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

07/26/09 - VCDL Update 7/26/09 - Part 1

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VCDL Update 7/26/09 - Defending your right to defend yourself **Note: I apologize. The CBS "60 Minutes" show tonight had the same footage as back in April. I thought it might have new footage from the four-hour interview. Lesley Stahl did update the introduction to the story to reflect recent events, such as the repeal of the National Park gun ban. ** 1. AG issues formal opinion which confirms that Governor Kaine mislead gun owners 2. National anti-gun group targeting Virginia - big Lobby Day turnout needed in January! 3. Anti-gun delegate sticks up for VCDL's 1st Amendment rights 4. GOP candidate's remarks spur outcry 5. Pro-gunners opposed to online training for CHP? 6. LTE: In the right hands, guns do save lives 7. Legal seminar on Virginia self-defense laws 8. They carry guns (openly) 9. Clarification on carrying in National Parks 10. BBC looks at TN repeal of restaurant ban 11. ATF rejects TN Firearms Freedom Act 12. Fireworks (and ammo) amnesty business booms 13. Post-election rush on guns spawns shortages of bullets (sic) 14. Jersey City police chief wants weapon to hunt humans? 15. Shooting Yourself 101: Facility bans holster after two ADs 16. A loopy drinking debate 17. Rev. Ken Blanchard discusses freedom and 2A ************************************************** 1. AG issues formal opinion which confirms that Governor Kaine mislead gun owners ************************************************** Finally released: the formal opinion from the Attorney General's Office confirming what we already knew about Governor Kaine's assertion that he did NOT sign a bill into law that allows untrained Commonwealth Attorneys and their deputies to carry concealed in restaurants and drink alcoholic beverages: the Governor either lied through his teeth or he is an incompetent attorney (so much for that Harvard education): http://tinyurl.com/nqbjph (PDF file format) [SNIP] "Accordingly, it is my opinion that the 2008 Amendments clearly exempt Commonwealth's attorneys and assistant Commonwealth's attorneys from the general prohibitions on carrying concealed handguns, subject only to the restrictions in S 18.2-308(J1). Therefore, pursuant to state law such individuals may carry concealed handguns on school property. Further, it is my opinion that the 2008 Amendments do not specifically prohibit such individuals from consuming alcohol while carrying concealed handguns; however, they are restricted by existing statute from being "under the influence" of alcohol or illegal drugs." As I have stated before, VCDL doesn't care that Commonwealth Attorneys can carry on K-12 school grounds or that they can carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (and even drink). They are good, trustworthy people - just like Virginia's nearly 200,000 CHP holders. What we DO care about is that CHP holders are currently treated like second class citizens in regard to both of those issues and we want to get the law changed so that CHP holders, too, can carry concealed both in restaurants that serve alcohol and on K-12 school property. ************************************************** 2. National anti-gun group targeting Virginia - big Lobby Day turnout needed in January! ************************************************** One of the national anti-gun groups is actively looking for a salaried employee to do nothing but work on damaging or destroying gun shows in Virginia using the non-existent "gun show loophole" as the target. They are running advertisements in magazines where lobbyists are likely to see them. The ad does not hint at which group is paying for it. Why are the antis doing this? For two reasons: 1. One candidate for Governor, Senator Creigh Deeds, is running on a platform of closing the "gun show loophole" using a semi-voluntary method. (Bob McDonnell has said during his campaign that he does NOT support changing the laws affecting gun shows.) Deeds' idea is strongly opposed by VCDL because, while it is voluntary for the seller to request, it makes participation MANDATORY for any gun dealer chosen by the seller. Gun dealers are private businesses and should not be forced to do something that might not benefit, or could even harm, their business. The proposed background check will also necessarily raise the cost of the gun being sold to pay for the background check. 