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

10/06/09 - VCDL Update 10/6/09 - Part 2

likens it to school shootings a decade ago: on its way to becoming a persistent phenomenon. One reason might be that in an increasingly high-alert world, churches = remain an easy target. In cases of domestic violence, such as the incident at People's Church, perpetrators know that once a week, their = victim will show up at a specific time, perhaps even park in a certain = spot or sit in a certain section. Compounding the problem is the prominent role many houses of worship occupy in today's volatile culture wars. "You see the language being thrown around . . . people demonizing each = other," said the Rev. Chris Buice, whose liberal Unitarian church in Knoxville, Tenn., was attacked by a right-wing gunman last year. The shooter walked into the sanctuary in the middle of a production of "Annie" and pulled a 12-gauge shotgun out of a guitar case, killing two people and injuring seven. But many cases remain enigmas. The killings at New Life Church in 2007, for example, were carried out = by a gunman with no direct ties to the church. Matthew Murray killed two people and wounded three before a church security guard shot him. He then turned the gun on himself. "I don't know if we'll ever know why Matthew Murray attacked us," the Rev. Brady Boyd said. The gunman's impact, however, remains. Even now, two years later, parishioners arriving for Sunday worship pass police cars stationed at = the entrance. "We've begun to heal. We've even grown," Boyd said. "But in some ways, = New Life is never going to be the same. We lost our innocence." 'God Has Called Us to Love' In the days that followed Patricia Kelly's shooting, People's Church also struggled with trauma. Its leaders convened a meeting with counselors and psychologists that more than 150 members attended. A prayer team walked through the church with anointing oil, asking God to break the spirit of fear. At the next Sunday service, the Rev. Haywood Robinson III spoke about how Christians are tested and the importance of faith in such trying times. He also preached forgiveness for the shooter, telling the congregation he had offered to meet and pray with Kevin Kelly. "There's probably people here who hate him for what he did," Robinson said. "But God has called us to love and forgive." Some weren't ready for that, including Lefern Brooks, one of Patricia's closest friends. She had taken in Patricia's only child, Iesha Jennings, 17, in the days after the shooting. For a while, Brooks simply stopped attending People's Church. "I just couldn't go near the place," she said. She couldn't help looking for bloodstains or chalk outlines -- any outward sign of the trauma she still felt inside. So for two months, she and her daughter Chelsea, 16, tried other churches, but in the end, they found themselves returning to People's. = "As painful as it was, it was also the place where we had experienced the most outpouring of love and support," she said. Brooks was the only church member who sat through all three days of Kelly's trial this month. She spent most of it studying Kelly's face for any shred of remorse. She found none. And now that Kelly has been convicted of first-degree murder, Brooks has to prepare a statement to the judge for his sentencing Friday. She = has prayed and struggled over what to say about this man and how his actions have affected her faith, her church and the daughter of her closest friend. "I've been trying to work it all out," she said. "I've prayed that I could forgive this man. But I'll be honest; I haven't yet. I don't know how long it will take before I can." ************************************************** 12. LTE: Consider the consequences of using a firearm ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/y8rvm7w www.roanoke.com Consider the consequences of using a firearm I have had healthy respect for firearms since the age of 8. My father taught me well, with the emphasis on gun safety. The Marine Corps took = my shooting skills to a higher level, and I became a certified firearms instructor. Even so, when I decided to get my concealed-carry permit, I took a refresher course in pistol safety and ethics. What an eye-opener! Anybody can shoot a gun, but are you prepared for the consequences? Have you thought about what it would be like to kill someone in self- defense? If not, you better take a couple of days off to try and wrap your mind = around that concept. If you have doubts, leave the gun at home. When you pull that gun out of your pocket, you are committed. Use it or it will be used against you. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six -- and that's what will happen. Expensive litigation. Even a justified shooting will cost a bunch of time and money. And don't rule out the possibility of retaliation; kin is kin. These issues are part of concealed carry responsibility. I hope you and I never have to face them. [PVC: At least you will do so alive.] JACK REAU CLAYTOR LAKE ************************************************** 13. Who needs a gun in the shower? ************************************************** I recently got a piece of sarcastic email from an unidentified source asking tongue-in-cheek how best to conceal a gun in the shower. If you think that just because you are in the shower, you can't find yourself in a life-and-death struggle, I suggest you think twice. There's nothing magical about a shower. In fact, in the shower you may not hear the doorbell or knocking, leaving the bad guys with the impression that nobody is home as they kick in your door. Having the gun in the shower is not really feasible, but having it within reach, with the bathroom door locked is