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

03/31/10 - VCDL Update 3/31/10 - Part 1

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- VCDL Update 3/31/10 1. Reminder: Lynchburg VCDL meeting on April 6 2. The VCDL Member Discounts page is now LIVE! 3. Is the American Automobile Association (AAA) anti-gun? 4. Does Anti-Gun Researcher David Hemenway Have Something To Hide? 5. Father of toddler opens fire on I-95, police say 6. Gun rights foes hope to stir opposition against three gun bills in Virginia 7. Richmond Police Chief OK with repeal; Board and EM members have cameo on news ;-) 8. VA-ALERT reader responds to article in Martinsville Bulletin 9. Fed, state rules blur issue of guns in national parks 10. Firearms regulations in the National Parks 11. NPS carry site 12. 22 minutes for a concealed weapon permit 13. The shocking truth about a fundamental right being denied to 55% of citizens 14. Small handgun calibers / slow stops 15. Kansas campuses move closer to concealed carrying 16. Open carry event in Wisconsin 17. Man 'shot dead' at gun show RECOVERING in Denver hospital 18. Harry Reid to host gun party 19. Shooting Sports Shows: DirecTV and Dish Network 20. Free CHP Training in VA for .edu addresses ************************************************** 1. Reminder: Lynchburg VCDL meeting on April 6 ************************************************** Member Joe Seiffert lined up a gun-friendly restaurant for us to go to after our membership meeting in Lynchburg on Tuesday, April 6th: Monte Carlo 3230 Old Forest Road Lynchburg, VA. The meeting will begin at 7 PM and is going to be held at: Solid Rock Baptist Church 110 Church St Madison Heights, VA We will be discussing the legislative session and other things of interest to Virginia gun owners. VCDL will have a table there for those wishing to purchase some of VCDL's 'stuff' ;-) As with all VCDL membership meetings, they are open to the public, so bring your friends, family and coworkers! Thanks to Pastor David Cash for letting us use the facility and to Board member Al Steed, Jr. for coordinating. I'll see you there! ************************************************** 2. The VCDL Member Discounts page is now LIVE! ************************************************** Check it out on the vcdl.org web site http://www.vcdl.org/static/discounts.html ************************************************** 3. Is the American Automobile Association (AAA) anti-gun? ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/yhcb22e sailorcurt.blogspot.com By Curtis Stone (VCDL EM) March 26, 2010 There's been a lot of buzz about the incident in Northern Virginia on I-95 involving a dump truck ramming a Jaguar and the driver of the Jag responding with gunfire. I haven't commented because the details are still a little murky and I don't want to jump to any premature conclusions. It is unclear at this time whether the shooter's actions were a result of anger, or legitimate fear for his and his child's life in the face of a vehicular assault. AAA seems not so reticent about jumping to conclusions, however. In this article about the incident, AAA Mid-Atlantic Manager of Public and Government affairs John Townsend is eager to take a stand: 'More than 1,500 people are killed or injured in road rage incidents each year in this country and when you add a gun to the mix the situation is more likely to spiral out of control, said AAA John B. Townsend II. Gun-toting drivers are more likely to become involved in road rage incidents, study after study has confirmed. Studies have shown that young men, and young adults overall, have admitted to making obscene gestures, cursing or blatantly shouting at other drivers while they were carrying a handgun, said Townsend. He quoted a 2006 Harvard study of 2,400 drivers, which showed motorists who carry guns inside their car are more likely to engage in road rage.' Of course, he claims the backing of 'study after study' to rationalize his bigotry against gun owners, yet cites only one in support...one that happens to have been authored by perennial anti-gun hack 'researcher' David Hemenway. The cited 'study' consisted of a telephone poll which asked people if they had made obscene or rude gestures at another motorist, or had aggressively followed another vehicle too closely in the past year; after a series of other inconsequential or demographic inquiries, the question 'how many days in the past 12 months have you ridden in a motor vehicle in which there was a gun?' was asked. No questions were asked as to whether a gun was present at the time the gesture or tail-gating incident occurred, whether the person answering the question was in possession, or even had access to, the firearm, whether the person who had possession of the firearm was licensed to carry a concealed handgun or any other effort to clarify. In other words, the 'study' doesn't even TRY to make the connection that it implies and that Mr. John Townsend of AAA contends is settled science. In a prime example of the weakness of the methodology, John Lott, in reviewing the 'Study' a while back, noted that: 'The paper also has some funny results. For example, Liberals are apparently much more likely to engage in road rage than conservatives and the difference is larger than the difference between those who did and did not have a gun at least one time in their car over the last year. This variable is apparently never investigated, but presumably they are also concerned about liberals being allowed to drive cars.' I wonder, would Mr. Townsend of AAA condemn Liberals as quickly as he does gun owners based on this so obviously meaningless pseudo science? I've got a call out to the National AAA Public Affairs office and am awaiting a callback to find out if Mr. Townsend's statement is representative of AAA National policy, or only his own personal opinion. I would contend that if Mr. Townsend was speaking as a private individual rather than