2. Virginia has been very successful in fighting off all attempts to harm either gun shows or gun dealers and VCDL has made national news while doing so. The antis want to make an example of Virginia so badly they can taste it. They want to crow, "Even Virginia now agrees with this 'sensible gun control.' Now the rest of the states need to follow Virginia's lead." We MUST NOT let that happen - ever. We cannot let ourselves and our fellow Americans down. We need a massive turnout for Lobby Day! Mark your calendars NOW. Lobby Day is on Monday, January 18, 2010 - Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Let your boss know ASAP that you need that day off (if you don't already have it off, as it is a national holiday). Bring friends, family, and coworkers with you. Past Lobby Days have made a huge difference and we need to keep doing them into the forceable future. And Lobby Day gives us all a chance to work hard for some things that our busy lives have robbed too many of us of: just being a proud American and spending some of our valuable time protecting the fabric of our freedom! Stand with VCDL on January 18th! ************************************************** 3. Anti-gun delegate sticks up for VCDL's 1st Amendment rights ************************************************** I will gladly invite Delegate Morrissey to our next picnic in the Richmond area if he wants to come (none are planned right now). He will be free to address everyone there. Clearly Delegate Morrissey just doesn't know VCDL very well, and that would be an opportunity, at some point in the future, to get to know us better: http://tinyurl.com/ldldol timesdispatch.com VCDL Had the Right To Distribute Stickers Editor, Times-Dispatch: I write with respect to the recent news article detailing efforts by the Virginia Citizen Defense League to hand out at the Coliseum lapel stickers stating, "Guns Save Lives." Will Jones' article stated that officials at the Coliseum attempted to stop members of the VCDL from distributing the stickers. As a member of the General Assembly, I have frequently spoken out against the proliferation of handguns. Indeed, during the recently completed session I spoke out strongly against any attempts to allow people to bring concealed handguns into bars and restaurants. Further, I introduced legislation that would define who was and was not a registered gun dealer at gun shows. I do not expect to be invited to too many VCDL barbecues. However, it was absolutely wrong and constitutionally irresponsible for officials at the Coliseum to prohibit, or otherwise hinder, VCDL members from distributing the stickers. While I do not agree with the message conveyed, I absolutely agree that members of the VCDL should have the unfettered right to distribute lapel stickers to anybody and everybody. To obstruct or impede an individual's efforts to distribute said stickers is a clear and unequivocal violation of the First Amendment. Joseph D. Morrissey. Highland Springs. ************************************************** 4. GOP candidate's remarks spur outcry ************************************************** Note the condescending "political neophyte" language below describing Ms. Crabill. Ms. Crabill just states what anybody who has studied the Second Amendment already knows: the Founding Father's wanted an armed populace so that We the People could take back our country if it ever became tyrannical. Of course anyone with tyrannical tendencies, or who wants an all powerful government turning us into slaves, would tend to be offended by Ms. Crabill's comments. ;-) And certainly only "radicals" would have the audacity to quote the Founding Fathers. http://tinyurl.com/napczh GOP Candidate's Remarks Spur Outcry By Fredrick Kunkle Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, July 17, 2009 A Virginia Republican's fierce call to resist President Obama's political agenda -- with bullets, if necessary -- ignited an outcry on the Internet yesterday and forced her to clarify that she was not looking to incite violence. Appearing at a "Tea Party" rally Wednesday to protest Obama's expansion of government, Catherine Crabill, a political neophyte running for the House of Delegates in the Northern Neck, quoted from a March 1775 speech by Patrick Henry and then went further, calling on Americans to resist the course Obama has set for the country. "We have a chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box," Crabill said. "But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting. But make no mistake. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny." Crabill, a real estate agent and home-schooling mother of four, said yesterday that she would not back down from her defense of the right to use bullets to address government grievances, saying that if fiery words were good enough for Henry, they're good enough for her. "Those are my convictions," Crabill, 52, said in a telephone interview. "I am a full-blooded, freedom-loving American, and what we're seeing in Washington is domestic terrorism at its worst." But as the video of her remarks zipped around the Internet, she said she worried that she would be caricatured. And she said she wanted to make clear that she was not advocating armed resistance. "I have no desire to see this country erupt in any kind of violent revolution," Crabill said. "I don't even own a gun." Looking around a nation in which some people have been stockpiling weapons since Obama's victory, however, she said she worried where it all might lead. She said her speech was less a call to arms than a call for conservatives to mobilize for coming elections at all levels. "It scares me what's going on," she said. "And this administration is socializing every area of life." She added: "Socialism is probably being kind: This is a Marxist agenda." After a video of her remarks was posted on the Internet, some Democrats seized on them to suggest that the Republican Party remains a haven for extremists. "The Northern Neck is conservative, but not reactionary, and I think people will be appalled," said her opponent, Del. Albert C. Pollard Jr. (D-Northumberland). Some said her remarks were not surprising, given an April 1995 article by the Washington Times that identified her as a member of a militia known as the New Mexico Citizens Action Association and quoted her as saying that she believed the Oklahoma City bombing had been the work of the federal government. Pressed about her remarks of nearly 15 years ago, Crabill disputed the exact wording but not the gist of her beliefs. ************************************************** 5. Pro-gunners opposed to online training for CHP? ************************************************** "He's among the outraged readers who responded to Tuesday's column about a new law that has turned the gun competence requirement into a farce." Actually most of the outrage expressed by Roanoke Times readers was aimed at Dan Casey's biased writing, not the on-line CHP training. However Mr. Casey did find two CHP holder who agreed with him. And one of those two is a firearms instructor, who would have a clear financial conflict of interest in the debate. Be careful what you ask for. Let the government set standards for training and they can make them so tight that most will not qualify. Dan Casey would applaud such a thing. Truth is that on-line training has been available for over a year now. Where exactly is the problem that this column is wringing its hands over? http://tinyurl.com/l6txn2 roanoke.com Others speak on handgun measure By Dan Casey Pete Jennings is a 40-year National Rifle Association member who moved here from New Jersey in 1994 and now lives in Huddleston. One day some years ago, the retired salesman was mugged in Brooklyn. That's one of the reasons Jennings, 74, applied for a concealed-carry permit shortly after he moved to this area. To meet the gun competence requirement in Virginia's concealed-carry law, he completed a two-day course in Roanoke that included live-fire training. He's among the outraged readers who responded to Tuesday's column about a new law that has turned the gun competence requirement into a farce. "They've watered it down to the point where it makes it a damn joke," Jennings said. "That's not right." To summarize: Through the Norfolk-based Concealed Carry Institute, you can now meet Virginia's "competence" qualification for a concealed carry permit with a $39.95, one-hour online course, provided you can pass a 20-question true-or-false and multiple choice quiz at the end. (If you fail, you're provided the correct answers and you get to retake the test for free). I took the course Monday, passed that quiz and earned my certificate -- even though I've never touched a handgun in my life. It is completely nuts that Virginia law would deem me competent enough with a handgun to get a concealed carry permit. Mike Smith of Bedford County agrees. Like Jennings, Smith considers himself a diehard supporter of the Second Amendment and concealed carry. He's an NRA-certified instructor who makes his living teaching gun safety. He can also certify other instructors. Smith, 39, has 13 years of experience in firearms instruction. He charges students $85 for the five-hour NRA FIRST Steps Pistol Orientation. Many of his students ask a lot of questions, he said. That's a chief problem he has with a one-hour streaming video "course." You can't ask a computer screen those questions. "If it was up to me, I would say a person has to have training with an instructor," Smith said. "A classroom setting where a student is sitting in front of an instructor. The student would also have to go to the range and demonstrate firing of a handgun. You need to at least know how to shoot a handgun if you're going to carry for self-defense." Smith acknowledges that he has a stake in the law because of his business. But that's not the big reason he's opposed to it, he said. "It just very much concerns me when someone is carrying a firearm for self-defense and has never had the training," he added. The legislation allowing