quite workable. Bob Culver emailed me this: -- Who needs a gun while in the shower? It had a good ending, too. http://tinyurl.com/ydbpz4o www.wsmv.com September 24, 2009 MOUNT JULIET, Tenn. A woman in Mount Juliet got a scare this week when = a man broke into her home while she was in the shower. The intruder quickly ran out, but the woman grabbed her gun and shot at his car. Police arrested Franklin Fish a short time later. The woman identified = him as the burglar. Detectives believe Fish is wanted for several other home break ins. ************************************************** 14. Gun advocates predict drop in crime if gun ban is lifted ************************************************** While Chicago did miss out on the chance to host the 2016 Olympics, they still have a chance to win something they desperately need. The right to use a handgun to defend themselves from thieves, thugs and other criminals. http://tinyurl.com/yad5sdq www.suntimes.com By Abdon M. Pallasch & Fran Spielman September 30, 2009 The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to hear a challenge to Chicago's strictest-in-the-nation handgun ban likely means the other holster is ready to fall on the ban, advocates on both sides of the issue seemed to agree Wednesday. A year from now there will not be a Chicago handgun ban, said Alan Gura, the attorney representing the gun owners fighting the ban. The high court's five-member conservative majority last year threw out = Washington, D.C.'s gun ban in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, = but stopped short of invalidating the rest of the country's handgun bans because that case dealt with federal bans, not local ones. But gun control advocates and even city of Chicago officials have been = bracing for the high court's firmer embrace of the Second Amendment, which includes a right to bear arms. It's going to be very difficult for Chicago not to have to make the adjustments D.C. had to make, said Paul Heimke, president of the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence. At a news conference in Chicago Wednesday, Gura predicted the crime rate will drop in Chicago if handguns are legalized again, because, he = said, would-be burglars would opt not to break into homes for fear owners could be armed. I want to be able to protect myself in my own home. This is a right that we have that has been moved away from us, and we should have it back, said Otis McDonald, 76, a plaintiff in the case against the city's ban and a retired janitor. He says his neighborhood of Morgan Park has gotten rougher in recent years. I don't have any intention of going out there and shooting up anybody. The people who want to control me these are the people I want to protect myself from. Even though she was not harmed, Colleen Dawson said she wishes she had = a handgun when some men tried to break into her Northwest Side home last year. Dawson, 51, said the court's action should be a message to Mayor Daley = and other gun-control advocates to begin looking at a handgun as a tool given to us as a birthright by the constitution to defend ourselves. Growing up in Englewood, Dawson said her grandmother always kept a handgun in her apron pocket. [PVC: Good for her - she gets the "carry a gun at home" concept.] She'd like the same right. Chicago Police scoff at the notion that more handguns will lower the city's crime rate. The logic they are using, that homeowners' homes will not get burglarized, is ridiculous. You usually do not burglarize a home that is occupied, said Mark Donohue, president of the Fraternal Order of Police. A 1988 Emory University study, Heimke said, showed if you keep a gun in your home, it's 21 times more likely to injure you or your family than a bad guy. It gets used by a depressed teen to commit suicide, or = you think it's a burglar but it turns out to be a neighbor or a brother-in-law. [PVC: It bugs me to see a grown man whining and wringing his hands like this. What's hilarious is that he thinks WE are paranoid.] Ever since last year's Heller decision, which Mayor Daley called a frightening decision that changed the rules of inner-city policing, = city attorneys have been preparing for the Supreme Court to revisit the issue. Law Department spokeswoman Jenny Hoyle said Wednesday that city officials are obviously concerned about what a final decision could mean for Chicago. But Hoyle said city attorneys remain encouraged = by some of the language the Supreme Court used in overturning Washington's ban. The Heller decision didn't say there has to be unrestricted access and = ownership [of] handguns. They allowed for the possibility that some restrictions might be appropriate, she said. In December, the D.C. Council replaced its overturned law with new regulations that require gun owners to receive five hours of safety training and register their firearms every three years. Gun owners would face criminal background checks every six years. At the time, Daley hinted strongly that he intended to use the city's home-rule power to mimic the D.C. changes. Of the 511 murders that happened in Chicago last year, 402 happened outdoors and the vast majority involved one gang member shooting another gang member, according to police statistics. Gura admitted local governments have more rights to restrict gun possession outdoors. But Richard Pearson of the illinois State Rifle Association noted the state legislature has four bills pending to legalize concealed carry = laws, and he thinks passing them would likewise lower the crime rate in Chicago. They have turned Chicago into a crime capital, Pearson said. Gura and Pearson said other cities with less restrictive gun laws such = as New York and L.A. have lower crime rates. That's