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

08/04/09 - VCDL Update 8/4/09 - Part 2

Congress' enumerated federal powers. First, Congress should knock off the "do as I say and not as I do" stuff and legalize all state gun carry permits in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virginia Islands, Guam, and other federal territories. Second, Congress should attach a condition to receipt of Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 subsidies the requirement that any recipient state must accept all other states' gun carry permits just as they do their own permits ************************************************** 12. A trigger lock for the gun lobby ************************************************** In order to push their anti-gun agenda, the Christian Science Monitor ignores just how close we came to passing the national reciprocity bill last week. Instead they make it sound like a strong defeat. Nice try, but no cigar: http://tinyurl.com/mssnn9 csmonitor.com A trigger lock for the gun lobby from the July 27, 2009 edition - The Senate and state legislators have blocked efforts to extend 'conceal-and-carry.' That should stiffen their resolve. By the Monitor's Editorial Board After years of being pushed around by the pistol-packing gun lobby, many lawmakers on Capitol Hill and in state capitals are finally pushing back. They have successfully blocked efforts by the National Rifle Association to expand certain "conceal-and-carry" provisions. Now they must go the extra step and actually advance reasonable restrictions on firearms. A string of defeats has disheartened gun-control advocates: in 2004, Congress failed to reauthorize the 10-year assault-weapons ban; in 2008, the Supreme Court overturned a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C.; in February, the Senate passed a measure that stripped D.C. gun regulations, including registration; and in May, both houses of Congress approved licensed gun owners bringing loaded firearms - hidden or carried openly - into national parks (including urban ones). Last week the Senate found the courage to say, "Freeze!" It defeated, if narrowly, a bill that would have allowed people with permits to carry a concealed gun across state lines. Every state except two (Illinois and Wisconsin) allows gun owners to carry hidden weapons. The NRA argued that self-protection shouldn't stop at a state border. But state conceal-and-carry laws differ vastly. Some wisely require background checks and training in gun-use and safety, and rule out people convicted of certain misdemeanors, including simple assault - but also extortion (Maryland) and stalking (Virginia). Others grant conceal-and-carry permits to nonresidents (even in cases where the person did not qualify for a permit at home), or require nothing more than a background check. Alaska doesn't put any of these restrictions on folks who want to tote and hide. Thankfully, the Senate stopped this bullet that would have essentially made the least restrictive state law the standard of the nation. State legislators have also rediscovered their political bullet-proof vests as the gun lobby has pushed aggressively to extend conceal-and- carry to college campuses, taverns, and the workplace. Since the mass fatal shooting at Virginia Tech in 2007, gun-rights advocates have made an all-out effort to allow students to carry hidden firearms - on the dubious theory that students would be better protected from mass killers. But 22 states saw the folly of this idea and defeated it, even in strong gun-rights states such as Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oklahoma. Interestingly, those injured in the Virginia Tech shooting and those who lost loved ones have spoken most vigorously against guns on campus. Police would have no way to distinguish good guys from bad in a shooting spree, nor would students with guns necessarily be able to react quickly or accurately enough in such a situation, they argued. Neither is it very smart to mix armed students with alcohol, which flows freely on many college campuses. The same logic applies to conceal-and-carry in taverns. Why is it that even two states - Tennessee and Arizona - approved this lethal cocktail of weapons and drinking establishments? Meanwhile, 22 states have also said "no" to the NRA's effort to extend conceal-and-carry to the "workplace" - specifically, to a gun owner's car in the company parking lot. Offices can be tense places where emotions suddenly boil over - and thus no place for a readily available gun. (Thirteen states, however, have approved such workplace measures). These victories show that some lawmakers have rediscovered reason when it comes to gun control. Will they find the resolve, for instance, to approve legislation in Congress that requires background checks even at gun shows? Forty percent of guns are sold at these shows and the vast majority of Americans approve the checks there. Yet the gun lobby strenuously resists. In its landmark 2008 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the right of individuals to bear arms. But it left the door open to regulation. Gun- control advocates don't seek to take away Second Amendment rights, as is so often and tirelessly alleged by the gun-rights side. Rather, what they want is restricting easy access to guns by criminals, the responsible use of guns, and the heading off of a quick resort to lethal firepower that makes the job of law enforcement so much harder. ************************************************** 