online courses was introduced by state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax, who is running for Virginia attorney general. Among the people who have contributed $1,000 to Cuccinelli's campaign is Robert Marcus, the owner of the Concealed Carry Institute. (Cuccinelli's opponent in the attorney general's race, Del. Steve Shannon, D-Fairfax, also supported the bill). Before the law went into effect July 1, there was some debate around Virginia as to whether an online course would satisfy the requirement in state law that concealed-carry permit applicants demonstrate gun "competence." Circuit Court judges approve the issuing of concealed-carry permits. Some would accept online training as proof of competence and some would not. Now they must. (The legislation does not change the requirement that applicants must also have a clean criminal background, be mentally stable, not have a restraining order against them, and have not been ordered by a court into drug treatment.) All of Western Virginia's delegates and senators voted for this legislation when it passed the House and the Senate earlier this year. And all of them except one -- Del. Onzlee Ware, D-Roanoke -- voted to override Gov. Tim Kaine's sensible veto of the bill. Friday, I spoke to a couple of them about that. State Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke, said: "My understanding is it was to clarify existing law, not to change the law." Anyway, "Why would you want to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon unless you have a gun and already know how to use it?" Edwards asked. Sen. Ralph Smith, R-Botetourt, holds a concealed-carry permit and acknowledged he went through a hand-on firearms training course to acquire it. He called the bill "a technical amendment. "There's no perfect system," Smith said. "Whether it's for a concealed weapon or a driver's license, it's not perfect. No one in our government is. But we strive to make it better." In this case, however, it seems the General Assembly's fix made things even less perfect. The law weakens the notion of gun competence almost to the point of meaninglessness. It would be more honest for lawmakers to do away with the competence requirement altogether, rather than pretend that one exists. As Pete Jennings puts it: "Why don't we throw out the driver's license program and say, 'Hey, kid, you want a license? Here you go -- you'll learn to drive by running into things.' " ************************************************** 6. LTE: In the right hands, guns do save lives ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/nbu4ot timesdispatch.com In The Right Hands, Guns Do Save Lives Editor, Times-Dispatch: In the editorial, "Shooting Straight," you questioned the rhetoric of the "Guns Save Lives" stickers. Although I'm not a member of Virginia Citizens Defense League, I can suggest at least one reason for that phrasing. Unlike the case when a criminal uses a gun to kill someone, the mere presence of a firearm can prevent or interrupt a crime. I have personal experience of this. In the 1970s, I had a handgun with a problem. I unloaded it, holstered it, and took it to a local gunsmith to be fixed. I was on a bicycle, and along the way I was harassed and threatened by three drunken idiots. After forcing me off the road, they started to get out of the car to beat me up. It was only when I turned so that they could see the handgun that they gave up and ran away. We know that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens save lives. To cite only two cases: In Colorado, a gunman starting shooting people at the New Life Church, and was stopped by a gun in the hands of a civilian; likewise, at Appalachian School of Law right here in Virginia, a mad gunman was stopped by two armed citizens. Roy B. Scherer. Richmond. ************************************************** 7. Legal seminar on Virginia self-defense laws ************************************************** From VA-ALERT reader David Rittgers: http://tinyurl.com/kky6ph I am holding a legal seminar on Virginia self-defense laws near Dulles on Saturday, August 22 from 10am - 1pm. I am also discounting the seminar. $65 for VCDL members, $75 for everyone else. I cover quite a bit in three hours: "For the cost of 200 rounds of .45 ACP (if you can find it) you will get a much deeper understanding of self-defense in the Commonwealth of Virginia from an attorney. Plenty of shooters are willing to invest in their shooting skills but not many invest in their understanding of the legal boundaries of self-defense. The seminar covers the following topics: Purchase and possession of arms in the Commonwealth of Virginia General legal guidelines for the use of force Justification versus Excuse Self-defense Virginia's lack of a "castle doctrine" - and why it (mostly) doesn't matter Defense of Others