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

09/02/09 - VCDL Update 9/2/09 - Part 2

Gun Owners of America From New Hampshire to Arizona, Americans openly carrying firearms have been seen outside presidential appearances. The most remarkable thing about this is that some find this behavior to be remarkable. American citizens are the sovereigns in our system of government. Indeed, We the People created the government which, at least in theory, only does what we tell it to do in the Constitution. Sovereigns are expected to be armed. The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution to ensure that the individual right to keep and bear arms not be infringed. Infringement = would impair the proper functioning of the militia which had been America's homeland security system all through colonial times and well = into our republican era. The armed attendees made it clear that they were exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Zero tolerance of firearms has become so = extreme that even a picture of a gun can get a student kicked out of school. The presence of armed citizens helps correct the notion that guns are inherently dangerous. Americans are increasingly deciding to go about openly carrying firearms even when they might legally carry concealed. Some would like to say that this constitutes disturbing the peace. It is a strange view that accepts as normal a police officer openly carrying a = firearm but finds it alarming when a sovereign citizen -- the cop's boss -- does the same. In addition to the educational value of going about openly armed, the presence of such citizens has another positive impact. Real homeland security is being maintained. The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the president and other select individuals -- and nobody else. For those who object to openly armed citizens being present near presidential events, do they have any concern for the well being of those who do not benefit from Secret Service protection? A few years ago, I was at a conference where the governor of the state = of Arizona was to speak. Shortly before the appointed time a member of the governor's security detail came into the room from a service entrance, looked around the audience which included at least a dozen people openly carrying side arms, ducked out of sight and returned with the governor. The governor's security was aware of the armed attendees, and was also = aware that the guns were holstered and obviously under control. They evidently thought that was proper gun control. There are those who don't like Americans owning guns at all, let alone = carrying them openly. They can be counted on to run around squawking like Chicken Little that the sky is falling -- a calamity brought about by the presence of an armed citizen in public. We are warned that: "Somebody might grab the gun and do something bad! The armed citizen will intimidate others! Tempers will flare and blood will run = in the streets!" These are the same alarms that are sounded when any measure designed to facilitate citizens keeping and bearing arms is advanced. And the alarms are always false. Before passage of Florida's concealed carry law, for example, we were warned that the Sunshine State would become the Gunshine State. But the fearmongers were all wrong, as evidenced by the way the state's murder rate fell through the floor. One would think that consistently being wrong would be embarrassing, but one would be wrong about those who assume that common citizens are = untrustworthy and dangerous. A tip of the hat to those who have stirred the debate. And, our thanks to them for exercising proper gun control and reminding us of how homeland security should be conducted. ************************************************** 11. U.S. Supreme Court to consider two 2nd Amendment dases ************************************************** This fall, the SCOTUS will decide if they will hear two cases that would have a monumental impact on a person's right to have a gun for self defense. We must all watch these cases closely over the next few months. http://tinyurl.com/nanu7m scotusblog.com The Supreme Court will consider two new cases on the scope of individuals' Second Amendment right to have guns at its first Conference for the new Term, on Sept. 29, according to the Court's electronic docket. Both petitions challenge a Seventh Circuit Court ruling that the Amendment does not restrict gun control laws adopted by state, county or city government, but applies only to federal laws. The cases are National Rifle Association v. Chicago (08-1497) and McDonald v. Chicago (08-1521). The so-called "incorporation" issue is the most significant sequel issue raised in the wake of the Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing for the first time a personal right to = have a gun for self-defense, at least in one's home. If the Court agrees to hear the new cases after its first look, that could be announced as early as the day after the Conference -- that is, on Wed., Sept. 30. The first Conference of a new Term customarily = is held in advance of the Term's formal opening; this year, the Term starts Oct. 5. The Court has not yet scheduled a time to consider another pending case on the Second Amendment issue -- Maloney v. Rice (08-1592). The response in that case is now due on Aug. 28. The new Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, took part in the Maloney case when she was on the Second Circuit Court. Like the Seventh Circuit, the Second found that the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws. When