Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL)

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
PO. Box 513, Newington, VA 22122 • 804-639-0600 • 703-372-3285 • 757-271-3705 • 540-446-5783

09/16/09 - VCDL Update 9/15/09 - Part 1

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VCDL Update 9/15/09 - ''I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a = thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.'' - Harriet Tubman 1. Jeff Schapiro, Bob McDonnell, and VCDL? 2. Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying guns 3. Why you need a gun when answering your door on Duke Street in Alexandria 4. Many more Virginians are packing heat 5. RT LTE: Before reporting, research the facts on gun stats 6. RT OP ED: Responsible gun ownership 7. RTD LTE: Batons and guns are apples and oranges 8. Guns and healthcare 9. Former NJ resident reminds us not to take our rights for granted 10. Question submitted to the NY Times editor and his reply 11. VA-ALERT reader expands on the dynamics of a ricochet 12. NY Post Video: Gun totin' rabbis 13. Alternet: 30 death threats a day 14. Millionaire faces jail for attack on knife raider at his home 15. Georgia: South Ossetians cling to arms 16. VCDL EM to speak at Tea Party in Lynchburg 17. Petition to allow concealed carry in state forests moves forward ************************************************** 1. Jeff Schapiro, Bob McDonnell, and VCDL? ************************************************** EM Hal Macklin emailed me this: -- Jeff Schapiro is a poor excuse for a columnist and an even worse excuse for a "reporter" -- this is his column, I mean 'news' article, from Sunday. So, who or what are "Republican-leaning gun-rights advocates" - NRA operatives? VCDL EM's? PVC? Note Jeff's use of the word "quietly" as though Bob is trying to sneak this through or something. If Jeff meant = "VCDL," since when has our organization been "Republican-leaning" -- we are still non-partisan, right? Next, look at the language Jeff uses for the Gun Show "loophole" -- he = knows by now there is no loophole, yet he willfully continues to use this inflammatory term. Not only that, he writes "... under which some = purchases at gun shows escape background checks." -- The clear implication here is that some people who get guns at gun shows are trying to ESCAPE DETECTION -- another falsehood. Shame on Jeff. --------- http://tinyurl.com/m9nz4r timesdispatch.com Jeff E. Schapiro Virginia Republicans were partying like it was 1993. But their early celebration was interrupted by a blast from the past: gubernatorial nominee Bob McDonnell's controversial 1989 graduate- school thesis, one in which he offered what now would seem decidedly un-PC observations about working women, gays, unmarried couples, contraception and -- as he put it -- "fornicators." The fracas, which has roiled the 2009 contest nonstop for a week, has provided the occasionally sputtering campaign of Democrat R. Creigh Deeds something that had been missing through the summer months usually reserved for fundraising and organizational nuts and bolts: energy. But even Democrats, looking for a third consecutive win for governor, recognize that this burst of excitement does not necessarily augur a redirection of the race. Polls by Rasmussen Reports and SurveyUSA show = that McDonnell, a former attorney general, is still ahead, leading by 7 percentage points and 12 percentage points, respectively. Not since George Allen's landslide gubernatorial victory 16 years ago over early favorite Mary Sue Terry -- it ushered in a Republican ascendancy that reached its apex in 2000 with the party's takeover of the General Assembly -- have national trends combined to create such a = favorable climate statewide for the GOP. At that time, President Bill Clinton was widely unpopular, the state's = junior U.S. senator, Charles S. Robb, was wrestling with a continuing personal scandal, and internal quarrels -- many involving Gov. L. Douglas Wilder -- had badly splintered the Virginia Democratic Party. The 2009 election is being shaped by fatigue among Democrats satiated by seven years of gains, deepening economic anxiety and the declining popularity of President Barack Obama -- a trend made more dramatic by his victory in the state last year. Obama was the first Democrat to win Virginia for president in 44 years. Further, Deeds' rural base -- he is a state senator from thinly populated Bath County on the West Virginia line -- compel him to take positions that don't go down easily with traditional Democrats, such as resistance to gun control. These factors, combined with larger themes, such as the continuing recession and stubbornly high job losses in some areas of the state, suggest to some observers that Deeds may gain only limited advantage from the debate over the McDonnell term paper. "The thesis has injected the Deeds campaign