13. Arm the Senate? ************************************************** The columnist is being sarcastic and clearly he hasn't done much research. Senators and Representatives in Congress CAN have a gun in their offices now and some do. Many legislators in the Virginia General Assembly carry guns and I think that is a good thing: http://tinyurl.com/m2eyuw washingtonpost.com Arm the Senate! By E.J. Dionne Jr. Monday, July 27, 2009 Isn't it time to dismantle the metal detectors, send the guards at the doors away and allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights by being free to carry their firearms into the nation's Capitol? I've been studying the deep thoughts of senators who regularly express their undying loyalty to the National Rifle Association, and I have decided that they should practice what they preach. They tell us that the best defense against crime is an armed citizenry and that laws restricting guns do nothing to stop violence. If they believe that, why don't they live by it? Why would freedom-loving lawmakers want to hide behind guards and metal detectors? Shouldn't NRA members be outraged that Second Amendment rights mean nothing in the very seat of our democracy? Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps. It voted this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn't Congress set an example in its own workplace? So why not let Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) pack the weapon of his choice on the Senate floor? Thune is the author of an amendment that would have allowed gun owners who had valid permits to carry concealed weapons into any state, even states with more restrictive gun laws. The amendment got 58 votes last week, two short of the 60 it needed to pass. Judging by what Thune said in defense of his amendment, he'd clearly feel safer if everyone in the Capitol could carry a gun. "Law-abiding individuals have the right to self-defense, especially because the Supreme Court has consistently found that police have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from other individuals," he said. I guess that Thune doesn't think those guards and the Capitol Police have any obligation to protect him. He went on: "The benefits of conceal and carry extend to more than just the individuals who actually carry the firearms. Since criminals are unable to tell who is and who is not carrying a firearm just by looking at a potential victim, they are less likely to commit a crime when they fear they may come in direct contact with an individual who is armed." In other words, keeping guns out of the Capitol makes all our elected officials far less safe. If just a few senators had weapons, the criminals wouldn't know which ones were armed, and all senators would be safer, right? Isn't that better than highly intrusive gun control -- i.e., keeping people with guns out of the Capitol in the first place? "Additionally," Thune said helpfully, "research shows that when unrestricted conceal and carry laws are passed, not only does it benefit those who are armed, but it also benefits others around them such as children." This is a fantastic opportunity. Arming all our legislators would make it safer for children, so senators could feel much more secure bringing their kids into the Capitol. This would promote family values and might even reduce the number of highly publicized extramarital affairs. During the debate, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) quoted a constituent who told him: "When my family and I go out at night, it makes me feel safer just knowing I am able to have my concealed weapon." Why shouldn't Vitter feel equally safe in the Capitol? Why should he have to go out on the streets to carry a gun? The pro-gun folks love their studies. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) offered this one: "A study for the Department of Justice found 40 percent of felons had not committed certain crimes because they feared the potential victims would be armed." That doesn't tell us much about the other 60 percent, but what the heck? If it's good enough for Barrasso, let the good senator introduce the amendment to allow concealed carry in the Capitol. Barrasso already dislikes the District of Columbia's tough restrictions on weapons. "The gun laws in the District outlaw law- abiding citizens from self-defense," he complained. So go for it, Senator! Make our nation's Capitol an island of firearms liberty in a sea of oppression. Don't think this column is offered lightly. I want these guys to put up or shut up. If the NRA's servants in Congress don't take their arguments seriously enough to apply them to their own lives, maybe the rest of us should do more to stop them from imposing their nonsense on our country. ************************************************** 14. LTE rebuttal to 'Arm the Senate!' ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/lwaa48 washingtonpost.com A Right to Bear Arms in the Capitol? In his July 27 op-ed, E.J. Dionne Jr. said that pro-gun senators are hypocrites for not personally carrying the weapons they seek to allow others to carry across the country. Could it be possible that one can simultaneously believe in one's right to carry weapons without personally carrying weapons? Is every pro-choice activist a hypocrite until she has an abortion? Mr. Dionne acknowledged studies showing the benefits of conceal-and- carry laws, yet he offered only sarcastic responses. "The pro-gun folks love their studies," he writes. I suppose he's never used a methodologically sound study to support one of his opinions. Certainly, these studies must be without merit, or Mr. Dionne would take their findings more seriously. Mr. Dionne's op-ed may provide some rallying point for gun control advocates interested in ridiculing gun rights advocates. Unfortunately, for anyone not already in complete agreement with him, his column offered little besides the reassurance that he has avoided thoughtfully engaging this topic. Whenever Mr. Dionne would like to actually contribute to the public discussion, I would surely welcome him. JACK McANDREWS Baltimore ************************************************** 15. Washington drops hammer on state gun plan ************************************************** The BATFE is overstepping yet again. This is only going to get worse for the BATFE and will eventually blow up in their face as more and more states tell the feds to buzz off when it comes to the feds trying to regulate commerce **within** a state: http://tinyurl.com/lur86p worldnetdaily.com Friday, July 24, 2009 WEAPONS OF CHOICE WorldNetDaily Exclusive Washington drops hammer on state gun plan 'As you may know, federal law ... supersedes the act' Posted: July 21, 2009 9:14 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh Federal gun regulators have written to gun dealers around Tennessee, dropping the hammer on a new state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations. The letter, dated just days ago, was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses. In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations." The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends. "As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state," the letter said. "All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. "These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines," the letter said. Get "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense" and learn why you have a responsibility to be armed. The law was adopted by the state Legislature this year. It provides that "federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee." It also carries exemptions for certain types of weapons and ammunition and the requirement that all firearms made or sold in the state have "Made in Tennessee" on them. Tennessee is not the first state to move in this direction. WND reported earlier that Utah was considering such a plan, and the state of Montana earlier adopted its own gun exemption procedure. Montana statehouse Montana's bill provides that guns, ammo, accessories, silencers and other products made, sold and used in the state would not require any federal documentation, registration, serial numbers, records check or waiting period. The pushback from the states comes at a time when the federal administration is replete with anti-gun activists in influential positions, including an attorney general, Eric Holder, who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before it was tossed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Obama administration has even pushed for a treaty that would require sportsmen who reload their ammunition to obtain a federal license. The Montana plan cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that "guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889." "The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889," the Montana plan states. "The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly pre-empted by federal law. Congress has not expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition," it says. Further, state lawmakers cite the Second Amendment right of the people to "keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889." The Tennessee plan includes many of the same arguments. The Tennessee Gun Owners website includes this comment: "And the battle begins. I don't believe this was unexpected. According to the 10th Amendment, the state has authority. Tennessee is applying its constitutional rights. The feds are saying, no, the Constitution doesn't count. Calling all lawyers!" In Montana, a Democrat governor signed the gun exemption law; in Tennessee, a Democrat governor allowed the gun exemptions to become law without his signature. At Resistnet.com, there was a discussion among hundreds of members who have stated their willingness to bring a lawsuit against the federal government over the issue. "The sovereign state of Tennessee should stand her ground. If people would stand up to the bully (Big Brother) we might take back some of the rights that have been stolen from us. It will not be comfortable. It will not be easy. But, it can be done, if we want it bad enough," said one participant. One other was a little less eloquent, but his message came through. "This is a crock! This is a free state and it's time to tell the thieves in Washington to butt out." The weapons definitions are part of a general move on the part of states - Alaska being the most recent - to simply declare their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment. About three dozen states have begun working on such plans. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution just days ago. It "claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States." The joint resolution does not carry the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements. While seven states - Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana - have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Palin signed Alaska's Tenth Amendment declaration and Tennessee's governor signed that state's Tenth Amendment declaration of sovereignty. ************************************************** 16. Sotomayer overlooks all 14 SCOTUS self-defense cases ************************************************** VA-ALERT reader Paul Henick writes: 2 points: 1) The nominee has no grasp of the law except as she wishes it to be. 2) These are good cases to be aware of, if for nothing better than improving your mind by reading them and trying to follow the reasoning presented. Keeps the brain cells sharp. http://tinyurl.com/mpw5cl pagenine.typepad.com Sotomayer Overlooks All 14 Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases High Court has examined every aspect of self defense Entire nation falsely believes the issue has never come up by Alan Korwin, Co-Author Supreme Court Gun Cases Exerpt: In Congressional testimony, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer claimed she couldn't think of a self-defense case having come before the Supreme Court, adding, "I could be wrong, but I can't think of one." Independent research shows that fourteen separate Supreme Court cases, from 1895 to 1985, addressed every basic aspect of personal self defense. All of them held that self defense is a valid, justifiable and long-standing tenet of American law. The Bloomfield Press book "Supreme Court Gun Cases" (Kopel, Halbrook, Korwin), released in 2003 and in the Supreme Court's library, covers the 92 High Court gun cases in existence at that time. Four additional gun cases (plus the original 92) are included in the followup, "The Heller Case: Gun Rights Affirmed," released in 2008. The fourteen cases that directly address self defense are summarized below in Q&A format. Full summaries of the cases are found in "The Heller Case" book, http://www.gunlaws.com/hc.htm, and the cases themselves can be linked to from the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based company's website, http://www.gunlaws.com , using the National Directory button. The brief index below is a convenient research and navigation tool, and a way to set the record straight on what the Court has already done. Read the entire case for a thorough understanding of each one. ************************************************** 17. RT OpEd: Guns and self-reliance ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/nb4kxb roanoke.com Guns and self-reliance By H.M. Padon | Padon, of Great Falls, is a veteran of the U.S. Army and a retired federal employee who has been a gun owner since receiving a rifle from an uncle when he was 10 G.V. Gibbs wrote an opinion piece that you published on June 25 under the headline "Paranoid Nation." I find it disturbing that a professor, distinguished or otherwise, would express opinions about a subject on which he is so ignorant of the facts. I can't speak about other states, but, contrary to Gibbs' assertions, and even with the increased protections against fraud and identity theft that have been put in effect post 9/11, one can get a driver's license in Virginia in many fewer than 45 days (the maximum waiting time for a concealed-handgun permit), without undergoing a police background investigation (which is a requirement for a CHP) and without documenting any training at all. Maybe Gibbs' research skills have deteriorated. While Gibbs refers to "guns-in-bars" legislation, the commonwealth has not one legal, public bar. By law, alcohol for on-premises consumption is served only in restaurants or in private clubs. What Gibbs seems not to recognize is that guns are carried into alcohol-serving establishments every day. Some are carried openly and legally; some are carried concealed and illegally. Forty states allow concealed weapons in establishments that serve alcohol (and so does the commonwealth for some privileged officials.) Maybe Gibbs can practice his research skills by searching the records of those 40 states for some (or even one) instance of a CHP holder instigating a gun fight in an establishment that serves alcohol. Oh, what the heck, locate some instances of CHP holders instigating gun violence anywhere in the 48 states that either issue them or require no permit at all. Gibbs seems not to see the irony in his question, "What has happened to us as a reliant nation in the last half century that nearly 190,000 citizens in the great state of Virginia, for example, feel unsafe to the extent they have acquired permits to carry a concealed weapon?" I would say that 190,000 Virginians have taken a great step toward being self-reliant, depending not on the state to protect them and their families, but being willing to take that responsibility themselves. A nation of paranoids? Even paranoids can have enemies. ************************************************** 18. RTD: Patron with gun won--that time ************************************************** Anti-gun Paul Williams, throwing logic and reason to the wind, tries to downplay citizens defending themselves. Very shameful. Thanks to Roy Scherer for the link: timesdispatch.com Patron with gun won--that time By MICHAEL PAUL WILLIAMS Published: July 21, 2009 July 19, 2009: Man who fatally wounded robber recounts tense shootout Colin Goddard can relate to the experience of the frightened patrons who ducked behind counters or fled Golden Food Market during a robbery- turned-shootout. Goddard was wounded April 16, 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho burst into a Virginia Tech classroom and opened