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

10/25/09 - VCDL Update 10/25/09 - Part 2

Virginia to allow people with concealed-weapons permits to bring their firearms into eateries that sell alcohol. More than a quarter of those surveyed - 26.3 percent - disagreed, saying the ban should be lifted. Earlier this year, the General Assembly passed legislation to legalize the practice but failed to muster the votes to override Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's veto. In his veto message in March, Kaine noted the objection of law enforcement officials to the bill, saying it "puts the public, the employees and our public safety officers at risk." However, legislators won a partial victory because they overrode Kaine's veto of a bill - now a state law - that permits retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in restaurants where alcohol is served. The gun show loophole has been a divisive issue in this year's governor's race. State Sen. Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate, lost the backing of the National Rifle Association because of his support for requiring the background checks. Republican candidate Bob McDonnell, who was endorsed by the NRA, opposes closing the loophole. The survey, which was conducted Oct. 8-13 as part of a joint effort by The Virginian-Pilot, WVEC-TV and CNU, also found that a majority of people want the redrawing of lines for state and federal legislative districts to be done by a bipartisan commission rather than the General Assembly. About 63 percent of those polled said setting boundaries for General Assembly and congressional districts, which are redrawn every 10 years when a new U.S. census is completed, should be handled by a bipartisan commission. About 22 percent said state legislators should continue to set the boundaries. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points. Bill Bartel, (757) 446-2398, bill.bartel*pilotonline.com ----- Here is Neal Jefferis response to the editor: -- Dear Editor, I read the piece in today's PILOT with interest. Is it fiction? The article, "Tighten up gun rules, most respondents say" (Pilot, 10.18.09, pg. 5 of the Hampton Roads section) claims the results of a recent PILOT-WVEC-CNU poll indicate over 80% of Virginians favor closing the infamous (but in reality fictional) "Gun Show Loophole", and that the majority oppose allowing the people holding a Concealed Handgun Permit from using that permit to enter a restraurant with an on-premise ABC license will retaining the right to provide the means of self-defense. I can only conclude the poll was faulty, or faulty reporting of polls' results occurred. Time and again, the American people have shown they do not support adding or making stricter the multitude of laws already on the books regarding firearms. Examples (attached) from Gallup, Rasmussen, CNN, and ABC News show many - most Americans don't favor stronger or additional gun laws. The so-called "Gun Show Loophole" is fiction. A private citizen continues to retain the control of their private property, whether a firearm, knife, hachet, cordless drill, nail gun, baseball bat, metal pipe section, or automobile. All are material possessions, and all can be used as "deadly weapons". The physical location -- gun show -- has no real bearing on personal property rights. However, the PILOT and other organizations with a history of opposing Second Amendment rights to firearms and firearms ownership (by using their First Amendment rights to free speech) continue to refuse to recognize this true. Twice the state legislature has reflected the majority view in Virginia and passed changes to the VIrginia code to allow the trustworthy citizens of the Commonwealth, who hold a CHP after undergoing background checks and demonstrating safety training with firearms has been completed, to carry their concealed handguns into Red Robin, Pizza Hut, Outback, the family-run Mexican or Japanese restraurant down the street merely because that business chose to expand its revenue opportunities by having a license to sell alcohol for on-premise consumption. Twice the current Gov. of Virginia has demonstrated his distain or distrust of those same trustworthy citizens by vetoing that change to the code. He gave reasons, not supported by the facts in other states that have made this legal, but he did demonstrate his trust or concern for the Commonwealth Attorneys by giving them to right to conceal carry (without background checks or safety training) into those very same places. I don't know what 506 likely voters were contacted on this telephone poll. Were cell phones, land lines or both used. Was the poll conducted during the day, evening, or some of each. How were the phone numbers selected? How was the discussion started? (Many people hang up when called for a poll, especially when the topic introduced is one they may or may not want to provide information regarding. A stranger calling to ask a household about firearms may really be someone setting up a home burglery!) In short, I don't see the overwhelming negative numbers in this poll being reflected in most other polls, even by liberal organizations like CNN and ABC. Sincerely, Neal J. ************************************************** 9. Metro columnist Dan Casey: 'Deadeye Dan' targets online training law ************************************************** Columnist finally gets his hands on an actual firearm a month *after* qualifying for a VA CHP http://tinyurl.com/ylgkmk4 www.roanoke.com Metro columnist Dan Casey: 'Deadeye Dan' targets online training law More than a month after qualifying for a concealed carry permit, Dan Casey