the Justices consider the Maloney case, Sotomayor is not expected to take part. The fact that she had taken part in a ruling on the issue in one case, = however, would not require her to withdraw from considering cases from = other Circuits, like the Chicago cases. ************************************************** 12. The 'Liberal Lion' stalked your rights ************************************************** The passing of Senator Ted Kennedy means that he will never see the kind of radical, sweeping gun control that he championed during his time in office. We should all be diligent during these difficult times = to ensure that his wishes for a disarmed America never come to pass. Here are a couple of articles written on the subject: http://tinyurl.com/n5vuqo Paul Valone - Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner Diplomatic conservatives will probably maintain a respectful silence as the media, Handgun Control Inc. (aka "The Brady Campaign") and lefties everywhere breathlessly lament the death of Senator Ted Kennedy, the so-called "Liberal Lion of the Senate." Never having been a diplomat, however, I bid him good riddance. Beyond = even the good senator's killing of Mary Jo Kopechne (yes, Teddy Kennedy's car really did kill more people than my "assault weapon"), few politicians have attacked the Second Amendment so vociferously, so = often and for so long. Gun control in America is a '60s phenomenon. Propelled by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy, the Gun Control Act of 1968 ... which among its many provisions restricted interstate commerce in firearms and created the ever-expanding list of people prohibited from owning guns ... was the leading wave of restrictions on what had previously been a non- controversial cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. Leading that attack was good old Teddy Kennedy. Among just a few highlights of the senator's very long gun control resume: - Fomenting support for the 1968 Gun Control Act; - Introducing "legislation to ban handguns, register handguns, license = handgun owners, ban ammunition, authorize the Consumer Products Safety = Commission to prohibit the manufacture of firearms and ammunition, and = impose waiting periods on handgun purchases"; - Introducing an amendment to eliminate all common hunting ammunition; - Introducing S. 2605, legislation to require yet-to-exist "microstamping" technology which constitutes defacto registration, for = all firearms. We could go on and on, of course, but consider what a gun control supporter has to say about Senator Kennedy: "Kennedy supported the Gun Control Act of 1968, and since then, every other legislative effort to strengthen federal gun control laws ... including the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. He has fought all efforts to take steps backward ... unsuccessfully so in the instances of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (which weakened the Gun Control Act of 1968) and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which expired in September 2004) =D6 "Kennedy supports the full agenda of the gun control movement and has backed proposed legislation to limit gun purchases to one per month, to require background checks on all purchasers at gun shows, and to mandate gun manufacturers to install state-of-the-art safety devices on their firearms =D6" So when you see newspapers lament Kennedy's passing, write a letter. When radio shows bring it up, make a phone call. Deliver loud and clear the message that instead of mourning the "Liberal Lion of the Senate," we should be thankful he was not able to stalk our rights on the bountiful hunting ground of the Democrat-dominated 111th Congress. ----------- http://tinyurl.com/la8gaa American gun owners remembering a different Ted Kennedy examiner.com Dave Workman - Seattle Gun Rights Examiner "For five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts." So said Barack Obama on the passing of Massachusetts Senator-for- life Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy. It was an understandable eulogy for a = man who played a key role in propelling Obama to the White House and derailing the Hillary Clinton juggernaut. However, the firearms community knows there is one civil right which Kennedy did his best to abolish rather than advance: The right to keep and bear arms. For many if not most in the gun community, there has been nothing but disgust, disdain and distrust toward the man now being lionized by the press and mourned by the Democrat faithful. My colleague, Paul Valone, writes about Kennedy here. Another colleague, Skip Coryell, has a different perspective here, and = Boston Gun Rights Examiner Ron Bokleman speaks out here. "It's safe to say that there is not a single outrageous anti-gun position Ted Kennedy has failed to support in his long career". - Chris Cox, NRA Institute for Legislative Action Dislike for Ted Kennedy among gun rights advocates has become very personal over the years. Kennedy's own behavior ... coupled with his annoying talent to get away with it, due to money, political influence = or just because the Kennedy clan is treated like royalty ... contributed to the animosity. Not that gun owners are saints; we're all human and we make mistakes, but Kennedy's errors invariably seemed = to get a pass, little more than a wrist slap, including a suspended sentence for driving a car off a bridge and leaving a young woman to die a horrible death. In the firearms community, the observation that "Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun" became not only