with some needed energy and enthusiasm," analyst Robert D. Holsworth said at week's end on his = blog, virginiatomorrow.com "But given the issue landscape of 2009, it's unlikely to be decisive in itself, unless the McDonnell campaign fails to do a minimally competent job of damage control or other more surprising revelations emerge." Both candidates have attempted to focus on issues and ideas that directly affect Virginians. But they have been crowded out by national = concerns; for example, a federal bailout of banks and a car-industry rescue that shuttered dealers across the state. McDonnell has offered a transportation plan that relies on greater public debt through bonds and the sale of the state's liquor monopoly. = Deeds is still largely silent on fixing roads, but is likely to frame out a package ahead of a mid-September debate before business leaders in traffic-clogged Northern Virginia. Both candidates favor more money for public education, with Deeds vowing to push teacher salaries to the national average of about $50,000. McDonnell says he can free up nearly $500 million for schools = by cutting administrative expenses. Tax breaks are the core of the rivals' jobs proposals. Though Deeds and McDonnell acknowledge employment is driven by global forces over which they have no control, they nonetheless favor state tax credits for new jobs. When relief would kick in varies with the number of positions created. Deeds is not alone in his distaste for gun control. He and McDonnell are against the 1993 one-handgun-a-month law. Deeds' opposition to it cost him the endorsement of Wilder, the law's author. McDonnell favored the measure as a delegate from Virginia Beach but quietly changed his position, telling Republican-leaning gun-rights advocates that computerized background checks make the restrictions unnecessary. Deeds, too, has shifted on some firearms regulation. In response to the Virginia Tech mass shootings, he has pushed for a compromise to close a loophole under which some purchases at gun shows escape background checks. Since early August, however, the contest has been shifting to social and cultural issues. Deeds fired first, attacking McDonnell's hostility to abortion rights in a broader push to paint the Republican = as outside the mainstream. The McDonnell thesis, disclosed a week ago by The Washington Post, has = added significant fuel to the Deeds effort. McDonnell has disavowed elements of the thesis, including a claim that = working women are a threat to the family. But that has not deterred Democrats from trying to harness widening awareness of the report. They see it as a potential Ah-Ha moment, during which voters pause just long enough to reconsider McDonnell. McDonnell is attempting to blunt the impact of the thesis with television advertising that includes a spot emphasizing his origins in = the Northern Virginia suburbs, the heavily Democratic region, where the document's conservative tenets could rattle the wrong people: moderates, working women and young voters. Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond who tracks the intersection of politics, law and public policy, says McDonnell, who wrote the paper as a law student at evangelist Pat Robertson- founded Regent University, has reason to be concerned. As Tobias sees it, the thread of the thesis can be used to weave a potentially damaging case against McDonnell by emphasizing a continuum = in his political career that includes disputed opinions and litigation = during his term as attorney general from 2006 to 2009, when he resigned to run full time for governor. That might include McDonnell's opinion in 2006 that Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat who leaves office in January, exceeded his power in pledging that gay state workers would be protected from discrimination = in the workplace. Another possible issue: McDonnell's decision to align the state -- in court -- with breakaway parishes locked in a continuing property dispute with the Episcopal Church. The fight is rooted in conservative = backlash against the installation of an openly gay man as bishop of New Hampshire. But McDonnell, too, has come under fire for some of his work as attorney general on business and consumer issues. He was criticized by = a retired top corporate regulator for not looking out for ratepayers in helping fashion a new framework for pricing electricity that was favored by the state's utilities. ************************************************** 2. Federal judge rules police cannot detain people for openly carrying = guns ************************************************** As I read this article about an open carrier being harassed by police in New Mexico, I can't help but recall two very similar incidents that = occurred much closer to home. I'm speaking of the two incidents in Norfolk where Danladi Moore (http://tinyurl.com/3o39ge) and