because New York state and California have better gun restrictions at the state level, Heimke said. He said if more local communities had laws as strict as Chicago's that would have lowered Chicago's crime rate. [PVC: Yeah, and if people stopped eating cheese the moon would be bigger, too.] I know a lot of the bad guys in Chicago come over to Indiana to get their guns, Heimke said. Every time I drive from Indiana to Chicago, = nobody sees what I'm bringing in. If other communities took the same approach as Chicago, we would be even safer. But McDonald said the current law only protects criminals. We worked all our lives, paid taxes, did the right thing in life and here we are vulnerable to somebody who never went to school, is never going to go to school, and is living off of what they can get out of us that's what it's all about, McDonald said. ************************************************** 15. Gray Column: Guns on trains not a good idea ************************************************** I think Mr Gray has completely missed the point on this one. If a terrorist thought that he might be confronted by a group of armed citizens on a train, he would think twice about his actions. What could be safer than that? http://tinyurl.com/y96j5ow www2.insidenova.com Davon Gray September 28, 2009 When I think of guns, I think of hunting or protecting myself, my family or my property. The last thing I think of is the Virginia Rail Express (VRE). Last week the VRE's operation board ruled that riders will be able to carry firearms aboard their trains. This ruling was to comply with Virginia's Code on firearms. Basically = the Virginia law allows citizens, who have no criminal record, to carry weapons in plain view and those with a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Obviously, due to the restrictions on firearms in the District, you can't take the weapon there if you are on the train. Which brings me to a question: Why did this have to be passed now? Yes, I know it puts the VRE in compliance with state law. But considering most folks are riding the VRE system going to work or heading into the District, I can't see the need for this one. [PVC: = I'll bet if terrorists took over the train or some nutcase decided to start murdering people on that train you would change your mind really = quick.] I'm sure someone will write in and enlighten me but for the life of me = right now I just can't see it. I do find it strange, or just ironic, that during the same week the federal government issues a watch warning for terrorism on mass transit, the VRE allows guns on its trains. The timing is only coincidental but still, it is ironic. Now I seriously don't think the VRE board is trying to put lives in danger. They are just staying compliant with state law. But I have to wonder what is the rush to compliance right now? [PVC: Er, because they were banning guns illegally, perhaps?] Nevertheless, the real problem here should be addressed within the Virginia General Assembly. When the next session begins, a member of the House of Delegates or State Senate needs to introduce legislation that excludes the VRE from this law. [PVC: And VCDL will be there to = fight such a thing every step of the way.] The General Assembly should do this because they are the only ones who = can. State law prohibits localities from making their own laws pertaining to purchase, carrying, transfer, ownership, storage or transport of firearms or ammunition. I can only imagine the nightmare scenario of someone getting on the train and forgetting to get off before entering Washington, D.C. They basically go from carrying a firearm legally to doing so illegally, punishable by D.C. law. Also there are some specifics that need to be known about how you carry the firearm. Virginia law requires that a person have their firearm holstered on the side or with a shoulder holster. [PVC: There is no such law. Nothing like just making stuff up.] So you can't just walk around with the gun in your back pocket, tucked = in your waist (however I believe you can use a waistband) or in your hand. That would be brandishing a firearm, which is illegal. [PVC: = Wrong again. Brandishing is when a gun is used to intentionally induce fear in another. I would suggest you should always carry a gun = in a holster, but it isn't required by law.] So before you go and grab a gun and go on the VRE, you might want to take a look at Virginia law on carrying those firearms. [PVC: Too bad this guy didn't take his own advice!] Other than knowing how to carry a gun, we all need to consider the insane idea of wanting to do so in the first place on public trains. The idea of a crowded train and random people carrying guns should make you feel less safe rather than more so. There are too many threats on our transit system as it is. [PVC: If there are threats, then people need to be able to protect themselves. = Nice way to ruin your own argument!] Fortunately, I doubt a lot of people will take advantage of this ruling. I have a hard time imagining a train full of gun toting commuters. But it is possible. [PVC: Well, there are 203,000 CHP holders alone.] It's just another one of those things that make you say, Hmmm. I don't = think the people making the laws thought this one all the way through, = at least not the idea of guns on trains. [PVC: You sure have a lot of nerve to lecture someone else on not thinking their position through, Mr. Gray.] Davon Gray works in Washington, D.C., and resides in Woodbridge. Contact him at davongray*verizon.net ************************************************** 16. Andrew Dysart replied to a thread on Facebook ************************************************** This is a great analysis by Andrew Dysart of a new "study" 'that having a gun doesn't really help much in not getting shot. He really nailed this one in a Facebook post: At first glance it looks like this study only analyzes cases where a shooting actually occurred. This means they left out the millions (potentially nationwide) of cases that involved a self-defense situation which didn't end in a shooting! From what I can remember, in the vast majority of self-defense cases with a firearm, the mere presentation of a firearm by the victim will normally scare off an assailant without any shots fired. They also didn't look at the legality of the gun possession itself; are these criminals shooting other criminals (that happen to possess a = firearm)? As I see it, this study really shows that if you are shot in Philadelphia, you are likely to have a gun on you. Which doesn't tell = you anything about the number of people who actually defend themselves = with a firearm. I quickly skimmed this "study," so I could be misstating a few of its methods and findings. By that I mean, don't quote me... ;) [PVC: = Sorry, Andrew, I think you need to be quoted on this one.] --------------- Here is the original article that Andrew Dysart was analyzing. -- http://tinyurl.com/yed5p9t (PhysOrg.com) -- In a first-of its-kind study, epidemiologists at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that, on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. The study estimated that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing a gun. The study was released online this month in the American Journal of Public Health, in advance of print publication in November 2009. "This study helps resolve the long-standing debate about whether guns are protective or perilous," notes study author Charles C. Branas, PhD, Associate Professor of Epidemiology. "Will possessing a firearm always safeguard against harm or will it promote a false sense of security?" What Penn researchers found was alarming - almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of = success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at = least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense = against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered. A 2005 National Academy of Science report concluded that we continue to know very little about the impact of gun possession on homicide or the utility of guns for self-defense. Past studies had explored the relationship between homicides and having a gun in the home, purchasing a gun, or owning a gun. These studies, unlike the Penn study, did not address the risk or protection that having a gun might create for a person at the time of a shooting. Penn researchers investigated the link between being shot in an assault and a person's possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. As identified by police and medical examiners, they randomly = selected 677 cases of Philadelphia residents who were shot in an assault from 2003 to 2006. Six percent of these cases were in possession of a gun (such as in a holster, pocket, waistband, or vehicle) when they were shot. These shooting cases were matched to Philadelphia residents who acted as the study's controls. To identify the controls, trained phone canvassers called random Philadelphians soon after a reported shooting = and asked about their possession of a gun at the time of the shooting. = These random Philadelphians had not been shot and had nothing to do with the shooting. This is the same approach that epidemiologists have = historically used to establish links between such things as smoking and lung cancer or drinking and car crashes. "The US has at least one gun for every adult," notes Branas. "Learning = how to live healthy lives alongside guns will require more studies such as this one. This study should be the beginning of a better investment in gun injury research through various government and private agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control, which in the = past have not been legally permitted to fund research 'designed to affect the passage of specific Federal, State, or local legislation intended to restrict or control the purchase or use of firearms.'" Source: University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine ------------- Here's another good analysis. It makes a good point concerning the study's assumption that everyone over 21 is a law-abiding gun owner: "It's legitimate to exclude people under 21 who carry guns, but why is = it assumed that anyone over the age of 21 was a legal gun owner? It's illegal to carry a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia without a License to Carry firearms. Why did the study not exclude people who were carrying firearms illegally? Could it be because you needed people involved in dangerous illegal activity to get the results you wanted? Why exclude people who are not residents of Philadelphia? They = are more likely to carry a legal firearm. Why the racial exclusion?" Sebastian also believes that the study was funded by the Joyce foundation. Which would explain a lot, as they have been know for these "studies": (http://tinyurl.com/ydqpvyv) ************************************************** 17. Gary Kleck responds to Chet Szymecki about an anti-gun "study" ************************************************** More on the article in item #16, above. Chet Szymecki Jr. emailed me this: -- I emailed Professor Gark Kleck (College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University) to solicit his opinion on the aforementioned article - here is his reply: http://tinyurl.com/ye96rgn Comments on forthcoming article by Branas et al., AJPH 2009 Gary Kleck, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127 (850) 894-1628, gkleck*fsu.edu. September 