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

08/26/09 - VCDL Update 8/25/09 - Part 4

Handgun Control Inc. (today's Brady Campaign), and was on the advisory = board of the Joyce-funded Violence Policy Center. Bogus solicited only articles hostile to the individual right view of the Second Amendment, offering authors $5,000 each. But word leaked out, and Prof. Randy Barnett of Boston University volunteered to write = in defense of the individual right to arms. Bogus refused to allow him = to write for the review, later explaining that "sometimes a more balanced debate is best served by an unbalanced symposium." Prof. James Lindgren, a former Chicago-Kent faculty member, remembers that when Barnett sought an explanation he "was given conflicting reasons, but the opposition of the Joyce Foundation was one that surfaced at some time." Joyce had bought a veto power over the review's content. Joyce Foundation apparently believed it held this power over the entire university. Glenn Reynolds later recalled that when he and two other professors were scheduled to discuss the Second Amendment on campus, Joyce's staffers "objected strenuously" to their being allowed = to speak, protesting that Joyce Foundation was being cheated by an "'agenda of balance' that was inconsistent with the Symposium's purpose." Joyce next bought up an issue of Fordham Law Review. The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles = eight times. Then, in 2001, a federal Court of Appeals in Texas determined that the Second Amendment was an individual right. The Joyce Foundation board (which still included Obama) responded by expanding its attack on the Second Amendment. Its next move came when Ohio State University announced it was establishing the "Second Amendment Research Center" as a thinktank headed by anti-individual- right historian Saul Cornell. Joyce put up no less than $400,000 to bankroll its creation. The grant was awarded at the board's December 2002 meeting, Obama's last function as a Joyce director. In reporting the grant, the OSU magazine Making History made clear that the purpose = was to influence a future Supreme Court case: "The effort is timely: a series of test cases - based on a new wave of = scholarship, a recent decision by a federal Court of Appeals in Texas, = and a revised Justice Department policy-are working their way through the courts. The litigants challenge the courts' traditional reading of = the Second Amendment as a protection of the states' right to organize militia, asserting that the Amendment confers a much broader right for = individuals to own guns. The United States Supreme Court is likely to resolve the debate within the next three to five years." (45:17-18; online link; slow). The Center proceeded to generate articles denying the individual right = to arms. The OSU connection also gave Joyce an academic money laundry. = When it decided to buy an issue of the Stanford Law and Policy Review, = it had a cover. Joyce handed OSU $125,000 for that purpose; all the law review editors knew was that OSU's Foundation granted them that breathtaking sum, and a helpful Prof. Cornell volunteered to organize the issue. (The review was later sufficiently embarassed to publish an = open letter on the affair). The Joyce directorate's plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents. Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual = rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms." But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation's attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms. Voters who value the Constitution should ask whether someone who was party to that plan should be nominating future Supreme Court justices. ************************************************** 33. Secret Service contradicts Brady Campaign's Helmke ************************************************** President of Brady Campaign says guns at Obama events a threat to safety; Secret Service disagrees Philip Levy emailed me this: -- You probably saw this, but I like how the Secret Service rep totally debunks Helmke's whining: http://tinyurl.com/pnprbk [EXCERPT] "Paul Helmke, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said people should not be allowed to bring guns to events where Obama is. "To me, this is craziness," he said. "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle, to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone." He said people who bring guns to presidential events are distracting the Secret Service and law enforcement from protecting the president. "The more guns we see at more events like this, there's more potential = for something tragic happening," he said. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said armed demonstrators in open- carry states such as Arizona and New Hampshire have little impact on security plans for the president. "In both cases, the subject was not entering our site or otherwise attempting to," Donovan said. "They were in a designated public viewing area. The main thing to know is that they would not have been allowed inside with a weapon." ************************************************** 34. Frommer encourages boycott of gun-friendly Arizona ************************************************** Owner of Frommer's travel suggests people should stay away from Arizona because of its permissive open carry laws. Looks like I will be staying away from his travel guides and other things he publishes. This item from Deborah Jane Anderson: -- According to an article on the Gadling (travel) website, the founder/ owner of Frommer's travel guides thinks folks ought to boycott states like Arizona, because of its open carry gun laws. So, I say, how about turning the tide? Instead, let's boycott Frommer's publications -- oh, and while we're at it, let's be sure to take our vacations in wonderful, open carry states -- like our own beloved Virginia, for example. Blessings, Deborah Jane Anderson http://tinyurl.com/llcwhc www.gadling.com Should travelers boycott Arizona because of gun laws? Frommer leans towards yes by Jamie Rhein Aug 20th 2009 Arthur Frommer, longtime travel book guru, posed a question about Arizona's "open carry" gun laws. In Arizona, Frommer found out, people = can bring loaded guns to political rallies. That's what happened in Phoenix earlier this week when some of the protesters, who showed up outside the convention center where Barack Obama was speaking, visibly = wielded guns--including an assault rifle. Such action is legal in Arizona, something Frommer feels alarmed by. In Arthur Frommer ONLINE yesterday, he wonders if travelers ought to boycott Arizona in protest of such open carry laws since he thinks a gun law that allows people to bring loaded firearms to political protests violates citizens' safety. He doesn't want to travel to such places. As he wrote, if a gun had gone off, mayhem could have happened. It's not that Frommer objects to guns--or at least he doesn't say if he does or doesn't. He thinks there's a problem when a person carrying = a gun in public does so in a way that puts people in danger. Last year, I expressed my concern about guns being allowed into US national parks for similar reasons. Of course, others have a different = opinion and some expressed those in the comment section. Some comments = pointed out issues I that hadn't thought of. Some state roads and US highways, for example, pass through national parks. If a person is carrying a gun in his or her car and happens to be traveling on such a = road, he or she would be in violation of a gun carrying law if guns were not allowed in a national park. Still, there's Frommer's point that if people are allowed to have their guns with them as a means of intimidation, and other people are traveling through such spots, doesn't that put people not involved in jeopardy? I seem to remember from US history classes that even when the west was wilder there were some places where people who were carrying guns had to leave them outside a town or saloon. Or, maybe that's just the Hollywood version. ---------- http://tinyurl.com/njanfp Arthur Frommer needs to get out more August 23, 7:57 PM DC Gun Rights Examiner Mike Stollenwerk SNIP Arthur Frommer needs to get out more This week Arizonans were shocked when iconic travel industry promoter Arthur Frommer blogged that "I will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons onto the sidewalks [and t]ourists should safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona." .. . . And why pick on Arizona? After all, Arizona is just like most states where folks can legally open carry guns without any permit, and can carry concealed guns if they hold the proper permit. .. . . ------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************************