finally gets his hands on an actual firearm. Sunday I did something I've never done before. With my Virginia-issued concealed handgun permit tucked securely in my back pocket, I touched a handgun for the first time. I fired one, too. Actually, I touched, held and fired a small arsenal of handguns, plus a beastly rifle used in elephant hunts. And you know what? It was a lot of fun. Marc Davis and Hugh Hagan were my hosts at a private outdoor range in Southwest Roanoke County. Davis is in the real estate business, and he's a pistol-shooting champion. Hagan is the accomplished surgeon who rebuilt my shattered wrist back in 2001 after a nasty bicycle wreck. They had been after me to come out and shoot since early July. That's when I took, and passed, and wrote about a one-hour, online streaming video course that rendered me "competent" to apply for a Virginia concealed carry permit -- even though I'd never touched a handgun. (The state granted my permit in August.) Sunday at the range, the first thing Davis explained were the rules, such as where and where not to stand, and when the range was "hot" (firing allowed) and "cold" (no firing allowed). He told me to treat all guns as if they are loaded. They should always be pointed downrange. He showed me how to load them. And he warned me to keep my finger off the trigger until I was ready to fire. He demonstrated how to aim. After donning eye and ear protection, I blasted away with a bunch of different caliber small and large revolvers and semiautomatic pistols. The surprising result? I am a pretty good shot. I got a near double bull's-eye at one paper target at 10 yards, and nailed another target a bunch of times at 20 yards. I hit the latter much more than I missed. I even hit a pie-plate-sized metal disc at 50 yards with a .22-caliber semiautomatic that had an electronic sight. By the end of the lesson, those friendly guys on the range were calling me "a natural." "You shoot like a woman," Hagan told me. He explained that was actually a compliment: Women often do better than men the first time on a target range because they're more relaxed when firing. The truth is, I had great teachers. They demonstrated how each of the different guns worked, how to safely grip them, the intricacies of good aim and the best way to pull the trigger. Most of that is covered in the Concealed Carry Institute's $39.95 online course, too. One of the big differences was, I could ask questions. There were many over the course of a couple of hours, and Davis and Hagan patiently answered each one. That's why a majority of states with concealed carry laws require classroom training. Another, of course, is that I could hold and fire a gun. On streaming video you cannot get answers or touch the weapon, after all. There's still no doubt in my mind that the state law that deemed me "competent" enough to get a Virginia concealed handgun permit via that online course is asinine and irresponsible. The online training law was introduced by state Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, R-Fairfax County, and the General Assembly enacted it over Gov. Tim Kaine's veto. Cuccinelli is now running for attorney general. His Democratic opponent, Del. Steve Shannon, voted for that bill, too. The General Assembly ought to undo that dumb law in the next session. But unquestionably, shooting guns is fun. I learned a lot and have a newfound respect for folks with serious gun habits. "When you bring a person out here who's never shot before, they always love it," Hagan said. "They always leave with a smile on their face." It's far too early in this process to call me any kind of a gun expert. "Gun novice" is a much better description. Or just call me Deadeye Dan. ************************************************** 10. Mousetrapping and other underhanded tactics ************************************************** Gun owners should always be careful to ask the right questions of potential firearms buyers when selling guns privately so as to avoid illegally selling to a felon or someone from out of state. For those who might like to ask more detailed questions about possible sale disqualifications, here is what the ATF Form 4473 asks buyers: -Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s? -Are you a fugitive from justice? -Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance? -Are you a nonimmigrant alien? -Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions? -Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? -Are you an alien illegally in the United States? -Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? -Have you been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation? -Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner. -Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence? -Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship? ************************************************** 11. Surviving disaster: Mall shooting ************************************************** Spike TV show answers the question: What do you do if terrorists strike the mall you're in? http://tinyurl.com/ylqjhrp www.spike.com ************************************************** 12. NIH quietly begins to study gun safety ************************************************** National Institutes of Health restarts research into gun safety. Here we go again. Can't get any traction with gun control? Not to worry - just use junk science to make up some reasons why we need gun control. http://tinyurl.com/yhqve3s www.washingtontimes.com U.S. quietly begins to study gun safety Jim McElhatton More than a decade after Congress cut funding for firearms research by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), another federal health agency has been spending millions of dollars to study such topics as whether teenagers who carry firearms run a different risk of getting shot compared with suffering other sorts of injuries. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) also has been financing research to investigate whether having many liquor stores in a neighborhood puts people at greater risk of getting shot. Such studies are coming under sharp scrutiny by Republican lawmakers who question whether the money could be better spent on biomedical research at a time of increasing competition for NIH funding. They're also leery of NIH research relating to firearms in general, recalling how 13 years ago the House voted to cut CDC funding when critics complained that the agency was trying to win public support for gun control. "It's almost as if someone's been looking for a way to get this study done ever since the Centers for Disease Control was banned from doing it 10 years ago," Rep. Joe L. Barton, Texas Republican, said of one of the NIH studies. "But it doesn't make any more sense now than it did then." The NIH, which administers more than $30 billion in taxpayer funds for medical research, defended the grants. "Gun related violence is a public health problem - it diverts considerable health care resources away from other problems and, therefore, is of interest to NIH," Don Ralbovsky, NIH spokesman, wrote in an e-mail responding to questions about the grants. "These particular grants do not address gun control; rather they deal with the surrounding web of circumstances involved in many violent crimes, especially how alcohol policy may reduce the public health burden from gun-related injury and death," he said. Mr. Barton and Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon, the ranking Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the ranking member on the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, respectively, first questioned the NIH about the gun-related grants in a letter Friday to NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins. The letter sought information about grants for current projects and for others starting as far back as 2002, totaling nearly $5 million. The lawmakers called the study of criminal behavior "a laudable endeavor which consistently benefits the American people, often in ways that people do not see." "And yet we have trouble understanding the administration's desire to spend, for example, $642,561 in taxpayer funds to learn how inner-city teenagers whose friends, acquaintances and peers carry firearms and drink alcohol on street corners could show up in emergency rooms with gunshot wounds. "The day-follows-night quality of this question and its potential answer simply do not seem to justify the expense that would be borne by people who work and pay their taxes," the lawmakers wrote. Special interests on both sides of the gun-control issue differ on the question of whether the NIH ought to be conducting firearms-related research. "This kind of research does concern us, and we're going to be watching it closely," said Erich Pratt, a spokesman for the Gun Owners Association of America. "You'd think that after the CDC had their money revoked, we wouldn't be dealing with this." But Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said Republican lawmakers were "blaming the messenger" by criticizing the research. "Burying the evidence is what the gun lobby is best at," he said. "Whether the members of Congress like it or not, gun violence is a public health problem in America today." NIH records show that one study being questioned by lawmakers aimed to "investigate whether adolescents who consume alcohol and/or carry firearms, and/or whose daily activities occur in surroundings rich in alcohol and/or firearms, face a differential risk of being shot with a firearm or injured in a non-gun assault." A separate study on child safety looked at the decision-making process by couples on whether to own firearms, in part trying to identify whether women are less supportive of firearms compared with their partners. The questions about whether the NIH should fund such research are being raised more than a decade after the House voted against restoring $2.6 million to the CDC's budget, money that the agency was spending on gun studies. The move, backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), was made after Republicans and some Democrats complained that the CDC was pushing for gun control. The money was eventually restored to the CDC budget but with a spending restriction that has remained in place ever since, mandating that funds cannot be used "in whole or in part to advocate or promote gun control." Mr. Barton and Mr. Walden, both of whom have received political contributions from the NRA over the years, requested more information on the NIH firearms research funding a month after they separately raised questions about several other NIH grants. Their earlier letter to the NIH cited questions about grants that "do not seem to be of the highest scientific rigor," including one on whether participating on dragon-boat paddling teams helped cancer survivors more than taking part in an organized walking program. ************************************************** 13. Update: More info on homeowner shot by police ************************************************** There is some course language below. I have tried to blot the offensive words out. It looks like there is a whole lot more to the story on the home owner who was shot in the back by the police after calling them to come pick up a