a rallying cry, but the text of a popular bumper sticker. Gun rights activists have a genuine feel for the history of this nation, its tradition of individualism, its foundation of liberty and personal freedom, and most of all, its rejection of the notion of royalty. Let's be candid. The national press has fawned over the Kennedys for a couple of generations, and Democrats have elevated the family to = a position that comes as close to royalty as one can without the jeweled crown. It is disgraceful. Gun owners share a philosophy of personal accountability. One does not = punish tens of millions of law-abiding American citizens for the deeds = of individual criminals, simply because they used firearms in their crimes. This was something Kennedy never seemed to understand, perhaps = because his own personal accountability never seemed to take a serious = hit. The National Rifle Association's Christopher Cox put the gun community's dislike for Kennedy in perspective when he wrote, "It's safe to say that there is not a single outrageous anti-gun position Ted Kennedy has failed to support in his long career. He has voted to ban semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. He has attempted to make it a federal crime to purchase more than two handguns in a year. He has proposed 21-day waiting periods on all gun purchases. He has made several attempts to ban centerfire hunting ammunition." Kennedy opposed legislation that put an end to junk lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. He voted against legislation that would have disallowed the use of funds by any organization or group, including the United Nations, which would be against the interests of American gun owners. " What Sen. Kennedy either fails to understand or intentionally ignores is that criminals will not stop carrying guns just because it is illegal". - Dr. Peter Friedman, Standard-Times, Nov. 17, 2005 Kennedy represented everything gun owners despise, which is probably why the anti-gun Brady Campaign issued this statement. He supported every major gun control measure introduced during his Capitol Hill career; perhaps understandable from the perspective of a man who saw two of his brothers gunned down. But Ted Kennedy seemed to = hold firearms, and the Second Amendment, more responsible for those crimes than the men who committed them. He was seen as a man who worked hard to leave average Americans defenseless while he personally = enjoyed the protection of armed guards, which got one of them in trouble a few years ago. While he certainly promoted the causes in which he believed, Ted Kennedy put equal energy into the ongoing campaign to erode a fundamental civil right held dear by millions of law-abiding American citizens who, unlike the man being mourned this week, never harmed a soul. ************************************************** 13. John Lott: The media gets it wrong, again, on guns ************************************************** In spite of the liberal media's hysteria, exaggeration, and some creative video editing, their anti-gun agenda just doesn't pass the smell test. http://tinyurl.com/mcp6qo foxnews.com John Lott August 20, 2009 A story about an American with a gun who behaved properly is twisted into something else: a narrative about crazy conservatives who want to = threaten the president. In Portsmouth, New Hampshire last week, a man carried a handgun a few blocks away from the site where President Obama was scheduled to hold a town hall a couple of hours later. Was it a danger or not? The man carrying the gun, William Kostric, even had permission to have the gun = on private church property while he was protesting Obama's appearance. = Everybody from the New York Times to USA Today to CBS News expressed their outrage, interpreting it as a hot head threatening the president = and linking it to militias and conservative talk radio. A prominent liberal radio talk show host came out saying that conservatives "want Obama to get shot." New legislation related to this incident is even being proposed in Congress. Obviously no one wants to see a president even remotely threatened and = people need to be sensitive to such things. But worrying over a law- abiding citizen legally carrying a gun several blocks and a couple of hours away from an indoor event that the president will attend is overdoing it. Before the president's town hall meeting, an MSNBC host noted: "Apparently there is fairly significant, almost disturbing news, let us know what is happening there in New Hampshire." A reporter, Ron Allen, breathlessly responded: "There is a man in the crowd who has a gun, a handgun strapped on his lower leg. . . . And I suspect that he won't be here when the president gets here in a couple of hours time." Chris Matthews' cross-examination on "Hardball" of Kostric was sent all over the Internet, with various versions on YouTube picking up a total of nearly 200,000 viewings. But Matthews' interview fell flat by = trying to link Kostric with extremist groups such as the"birthers," who challenge Obama's legitimacy as president. And Kostric did not come across as the hot head that Matthew's tried so hard to portray him as. On the "CBS Evening News," Katie Couric asked: "Are we really still debating health care when a man brings a handgun to a church where the = president is speaking?" Kostric did bring a gun to the church, but Couric was plainly wrong about where the president was speaking. He spoke at the town hall at the high school down the street. She somehow = linked Kostric's gun to the "fear and frankly ignorance drown[ing] out = the serious debate that needs to take place about an issue that effects the lives of millions of people." Yet, the most amazing thing about the news coverage was how much the media missed. Far from being a hot head, Kostric and a friend had been = roughed up by a union member. The union member had spit on and kicked the person who was with Kostric. But Kostric didn't threaten the union = member, and didn't respond physically in any way. Kostric and his friend notified the police of the incident, but the police officer shrugged and went away. Kostric's gun did however defuse the volatile situation with the union member -- once the union member saw Kostric's = gun in its holster he backed up and moved away. Also the coverage missed that Kostric regularly carries his gun for protection. He did not bring the gun as part of his protest against President Obama's policies. Is there a sudden trend with health care protestors threateningly carrying guns? Gail Collins' New York Times column "Gunning for Health = Care" claims there is such a trend. She also misrepresents the risk of = law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Collins simply provides two anecdotes as evidence. One involved Kostric -- she is shocked his actions "turned out to be completely legal under New Hampshire law." The other case was a dropped gun at a political event in Arizona with Congresswoman Gabreille Gifford (D-Ariz.). But Collins' description of = that event was also misleading, as Giffords herself never felt there was any danger. Giffords stated: "A lot of people carry firearms here... at no point did I ever feel in danger and at no point did I ever feel there was a problem." Nor does the issue look like it is going to go away. On Monday in Phoenix an unidentified black man outside of Obama's latest health care rally carried a semi-automatic rifle (referred to in the media as = an "assault rifle"). When asked about whether anyone openly carrying a = gun outside Obama's event endangered the president's safety, the U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan said: "of course not." Not happy with all these events there is a move in Congress to ban guns within the "vicinity" of President Obama. MSNBC probably went the farthest on all this with some truly remarkable claims on Tuesday, August 18. Showing the clip of the anonymous black man carrying the "assault rifle," but editing it so that one was not able to see the man's race, Contessa Brewer said: "But also there are questions whether this has a racial overtone. I mean here you have a man of color in the presidency and white people showing up with guns strapped to their waists." Another person on the same show noted the"anger about a black person being president" and about "the black man becoming president. You know we see these hate groups rising up." The five million Americans who legally carrying concealed handguns permit holders are extremely law-abiding. Take Arizona, given that Collins' points to the event there. There were 99,370 active permits as of December 1, 2007. During 2007, just 33 permits were revoked for any reason -- a mere 0.03 percent rate. In New Hampshire, where Kostric lives, permit revocations are even rarer. What should have been a story about an American with a gun who behaved = properly was somehow twisted into a storyline focusing on something else: crazy conservatives who want to threaten the president. ************************************************** 14. Detroit mugger in critical condition after attempted robbery ************************************************** Another story of an armed citizen that refused to be a victim. http://tinyurl.com/nbaq23 freep.com By Tammy Stables Battaglia Free Press Staff Writer A 32-year-old suffered a graze wound to the head but seriously injured = a 17-year-old trying to rob him at gunpoint in Detroit early today, according to police. The intended robbery victim, who has a permit to carry a weapon, pulled out his gun when he was confronted behind the apartment building at 1670 Oakman Blvd. near Linwood Street at 5 a.m. today, Detroit Police spokesman John Roach said. After an exchange of gunfire, the intended victim escaped with only the superficial wound. But the 17-year-old is in critical condition today in a local hospital after running away and collapsing in the parking lot of a gas station across the street, Roach said. "That's what we're seeing so much ... young kids with guns," Roach said. ************************************************** 15. Could a visit to the doctor's office cost you your right to bear arms? ************************************************** If the British Medical Association (BMA) has it's way , that's exactly = what could happen to gun owners in the U.K. should they be deemed a "risk" to the community. But that could never happen in this country, right? Wrong. As you read the article below from the BBC, imagine that you are living in the future. Where a single-payer, government-run healthcare system is in place in America. Still think it can't happen here?. http://tinyurl.com/l68y6y newsvote.bbc.co.uk Jo Garvin - BBC News The coroner who conducted the inquest into the deaths of Christopher Foster, his wife Jill and their daughter Kirstie in Shropshire called for changes in the way shotgun and firearms licences are issued and renewed. The British Medical Association (BMA) and Association of Chief Police Officers have discussed ways in which doctors can be made aware of patients who own firearms. The BMA's plan to "tag" - or highlight - the medical records of patients who have shotgun or firearms licences have received a mixed reaction. Last August Bank Holiday Mr Foster killed his wife and 15-year-old daughter before setting fire to their home at Maesbrook, near Oswestry, and killing himself. It emerged at the inquest into the deaths that Christopher Foster had been suffering from depression and had mentioned suicidal thoughts to his GP. This prompted Mid and North Shropshire coroner, John Ellery to recommend a closer link between the medical profession and the police, = who issue gun licences. In the last few days the British Medical Association (BMA) has said it = is about to update its ethical guidance on firearms. The plan is that medical records would remind the doctor the patient either held a firearms or shotgun certificate, or had applied for one. 