-defense against aggressive dogs, and a case scheduled to go to trial next Tuesday in Carmel, Indiana might offer pause for serious thought about what actions an armed citizen might take if attacked by a canine...
**************************************************18. Hidden holster horror revealed**************************************************
He was lucky he wasn't really hurt. A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this:
--
=46rom TheTruthAboutGuns.com: http://tinyurl.com/4hm8pwg
By Robert FaragoMarch 23, 2011
"'What the hell was that?!?' she said. It took me a half a second to realize that my gun had just gone off...on my hip...in its holster. My wife and I had just finished breakfast at our favorite cafe and got into the car."
An anonymous contributor to itstactical.com describes his negligent discharge. "Me being the passenger, I rotated my torso to the left to fasten my seatbelt like I always do. When I straightened again, my Glock 19 discharged, blowing a 9mm hole through my pants, underwear, the leather seat and bottom of the car's door frame." The culprit: a well-worn Galco JAK202 Slide Belt Holster. Or was it?
The problem stemmed from the leather on the inner side of the holster getting soft. A crease formed, which eventually was large enough to extend beyond the trigger. Manipulate the gun in just the wrong manner and this crease is no different than a finger on the trigger. Boom!
Disagree. The problem stemmed from buying a holster that didn't cover the trigger. We've said it before: you must buy a holster that fits your gun. A holster that allows you to draw and re-holster your gun without putting your finger on trigger as you do so. This picture shows a very bad fit.
The anonymous survivor gets some slack. Check this picture from Galco for the JAK holster.
Is that a good fit? I don't think so. The gun needs to sit lower in the holster. I mean, the gun is lasering his leg.
Imagine the holster wearer leaning forward and drawing. It looks to me like the rear of the holster top slopes backwards. That might "encourage" the trigger finger to slide down towards the trigger guard during the draw. You might even say it's an accident waiting to happen, but I couldn't possibly comment.
Before you buy a holster, and/or afterwards, unload your gun, holster that bad boy and do everything you will do when wearing it: jump, run, sit, lie down, bend, etc. And then practice holstering and reholstering. And then do it ALL THE TIME. If your trigger finger somehow ends up inside the guard, ditch the holster. If your draw or reholster degrades as the holster wears, ditch it. Safety first. Comfort second.
**************************************************19. Thought for the day**************************************************
Gerald Ameral emailed me this:
--
Philip, I saw this and thought it was spot on.
"The philosophy of gun control: Teenagers are roaring through town at 90MPH, where the speed limit is 25. Your solution is to lower the speed limit to 20."
Sam Cohen (inventor of the neutron bomb)
-------------------------------------------***************************************************************************