Chester "Chet" Szymecki Jr (http://tinyurl.com/qxhhgb) were detained and arrested as a result of legally open carrying a handgun. Both cases resulted in an out of court settlement to the open carriers ($10,000 and $15,000, respectively). While there is no word on whether the New Mexico case will result in a monetary judgment, one thing is clear. More cities are learning that harassing open carriers can be an expensive mistake. http://tinyurl.com/m77vos examiner.com Mike Stollenwerk [SNIP] On September 8, 2009, United States District Judge Bruce D. Black of the United States District Court for New Mexico entered summary judgment in a civil case for damages against Alamogordo, NM police officers. The Judge's straight shootin' message to police: Leave open carriers alone unless you have "reason to believe that a crime [is] afoot." ************************************************** 3. Why you need a gun when answering your door on Duke Street in Alexandria ************************************************** Just because you live in a trendy part of Virginia does not make you immune from violent opportunistic criminals. http://tinyurl.com/kwmdbl alextimes.com Police Seek Help Identifying Suspects The Alexandria Police Department is asking for the public's help in identifying the suspects in an armed home invasion robbery that occurred in the 2700 block of Duke Street. On Tuesday, August 11, at approximately 11:50 p.m., a female resident answered a knock at her door. When she opened the door, a man with a handgun pushed his way inside followed by two other suspects. They demanded cash and then fled the apartment. The victim was not injured. The first suspect is described as a black male, 5'3" to 5'6", with a thin build. He was wearing a New Era Washington Nationals baseball cap. The other two suspects are described as black males, with thin builds, = possibly having dreadlocks. A fourth suspect, seen with the other three in surveillance videos, is = described as a black male wearing a baseball cap. ************************************************** 4. Many more Virginians are packing heat ************************************************** Every time I read another biased anti-gun editorial from The Roanoke Times, I'm assured of one thing: there will be many LTE's from gun owners in response. This one is by Christian "let's post the personal information of all Virginia CHP holders on the Roanoke web site" Trejbal. Trebjal quotes some statistics at the end of the article on violent crimes committed by CHP holders nationwide. If his numbers are correct, that is about 12 crimes a year - for 5 MILLION permit holders! Thus, the odds of a CHP holder committing a violent crime with a gun is about .0000024 (12 out of 5,000,000) per year. That is microscopic. But anti-gunners will be looking for some huge magnifying glasses to try to make it something it isn't. http://tinyurl.com/mn68q2 roanoke.com Christian Trejbal Last week, Roanoke Times columnist Dan Casey announced he had finally obtained a Virginia concealed carry permit. Casey had never touched a handgun, but it did not matter. He took a one-hour, online course and passed a multiple choice quiz. That's adequate training in Virginia thanks to a bill sponsored by state Sen. = Ken Cuccinelli, the GOP's nominee for attorney general. Cuccinelli's Democratic opponent, Del. Steve Shannon, and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Sen. Creigh Deeds, both supported the bill, too, which will leave many Democrats holding their noses when they go to the polls in November. What I found more surprising in Casey's column, was that 203,132 Virginians now have concealed carry permits. That is a 50 percent jump since January 2007, when only 135,789 people = had them. The number of permits tends to increase over time, but this sort of growth is astonishing. The uptick began in the second half of 2008 and took off in 2009, according to Virginia State Police records. Already this year, the number of valid permits has grown by 18 percent, outstripping growth in all of last year and on pace to more than double the 2007 growth rate. I suspect few of the new tens of thousands packing heat are like Casey, either in lack of experience or desire to prove a point about a = foolish law. The impetus runs more deeply. In the middle of 2008, Barack Obama secured the Democratic presidential nomination. Fables quickly spread among gun fans that he would take away their firearms. Americans elected Obama, and gun dealers got busy. Virginia's concealed carry permits are a symptom of the same Obama Derangement Syndrome that has driven record gun sales nationwide. America is more friendly to firearm ownership than it has been in a long time. All three branches of the federal government support the gun agenda. Congress passed gun-friendly legislation this year, such as a bill to allow