burglar he was holding at gun point. Scott Kreidler emailed me this: -- Philip, There's more to this story, and it is utterly appalling. A friend of mine noted this: "Just to fill in some details here, the cops actually tried to cover this shooting up, with the supervisor telling the shooter cop that and treated the homeowner as a hot suspect for a long period of time. The homeowner was shot *in the back* with all six rounds. The official court papers allege that he was driven *all the way* downtown, like a shot deer, on the boiling-hot car hood after he was thrown around the property several times and lifted by his wounded limbs. They never called for an ambulance, they just walked over him, assessing how best to cover their stupid corrupt asses, before driving him to the station house on the hood to keep the interior of the cruiser clean. It's a nearly unbelievable story. He and his family became and remained 'the enemy' as soon as they entered the house, basically. This sheds far more light on the story than that crappy CNN piece. http://blog.simplejustice.us The Look From The Rear Posted by SHG at 9/26/2009 7:22 AM Categories: uncategorized It seemed like Anthony Arambula did everything right. A man breaks into his Maricopa County home and runs into his son's bedroom. He sends his wife and kids outside, then gets his gun out of the closet and holds the burglar at bay. He calls 911. But what happened after that wasn't quite what he had in mind. From Courthouse News: Phoenix Police officers already in the neighborhood heard the crash of the Arambulas' window. When they approached the house, Lesley says, she told Sgt. Sean Coutts that her husband was inside holding the intruder at gunpoint. Lesley says Coutts failed to pass on that information to the two other officers. Inside the house, the Arambulas say, Officer Brian Lilly shot Anthony six times in the back while he was still on the phone with the 911 operator - twice when he was on the ground. The officers ran into the bedroom after Anthony told them, "You just killed ... you just killed the homeowner. The bad guy is in there." Darn it. Cops hate when that happens. No, not because they pumped 6 bullets into the wrong guy, but because they could get in big trouble. Cops hate getting into big trouble. Tony Arambula didn't die, however. Instead, he sued. In a rather interesting complaint, more along the lines of melodramatic chatting than legal description, one detail makes the cops' efforts to cover up their mistake exceedingly difficult. It seems that the 911 call was still being recorded as Lilly was busy shooting. And still recording after he stopped and realized his mistake. According to the complaint, Lilly can be heard on the 911 tape telling Coutts, "We f**ked up." Lilly says on the tape that he did not know where Anthony's gun was when he shot him and that he "opened fire because he heard loud noises and saw someone who looked like he might be the 'Hispanic' male they were pursuing" before getting to the Arambulas' house, according to the complaint. But we all look like Hispanic males from the rear. If things were bad after Lilly put six bullets into Tony, they got worse as the cops were left to figure out what to do about it. Sgt. Coutts was quick to commence the cover-up of their terrible mistake. Sgt. Coutts asked Office Lilly where Tony's gun was at the time Officer Lilly had opened fire on Tony. Officer Lilly admitted that he did not know where Tony's gun was: 'I don't know. I heard screaming and I fired.'" Lilly later told a police internal affairs investigator that Anthony had pointed his gun in his direction, "in the 'ready' position," the complaint states. But Anthony Arambula says he was facing away from the officers, who could not have even seen his gun. The complaint continues: "Still not knowing that he is being recorded n the 911 tape, Sgt. Coutts interrupted Officer Lilly's admission and apology with his assurance that the cover-up would commence: 'That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?'" And it goes on and on, with the cops dragging Tony Arambula outside the house by his shot leg onto gravel in the backyard, where he was put on display for his wife and children. He was placed on the "hot hood" of the squad car and driven down the street writhing in pain. Later, they tried to get the gun dealer who sold Tony the weapon to go along with their pretense that the gun may have been illegal, but the dealer refused to play ball. Then detectives tried to pin drug warrants on Tony from other states that he's never been to, but the details didn't match. It's so much easier when you shoot the wrong guy and just put a throw- away in his hand to justify it. It's harder when you shoot the homeowner. And it's really hard when the 911 recording catches it all. And you thought it was easy to be a cop. -------- http://tinyurl.com/y8ztx8x www.courthousenews.com Family Says 911 Tape Caught Cops Planning Cover-Up After Shooting By JAMIE ROSS Wednesday, September 23, 2009 PHOENIX (CN) - A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer's partner saying, "That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?" The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting. In their complaint in Maricopa County Court, Anthony and Lesley Arambula say an armed intruder "crashed through the front window" of their home on Sept. 17, 2008 and ran into one of their son's bedrooms. Anthony, worried about his son who was still in his bedroom, says he "held the intruder calmly at gunpoint" and called 911. Phoenix Police officers already in the neighborhood heard the crash of the Arambulas' window. When they approached