fire. Now 23 and a Tech graduate, God dard works as an intern at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in Washington. When told how a gun-toting customer had felled a man who'd shot the owner of Golden Food Market, Goddard hardly sounded like an anti-gun reactionary. "You can't deny what happened, you know," he said. "The guy was able to successfully defend himself. Our movement is not against responsible gun owners exercising that right when their lives are in danger." "That worked out in that situation," said Goddard, whose family lives in Richmond. "There are other situations where that doesn't work out. And that situation could have worked out in a million different ways." [PVC: So what should we do, Colin? Not bother defending ourselves because it *might* not work out and just submit to death at the hands of a psychopath?] Recalling that fatal day at Tech, he doubts that a classmate with a firearm could have produced a similar outcome. Things simply happened too fast to respond, he said. "I didn't realize what was going on until I had been shot." [PVC: That doesn't mean others would have been so unaware of their surroundings.] The hero of the Golden Food Market incident does not want his identity released. But if he were known, he'd surely be a darling of the National Rifle Association and held up as an example of how a weapon in the right hands can deter crime and save innocent lives. Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring must wince at such a thought. He hopes what happened on Jefferson Davis Highway on July 11 does not inspire a trend. [PVC: What, you'd rather have lots of dead bodies of innocent citizens than to have people protect themselves?] "No. No. It's not the answer," Herring said. "And as fortunate and heroic as the actions were, ultimately we were just plain lucky. Most citizens are not trained to shoot. And you can't judge the rightfulness of the conduct by the outcome." [PVC: Again, sounds like he's saying we are too stupid to be allowed to protect ourselves.] And, as Herring pointed out, the first time someone in a similar situation misses the bad guy and nails a bystander, "then we will be at our wits' end on how to respond to that. And it will surely happen as long as we continue to fire guns in public." [PVC: The more Herring says, the more I'm convinced he's the wrong guy for the job. He sounds like an elitist who thinks knows what's best for the "little" people like you and me.] The customer was within the law by using lethal force as a last resort in coming to the aid of someone facing possible death, Herring said. But clearly, in Herring's view, he should be viewed as an exception rather than an example. Police, with all their training, don't always respond successfully to those situations. Civilians should not make a habit of trying. Becca Knox, director of research for the Brady Campaign, says there are fewer than 200 justifiable gun homicides each year out of a total of more than 10,000 gun homicides. "There's absolutely no evidence that if you make [a gun] easier to carry, gun violence goes down," Knox said. What happened at Golden Food Market was a singular event carried out by an apparently remarkable individual. But anyone viewing this as a sort of template in the war on crime is tragically mistaken. A society in which citizens see themselves as the last line of defense already has lost the battle. [PVC: What is that supposed to mean? Citizens can't even be the *last* line of defense if the government is a no-show? Excuse me while I go throw up.] ************************************************** 19. Mother of slain man wants new waiting period law ************************************************** Thanks to Dave Briggman for the link: http://tinyurl.com/nc6rtk dnronline.com Remembering Dustin Stanley Posted 2009-07-25 Mother Of Slain Man Wants New Gun Laws By Pete DeLea MOUNT JACKSON - One year ago today, Vickie Stanley's life changed forever. On that day, she received a phone call from Donna Hockman, who said she was breaking off the often-turbulent relationship she had with Stanley's son, Dustin. Hockman told Stanley she wanted to find Dustin to arrange for him to pick up some of his belongings from her Lacey Spring home. Stanley couldn't have been more pleased to hear the news. But what she didn't know at the time, was that Hockman was simply trying to create an alibi. Hockman had just pumped five slugs into Dustin's back as he tried to run for his life. On July 25, 2008, police say, Hockman, 35, killed Dustin Stanley, 23, at her 1553 Grassland Lane home using a gun she purchased the day before. She was later convicted and sent to prison to serve a life sentence. "How could someone be that heartless?" Stanley asked. "I went to work happy that day." But she hasn't been happy since. "I cry myself to sleep every night," Stanley said. Too Many Red Flags Although the pain that began a year ago hasn't subsided, Stanley said she's determined to fight for stricter gun laws. Common sense, she said, should have prevented the sale of the murder weapon to Hockman, but it clearly wasn't enough. On July 24, 2008, prosecutors say, Hockman was determined to get a gun that day. First, she went to a Harrisonburg pawnshop, which refused to sell to her. Hockman was using an old driver's license identifying her as Donna Reedy, a name she hadn't used in years. When she went to sign her name for the background check, she signed it as Donna Hockman, prompting a store clerk to void the transaction.