Defense of Property What is "open carry" and what is "concealed carry" in Virginia? Not quite what you think. Interacting with Law Enforcement Officers Travelling armed: planes, trains, and automobiles What to do when in other jurisdictions: a practical "travelling" mode for reciprocal states The travelling part is not just one subject; it is covered throughout the brief so that students have an idea how to deal with the laws governing self-defense in other states. The important part is knowing how they generally differ from Virginia (and they differ a lot)." A legal seminar is not a concealed handgun course - it is a legal class on the statutes and case law governing the open or concealed carry of a handgun. This DOES NOT meet the Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) requirements. Rather, this is intended for people who already have a CHP but are not versed in the law. If you received your CHP after a basic concealed handgun course with no discussion of the legal implications of using a handgun in self-defense, this is for you. Disclaimer: The information provided in the seminar is not intended as individualized legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You are not my client. Participation in this seminar is expressly intended NOT to create an attorney-client relationship. Students will sign a waiver and agree to hold harmless Defensive Force Instructors, LLC before class starts. My resume: I am a former Special Forces soldier, International Defensive Pistol Association Master-Class competitor, and an attorney in Virginia. I teach NRA certified handgun courses and specialized concealed carry courses on the side. Please direct all email traffic to defensivehandgun*gmail.com ************************************************** 8. They carry guns (openly) ************************************************** A long, but *excellent* read on open carry in California! Yes, open carry is allowed if the handgun is unloaded. You can have a loaded magazine on you, but it can't be in the gun. Sounds like fun for my next visit to California: http://tinyurl.com/mnvsr6 sandiegoreader.com They Carry Guns By Rosa Jurjevics | Published Wednesday, July 15, 2009 It's a beautiful day in Pacific Beach as Nate approaches the bronze pelican statue on the boardwalk. He's slight and blond, spectacled and clad in jeans and an army-green T-shirt. He squints. The sun's so bright overhead that he is prompted to spray a fine mist of sunblock over his fair skin to stave off a burn. I've never met Nate before, but I know it's him (a) because I've seen his picture and (b) due to the handgun that sits on a holster against his hip. I'm about to get up from where I'm sitting and introduce myself when someone else beats me to the punch. A scraggly-looking beachgoer, a man of indeterminable age because he is so weather- beaten, approaches. "What's that for, bro?" he asks, pointing in the direction of Nate's gun, a Taurus Tracker .44 Magnum revolver. Before Nate can answer, the man continues. "There are surfers at the beach looking to party, and you show up with that? That's not right. Love life! Be mellow!" This is when I walk up and introduce myself. The beachgoer looks at me for a moment with wild blue eyes, then looks back at Nate, as Nate is beginning to explain what he will have to reiterate time and time again to concerned and/or interested parties: he is open carrying. The term "open carrying" refers to one who is in possession of a holstered, unloaded firearm on his or her person, displayed in plain view. Nate begins to explain the legalities of this to the beachgoer when Sean approaches, video camera in tow. In shades, a green shirt with double-breast pockets, green cargo pants, and a Sig Sauer P229 holstered on his hip, Sean looks not unlike a police officer. The beachgoer does a double take. "Another one!" he exclaims, as Sean greets us warmly. The beachgoer, incredulous, excuses himself -- with one final stare -- to go "get baked." Soon we are joined by a third open carrier, Sam, who is Nate's older brother. He's a tall fellow in jeans and a T-shirt, and his gun, a Glock 17C 9mm semiautomatic pistol, sits squarely in a black holster, handle well visible against the blue of his shirt. And now it's my turn. As the others deal with the beachgoer, who has returned, Nate and I take off to his car, where he removes from the depths of his trunk a silver handgun with a wooden handle. This is a Ruger Single Six .22 revolver, he tells me, as he slides it into the borrowed holster I have fixed to my belt. The gun is surprisingly heavy, nestled just below my waistline. Back at the boardwalk, it seems that Sam and Sean are getting nowhere with the beachgoer, so we prepare to head out. First, I am given instructions on what to do if approached by the police. I brace myself as Nate explains. "What's