people to carry loaded weapons in many national parks, including = long stretches of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Obama has seized no weapons but has signed Congress' pro-gun bills. And the Supreme Court this year swallowed gun-backers' spin on the Second Amendment. The court's five conservative justices ruled the militia clause does not count and created an individual right to own firearms with minimal interference from the state. The other four justices, in their dissent, rightly argued that all the words of the Constitution matter. In Virginia, it is even sweeter for gun lovers. Both Democrats and Republicans in the General Assembly backed pro-firearms bills, including one that would have allowed concealed carry in bars. The governor vetoed that one, but with two staunch gun supporters running for governor, it will almost certainly become law next year. Despite all that, fear persists. Americans purchase more and more guns = and seek permission to conceal them. The most passionate among them display a religious-like zealotry. They = preach their message of peace through firepower everywhere. One gun-loving reader of our RoundTable editorial blog tastelessly exploited the recent shooting deaths of two Virginia Tech students to promote his agenda. Other gun lovers put on public displays of affection with their weapons, openly carrying them outside presidential events. How is that = ever a reasonable idea? I do not begrudge them their right to carry. We are a nation and a commonwealth of laws. The Supreme Court ruled; Virginia's duly elected = officials kowtowed. A couple of more statistics deserve mention, though. From 2007 to present, while the number of concealed carry permits jumped 50 percent in Virginia, 36 concealed carry permit holders around the nation killed seven law enforcement officers and 54 private = citizens. Possibly even more. Some states, unlike Virginia, keep concealed carry = records secret, making accurate counts impossible. At least the commonwealth gets that right, sort of. ************************************************** 5. RT LTE: Before reporting, research the facts on gun stats ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/nql6xb roanoke.com Before reporting, research the facts on gun stats Re: "Getting permit was the easy part," Aug. 30 column: Dan Casey's recent articles are consistent with current journalistic standards of the news media. He has spent his time and effort to tell us his opinion of what is wrong with the current process for obtaining = a concealed carry permit. Now, if he were in the business world, his bosses would point out the basic error in his work. The first thing you do when you think there may be a problem with a process or procedure is to verify that a real problem exists. In this case, you would need to see if the data show that the holders of a CCP = commit a higher percentage of the gun crimes than the general population. I can find no data that indicates that Virginia CCP holders are a problem. Casey should check the records of The Times and tell us what percentage of the local Timesland gun crimes were committed by holders = of a CCP verses the population in general. Then we would know if there = is a real problem, or if all Casey's work is to reinforce The Times' well-known position on gun owner rights. In other words, are the articles investigative journalism or just propaganda? ROGER DUNAGAN VINTON ************************************************** 6. RT OP ED: Responsible gun ownership ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/m5z3qt roanoke.com Roger E. Weddle Weddle lives in Roanoke. Dan Casey, in his column "Getting permit was the easy part" (Aug. 30), = demonstrated the main difference between conservatives and liberals in = American society. Unsurprisingly, Casey takes a dim view of our liberty to bear arms in this country, one of the first rights granted in our Constitution. There is a reason for the bipartisan support for the law that does not = require the type of restrictions Casey desires. Maybe it is because it = is not needed. Individuals who decide to exercise their right to carry = a firearm, concealed or not, have a responsibility to be familiar with = the firearm. With any right there is responsibility, whether it is the right to bear arms, freedom of speech or, dare I say, freedom of the press. Freedom of speech does not allow one to shout "fire" in a movie theater when there is no fire. Freedom of the press does not allow libel. The right to assemble does not permit violent demonstration. There is a certain level of responsibility with each of our rights. In the liberal world, it is up to the government to protect us from ourselves and to make up laws where there is no problem. This is a common theme with liberalism. Its adherents create crises where none exist then legislate and regulate