the house, Lesley says, she told Sgt. Sean Coutts that her husband was inside holding the intruder at gunpoint. Lesley says Coutts failed to pass on that information to the two other officers. Inside the house, the Arambulas say, Officer Brian Lilly shot Anthony six times in the back while he was still on the phone with the 911 operator - twice when he was on the ground. The officers ran into the bedroom after Anthony told them, "You just killed ... you just killed the homeowner. The bad guy is in there." The complaint states that Officer Lilly "admitted that it was only after Tony was laying, bullet-ridden, on the ground that he assessed the situation. The 911 tape continued to record what happened even after Officer Lilly unloaded his weapon into Tony, including Officer Lilly's post-shooting, one-word 'assessment': 'F**k.' "Tony believed he was going to die; the 911 tape records his plaintive goodbye to his family: '... I love you ... I love you.' Then Tony made what he believed was a dying request to the officers; he did not want his young family to see him shot and bloodied. Officers callously ignored his request and painfully dragged Tony by his injured leg, through the home and out to his backyard patio, where they left him bloodied and shot right in front of Lesley, Matthew and Zachary." The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and "drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writhing in pain." According to the complaint, Lilly can be heard on the 911 tape telling Coutts, "We f**ked up." Lilly says on the tape that he did not know where Anthony's gun was when he shot him and that he "opened fire because he heard loud noises and saw someone who looked like he might be the 'Hispanic' male they were pursuing" before getting to the Arambulas' house, according to the complaint. The complaint states: "Sgt. Coutts knew that officers has just shot up and likely killed an innocent homeowner and the husband of Lesley, with whom he had spoken before entering the home, instead of the armed intruder. Sgt. Coutts was quick to commence the cover-up of their terrible mistake. Sgt. Coutts asked Office Lilly where Tony's gun was at the time Officer Lilly had opened fire on Tony. Officer Lilly admitted that he did not know where Tony's gun was: 'I don't know. I heard screaming and I fired.'" Lilly later told a police internal affairs investigator that Anthony had pointed his gun in his direction, "in the 'ready' position," the complaint states. But Anthony Arambula says he was facing away from the officers, who could not have even seen his gun. The complaint continues: "Still not knowing that he is being recorded n the 911 tape, Sgt. Coutts interrupted Officer Lilly's admission and apology with his assurance that the cover-up would commence: 'That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?'" After the shooting, the Arambulas say, the Phoenix Police Department treated them "like suspects in a drug bust," denying Lesley, Michael and Zachary information about Anthony's condition and denying friends and family members access to him at the hospital. Anthony Arambula survived, but continues to suffer pain, which he expects will last for the rest of his life. The City of Phoenix and Officer Dzenan Ahmetovic also are named as defendants. The Arambulas seek punitive damages for gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress. They are represented by Michael Manning with Stinson Morrison Hecker. ------- 911 tapes record a possible police cover-up in homeowner shooting April Poff emailed me this: -- Regarding the following snippet from this issue: "The lawsuit, filed in Maricopa County Court, alleges that Phoenix Police Officer Brian Lilly and his on-scene supervisor, Sgt. Sean Coutts, quickly conspired to cover up the mistake, not realizing that 911 was still recording Arambula's call for help." It looks like we need to add one more tip to our collective lists of how to handle ourselves in an emergency. KEEP THE 911 OPERATOR ON THE LINE UNTIL THE INCIDENT IS COMPLETELY OVER. Sounds like common sense, but it's not something I've ever thought about one way or the other before now. Thanks for everything as always. April Poff ************************************************** 14. L.A. Times Editorial: Targeting gun shows ************************************************** N.Y. probe of "gun show loophole" demands greater regulation of firearm sales The article admits that California's strict gun show law hasn't had any affect on crime. But, what the heck, they want a national version anyhow. Rick Haskins emailed me this: -- http://tinyurl.com/ykcuxcd Closing the "gun show loophole" doesn't go far enough? Rick Haskins www.latimes.com EDITORIAL Targeting gun shows An N.Y. probe exposes loopholes that let criminals buy firearms -- and the need for greater regulation. October 16, 2009 For shock value, they may not rank with the videos released last month showing ACORN workers giving tax advice to a couple of undercover investigators posing as a prostitute and her pimp. But New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's covert recordings of what really goes on at gun shows are appalling nonetheless. In the midst of a reelection campaign in a Democratic-majority city, the Republican (sort of) Bloomberg has latched on to an issue that appeals mainly to liberals: gun control. Though New York state has fairly restrictive gun laws, Bloomberg believes firearms bought out of state play a big role in Gotham's crime problems. So he sent private investigators to seven gun shows in three states between May and August and posted the results, including video shot with hidden