28, 2009. The article by Branas and his colleagues (forthcoming in the American = Journal of Public Health) is the very epitome of junk science in the guns-and-violence field - poor quality research designed to arrive at an ideologically predetermined conclusion. Like all articles in on this topic published in the AJPH, it concludes that guns (no matter who possesses or uses them) invariably raise the risks of violence. = This is not what competent research indicates, but it is certainly what the peculiar body of poor quality research appearing in medical and public health journals almost always concludes. The authors conclude that "on average, guns did not protect those who = possessed them from being shot in an assault" and that successful defensive gun uses are unlikely. In fact, none of the evidence presented by the authors actually has any relevance to the issue of the effectiveness of defensive gun use, for the simple reason that at no point do they ever compare crime victims who used guns defensively with victims who did not. Instead, they made only the essentially irrelevant comparison between people who were shot in assaults with the rest of the population, noting whether gun possession was more common among the former than among the latter. Not surprisingly, after controlling for a handful of (badly chosen) control variables, they found that gun possession is more common among gunshot victims. This pattern, however, says nothing about the effectiveness of defensive gun use, but rather is merely a reflection of the fact that the same factors that place people at greater risk of becoming assault = victims also motivate many people to acquire, and in some cases carry away from home, guns for self-protection. In sum, this is what researchers refer to as a "spurious" association - a non-causal statistical pattern due to the influence of some third factor(s) on the purported cause (gun possession) and the effect (gunshot victimization). For example, being a drug dealer or member of a street gang puts one at much higher risk of being shot, but also makes = it far more likely one will acquire a gun for protection. Previous published research, however, has directly compared crime victims who used guns with victims who used other self-protective strategies (including doing nothing to resist), and reached precisely the opposite conclusions from those at which Branas et al. arrived (Kleck 1988; Kleck and DeLone 1993; Southwick 2000; Tark and Kleck 2004). Significantly, Branas et al. ignore all but one of these studies, and do not share with readers the main finding of the one study they do mention in passing (Kleck and DeLone 1993) - victims who = resisted with guns were less likely to be injured that those who did not. Indeed, all published research to make such direct comparisons has yielded the same conclusion. The most authoritative study (Tark and Kleck 2004) used data from large-scale surveys conducted by the federal government (the National Crime Victimization Survey), covering large samples that were representative of the entire U.S. population, compared 18 different self-protection victim strategies, and controlled for far more confounding variables than Branas et al. did. The results indicated that the probability of success in defensive uses of guns approaches 100% - it is virtually unheard of for a crime victim to be injured after using a gun for self-protection. More specifically, only 2% of gun-wielding victims were injured after using a gun for self- protection (p. 878). On the rare occasions that gun-using victims were hurt, it was almost always injury that came first, followed by armed resistance - i.e., injury provoked previously reluctant victims into finally using their guns. Strictly speaking, the results of Banas and his colleagues do not conflict with those of prior researchers; rather, they are simply irrelevant, and do not actually bear on the use of how effective defensive gun use is. The authors draw a non sequitur conclusion from = irrelevant evidence. They find that gun shot victimization is more common among those who have guns, and conclude that gun possession raises one's risks of being shot. It is precisely as if medical researchers found that insulin use is more common among persons who suffer from diabetes than among those who are not diabetic (something that is most assuredly true), and concluded that insulin use raises one's risk of diabetes. This silly conclusions would certainly come as a surprise to medical researchers, and is obviously wrong. So is the conclusion drawn by Branas et al. Cited Studies Kleck, Gary 1988 "Crime control through the private use of armed force." Social Problems 35:1-21. Kleck, Gary and Miriam A. Delone 1993 "Victim resistance and offender weapon effects in robbery." Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 9:55-81. Southwick, Lawrence 2000 "Self-defense with guns." Journal of Criminal Justice 28: 351-370. Tark, Jongyeon, and Gary Kleck. 2004. "Resisting Crime." Criminology = 42:861-909. ************************************************** 18. AZ: Valley bars, eateries get ready for gun-toting patrons ************************************************** The "No Guns Allowed" sign in the window of a bar or restaurant sends a completely different message to a would be robber. It might as well say "The patrons here have been disarmed for your convenience." Now, which establishment would you rather visit?. http://tinyurl.com/ycxbla9 www.azcentral.com Amy B Wang September 29, 2009 Starting Wednesday, those carrying concealed weapons are allowed to enter Arizona's roughly 5,300 establishments licensed to sell alcohol, = as long as they don't drink. If those bar and restaurant owners don't