to promote an agenda. Our country is suffering the consequences of this tactic, which is used by the current presidential administration. These consequences will reach far into the future. Of course, Casey's article had a dual purpose. Not only did he bemoan our constitutional right, but he also sought to smear Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, the Republican attorney general candidate, who received a $1,000 campaign donation from Concealed Carry Institute owner Roger Marcus. It was not until the end of the column that Casey mentioned that Democratic candidate Steve Shannon also voted for the bill. Under this type of reasoning, should we be concerned about Shannon's campaign contributions from Freedom Bail Bonding of Fairfax ($2,500) and Virginia AFL-CIO ($25,000) or the $6,500 Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ "American Dream Fund" from New York, an = organization that has donated a total of $44,973 exclusively to Democratic candidates? Why not do some real investigative journalism and give us examples where some of the 203,132 Virginians who hold permits to carry are shooting themselves in the foot or committing crimes? Show us areas in = the country where concealed carry permits have been instituted and thereafter had an increase in the crime rate. Stop complaining about our rights and our liberties. If Casey doesn't feel competent in carrying a concealed handgun, then he shouldn't. To do so would be stupid. I'm sure there are plenty of criminals carrying handguns who have plenty of experience and knowledge in gun safety. I hope this is some comfort to Casey. ************************************************** 7. RTD LTE: Batons and guns are apples and oranges ************************************************** This editoral, called "The Guns of August," got emails and letters flowing to the Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/olo2pf Politics: The Guns of August By Staff Reports Published: August 27, 2009 As noted above, some conservatives are outraged by the appearance of baton-wielding individuals of the political left at a Philadelphia polling place. But conservatives seem far less worked up about the appearance of right-leaning individuals showing up with firearms at town halls and similar public events. Liberals are outraged by the town-hall gun-toters. Most could not care = less about the truncheon-wielding Black Panthers in Philadelphia. Selective outrage is universally hypocritcal. ----- Dale Welch emailed me this: "Gross agenda driven misrepresentation of the facts. Baton wielding is = comparable to brandishing a firearm which is definitely illegal. Simply carrying a defensive handgun legally is a passive action and constitutes neither threat nor harm. I guess fear is a terrible thing = to waste for some - no day without self induced panic." ----- Dale -- And an LTE on the editorial: http://tinyurl.com/nh2xk9 timesdispatch.com September 8, 2009 Batons and Guns Are Apples and Oranges Editor, Times-Dispatch: The recent editorial, "The Guns of August," equates citizens legally carrying firearms with baton-wielding individuals trying to prevent people from exercising their right to vote. Do you not understand the difference between law-abiding and law- breaking? How about legal and illegal? Mike Graham. Richmond. ************************************************** 8. Guns and healthcare ************************************************** Is there a correlation between healthcare and the right to self defense? Yes. And all it takes is a little prevention. EM Hal Mackilin emailed me this: -- At the last GRPC I attended in Northern Virginia, I had an interesting = conversation with Alan Korwin and Jeffrey Snyder. Alan was talking about anti-gun doctors who like to refer to guns as pathogens and gun violence as a disease. I responded by suggesting we re-frame the argument as follows: the SOCIOPATHS are the pathogens and GUNS are the antibiotic. Alan laughed really hard and said he really liked that analogy and that he would use it in the future. I think Jeffrey liked that, too. Since then, I've thought about armed self-defense as more analogous to = a vaccination. A vaccination will inoculate you against the flu; it won't necessary PREVENT you from getting the flu, but if you do, at least you have a fighting chance of surviving the illness. Similarly, having a loaded gun with you as you travel about in public won't necessarily prevent you from becoming a victim of criminal attack, but at least it gives you a fighting chance of surviving the attack. In some rare instances, getting a vaccine can kill you. Even so, the 'experts' recommend most everyone get a vaccine. Likewise, in some rare instances, having a gun with you can get you killed. Here, however, those same 'experts' are apparently not as willing to recommend that everyone get and carry a