'Absolutely wonderful' The Gun Control Network was set up after the Dunblane tragedy in 1996 when 16 children and an adult were shot by Thomas Hamilton. It campaigns for tighter controls on guns of all kinds. Spokeswoman, Gill Marshall-Andrews described the new guidelines as "absolutely wonderful". She said her concern was for the risk faced by the families of gun owners: "If an individual commits suicide, that is a matter for him, but if he is going to kill his family, it is a very different matter." Mrs Marshall-Andrews said the Gun Control Network was very supportive of the move by the BMA, but would like consultation with partners and ex partners made a requirement for the granting of licences. The new guidelines have also been welcomed by the charity, Infer Trust, which offers support and advice to people affected by gun violence. Spokeswoman Chrissie Hall said: "Anything that makes life safer for individuals who live in a house where there is a weapon, Infer Trust would be keen to support." Mrs Hall said she had been in contact with the Foster family and put them in touch with other people in similar situations. Mrs Hall felt that tagging patients notes was a good thing: "I can't imagine why that wouldn't be supported by GPs who are there to care for their patients." However, the mental health charity, Mind, does not share Infer Trust's = views and fears the new guidelines will further stigmatise people with = mental health problems. Spokeswoman Katie Prior said: "The link between violence and mental health problems is often grossly exaggerated. Any tragedies that do occur are terrible, but it's important to recognise that such cases are rare." She said people with mental health problems were extremely unlikely to = be dangerous: "In fact, research shows that they are are more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators." 'Vulnerable to theft' The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) is not happy with the new guidelines either. The BASC's senior firearms officer, Mike Eveleigh said: "I believe the = BMA's proposals to tag medical records would cause more problems than it would prevent. "For example the records could fall into the wrong hands leaving firearms owners vulnerable to theft and certainly the proposed system would create much more work for GPs and the police who are already overstretched." Mr Eveleigh also said the new guidelines could deter people from seeking medical help if they thought their shotgun or firearms certificate might be revoked. After the inquest into the deaths, Christopher Foster's estranged brother, Andrew, spoke publicly about his relationship with his brother and the need for greater control over the issuing of gun licences. He said he had done some research into the subject: "There are 27,000 licensed gun holders in West Mercia alone and 25% will be treated for depression. "That means 6,500 gun holders are suffering from depression and yet there is no communication between doctors and the police for people who are feeling suicidal." In a statement the BMA said the guidelines could be used as part of a patient's care, but did not mean that the GP practice had taken on obligations to monitor or oversee the mental health of licence holders. The BMA is expected to discuss the issue at its cabinet meeting in September. A spokeswoman for Acpo said: "Acpo and BMA have been exploring a number of options as to how information can be shared, without breaching patient confidentiality, and yet ensuring improved public safety." ************************************************** 16. Second Richmond gun show coordinator needed ************************************************** We are victims of our own success. Over the years we have been having = a booth at more and more gun shows. As we add more shows, gun show coordinators can get overloaded. Currently there are two shows that we aren't really covering in Richmond because EM Audrey Muehleisen is overloaded with the current show schedule. If you want to become our second Richmond area coordinator for these other gun shows, please contact David Park at gunshows*vcdl.org Also, let me take this opportunity to thank all of our gun show coordinators for all the hard work they do for VCDL. When you see these fine people, be sure to thank them and also thank the other volunteers in the booth for making a huge contribution to our freedom here in Virginia: Dave Park - State gunshow coordinator Ed Burton - Norfolk Ron and Jean Hyson - Virginia Beach Ron Lilly - Hampton Danny Paulson - Chantilly Audrey Muehleisen - Richmond Robert Heron - Fredericksburg Sam Childress - Dale City Bob Schmidt - Harrisonburg Mike Piper - Fisherville Al Steed, Jr. - Roanoke/Salem ------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************************