going to happen is, they're going to want to do a 12031(e) unloaded check," he begins. "They'll say they want to check your weapon. You say, 'Are you requesting or demanding?' If they say, 'Demanding,' you say, 'I don't consent to any warrantless searches. But I'm not going to resist.' And then you stick your hands out, they check your weapon, and it's done." Sounds easy enough, I figure. I've got my tape recorder ready, as open carriers are urged, via websites like OpenCarry.org, to keep recording devices on them while carrying to capture any interactions with police (and civilians) they might have in case their rights are infringed upon. "You don't have to answer any other questions. You don't have to give them your ID," Sam instructs. "It's technically an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment says you have protection against unreasonable search and seizure. If there's a woman pushing a baby stroller down the boardwalk, that does not give the police the right to check if the kid is kidnapped. So if you're in full compliance with the law, minding your own business, they technically don't have the right to stop you to check if your weapon is unloaded or loaded." Open carrying, Nate explains, is legal in San Diego and the rest of California. "[The law says] you can't carry a loaded gun in an incorporated area," he says. "This is an incorporated area." "Because San Diego is a corporation," Sam chimes in. "So then, [the law] says, 'Firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed within the meaning of this section,' " Nate continues, referencing California Penal Code Section 12025(f), which outlines the illegality of concealed carrying and what is and is not considered a concealed firearm. "So there you have that," Nate continues. "And then case law says that ammo next to the gun is not considered loaded. So, basically, you start out with a great idea and it gets detracted down to what we have now." The nuances of gun laws in California, I find, are difficult. For example, concealed carrying is not legal in San Diego (and all of California) without a permit -- that much is abundantly clear -- and neither is carrying a loaded gun. Having ammunition situated next to a firearm, however, does not amount to "loaded," meaning that Nate, Sean, and Sam can carry full magazines on their belts. The legalities involving open carry are dizzying, the restrictions numerous. One cannot open carry 1000 feet from a school, for instance, or in the "sterile area" of an airport or in a post office or a national park (though it is legal in a national forest). And then there's the somewhat sticky issue of the Second Amendment. "Instead of [the Bill of Rights] being automatic, they did amendment- by-amendment incorporation," Sam explains. "So now practically all the amendments have been incorporated against the states except the Third, because nobody's tried to quarter soldiers in [anyone's] house, and the Second, because it hasn't happened yet." By "incorporated against the states," Sam means that the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that the amendment applies to the states. So if it's such a hassle, why open carry? As we walk, the trio explains. For Sam, 39, who works from home studying "history and behavioral economics independently and try[ing] to figure out what's going to happen next before everyone else," it's mostly about constitutional freedom, a cause he says he's felt strongly about since childhood. He's been open carrying for about seven months and heard about it through Nate and Calguns.net, a popular online meeting place for California gun owners and enthusiasts. "I really believe, and I think that most thinking people believe, that we are slowly losing our freedoms in this country," he says. "Everything's become more and more restricted, and nobody seems to know what to do about it. If we would just get back to following the Constitution, America would again be the place it was intended to be, the place where everybody wanted to come. This whole open-carry movement, for me, is really about more than just guns; it's about liberty and what it means to be a free man." Nate, a 22-year-old human biology student, voices another issue: the lack of CCW (concealed-carry weapon) permit issuance. A concealed- weapon license allows one to have a concealed weapon on his or her person. In California, Nate says, concealed-weapon licenses are most commonly issued to lawyers, jewelers, and traveling doctors. "I knew I wasn't going to get a CCW permit. I'm not important enough -- I don't make enough money, I don't have a good enough 'cause,' according to California -- so I said, 'Well, I guess I'll just start open carrying,' " he says. "Another reason I started doing it is that it's a political statement. I'm not important enough for my right to Continued ...