gun. Still, on balance, the facts bear out the following: Vaccines save lives Guns save lives Thus, Self-Defense is simply good, common-sense Preventative Medicine! ************************************************** 9. Former NJ resident reminds us not to take our rights for granted ************************************************** A member from Mecklenburg County, sent me this email after reading about how a former Virginia resident is adjusting to life in Massachusetts. (VA-ALERT 9/11/09, item #24, "A warning from Massachusetts on gun rights") -- We are originally from one of those Liberal/Communist states. In this = case it was NJ. Call it what it is! In NJ you need a long gun permit = to buy a pellet gun. It took me about six months to obtain such permit. I had to contact each neighbor and ask them if/or not they thought it was OK to have such a permit and have them sign off on this = item. One of the questions pertained to if they thought I was mentally = competent to have a permit. I finally secured my permit and bought a 12 gauge and 22. Of course, I still felt like a criminal because I owned a gun in NJ. We lived in = NJ for 28 years and lived the state go Liberal/Communist. At the time = we did not think much of this because it happened very slowly one law at a time. The "you are a criminal" attitude if you own a gun was so ingrained in us in the state of NJ that even today it is very difficult for us to think of this as a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT. We live in Mecklenburg County, Virginia and tell this story continually to all the locals. We have two gun clubs here and some members seem to think their gun rights are forever and they never need = to fight for them. Both clubs, to a certain degree, support the NRA but the members are not required to belong to the NRA or VCDL. It is such a privilege to live in Free Virginia. We do hope Free Virginia stays alive. PLEASE JOIN AND SUPPORT NRA AND VCDL! THEY ARE = KEEPING YOU FREE IN VIRGINIA! ************************************************** 10. Question submitted to the NY Times editor and his reply ************************************************** Steve Brown sent me this email response from the New York Times Editor: -- Opposed to Gun Rights? Q. Can you please explain to me why the Times' editorials on guns are so vehemently opposed to gun rights? -- Steve Brown, Springfield, Va. A. Our editorials are not opposed to gun rights, vehemently or otherwise. We support the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which says (quoting it in full, which opponents of reasonable regulation of guns rarely do): "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." What does that mean to us? It means that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed enshrined in the Constitution. We do not go as far as some do and suggest that the authors of American democracy meant to restrict the bearing of arms to a militia, or in the modern context something like the National Guard. But it does clearly and unequivocally state that the bearing of arms would be regulated and that the goal is to ensure the security of a free state. There is nothing in that language to suggest that the government may be barred from preventing the possession of firearms by criminals and others who threaten the security of the free state. We believe that the people mentioned in this amendment are the law- abiding citizens of the United States. In concrete terms, where does the Second Amendment endorse the formation of gun markets designed to evade the law and distribute guns = to criminals so they can carry them to other states to commit violent crimes? [PVC: And where does it say that citizens are to be restricted so that criminals can't get guns?] Where in the Second Amendment does it say that the federal government should make it impossible for law enforcement in New York to trace a gun used to commit murder simply because the gun was sold by a black- market dealer in Virginia? [PVC: Where does it say they CAN do so? = The editor doesn't understand that the government can only do what the = CONSTITUTION says it can do and no more. He is mixing up personal RIGHTS with governmental POWERS.] Where in the Second Amendment does it say that ordinary citizens may buy automatic weapons created for the specific purpose of killing enemy soldiers on a battlefield and then load them with bullets designed to penetrate the body armor our police officers wear in the line of duty? [PVC: Still lost in the woods.] Where in the Second Amendment does it forbid the federal government, or the states, from issuing rules that prohibit the sale of weapons to = children, to the mentally ill, to violent criminal offenders? [PVC: = Once you start with a false premise, you can go anywhere with it.] We understand the emotions surrounding this issue, but would just like = Continued ...