a representative of AAA, he should have made that very clear. If AAA does not endorse his sentiment, they should issue a statement to that effect as soon as possible as I'm sure it is information that the millions of law abiding gun owners in this country would like to know when making decisions about joining, or remaining a member of, their auto clubs. I'll update as soon as I get more information. [PVC: See item #4, below for more information] ---- John Townsend at AAA emailed me this: -- here is the link to the study. http://tinyurl.com/yclmast The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety reveals 'In 37 percent of the cases a firearm was used; in 35 percent the weapon was the vehicle itself.' [PVC: I know that some CHP holders have brandished a gun to stop someone from hurting or killing them in a road rage incident - a good and proper use of a firearm.] John B. Townsend II Manager, Public and Government Affairs AAA Mid-Atlantic ************************************************** 4. Does Anti-Gun Researcher David Hemenway Have Something To Hide? ************************************************** VCDL EM Hal Macklin emailed me this in reference to the research data quoted in the AAA's article on road rage: -- NRA-ILA has this to say: 'Does Anti-Gun Researcher David Hemenway Have Something To Hide?' http://tinyurl.com/ygqodgr www.nra-ila.org March 24, 2010 [SNIP] It is common practice among legitimate researchers to give their peers access to data used in their studies, so that other researchers can review both the data and the methodology used in their analysis. Recently, prolific anti-gun researcher David Hemenway, of Harvard University's Injury Control Research Center, released an article on a survey he and colleagues conducted, hoping to undermine laws respecting the right of people to carry firearms for protection. Their theory was that there would be a correlation between 'road rage' incidents (including situations in which a rude hand gesture was made) and the presence of a gun in an automobile. Among the survey's obvious flaws, it did not ask people whether they had ever used or observed a gun (as perpetrator, witness or victim) in any such incident. Instead, it asked people whether they had ever been involved in such an incident and, separately, whether they had at any time ridden in a vehicle in which a gun was present. Thus, it did not determine whether there were guns in any vehicles involved at the time of such incidents, let alone whether guns were brandished or used. John Lott, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and Michael Brown, of Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws, took a quick look at Hemenway's article and humorously observed that it showed that 'liberals are much more likely to engage in road rage (both making obscene gestures and driving aggressively) than conservatives.' To thoroughly evaluate the survey, Lott has since asked Hemenway to share his data, but, he says, ***'Hemenway is not responding.'*** [See here] http://tinyurl.com/yf87ppa Good luck in finding a FREE copy of Hemenway's propaganda. ************************************************** 5. Father of toddler opens fire on I-95, police say ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/yl4jkga www.wtop.com March 25, 2010 DALE CITY, Va. -- Both drivers involved in a road rage duel on Interstate 95 during Tuesday afternoon's rush hour are being charged with trying to kill each other. Virginia State Police Wednesday evening took dump truck driver James A. Bringham, 44, of Woodbridge, into custody. Police obtained a warrant against Bringham for attempted second-degree murder. Police previously charged Bringham with reckless driving. Already charged with attempted second-degree murder is Gabriel Poventud, 25, of Woodbridge. He's also charged with child endangerment, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, shooting a missile into an occupied vehicle and reckless use of a firearm. Police say Poventud -- who allegedly fired 13 rounds -- had his 2-year- old daughter in his Jaguar during the road rage incident on southbound I-95. This happened after Bringham, the driver of a 2007 Ford F550 dump truck, tried to merge into the southbound lanes of I-95 from Route 123, shortly after 4 p.m. Police say the drivers then 'began engaging with one another in an aggressive manner.' The dump truck struck the Jaguar twice. Both vehicles ended up on the left shoulder of the highway, pinned against the Jersey wall. That's when Poventud got out of his car and started firing at the truck, police say. The dump truck pulled away into traffic, but was struck far more than four times by the 13 rounds. No one was hurt by the gunfire. 'In that kind of traffic, to have somebody shoot upwards of 13 rounds at a moving vehicle, the fact that nobody was struck, no houses, no vehicles is somewhat miraculous,' says Virginia State Police Lt. Danny Glick. As Poventud followed Bringham on the right shoulder, a trooper stopped both drivers. Police say they have no reports of other drivers or vehicles being struck by the gunfire. Police say drivers should avoid engaging with aggressive drivers. The Smooth Operator Program offers these tips: - Steer clear of aggressive drivers and get out of their way; - Stay calm; - Don't challenge aggressive drivers. Avoid eye contact. Don't make rude gestures; - Give drivers the benefit of the doubt. Not all aggressive driving behavior is intentional; - Move to the right, if you are driving slower than the rest of traffic and don't block the passing lane; - Dial #77 on a cell phone to report aggressive drivers. ---- Gun involved in 'road rage duel' legally owned http://tinyurl.com/ycckf9m www.wtop.com By Adam Tuss March 26, 2010 DALE CITY, Va. - The gun that police say was used to fire 13 shots during a road rage duel on Interstate 95 was legally owned, WTOP has learned. Gabriel Poventud, 25, and James Bringham, 44, have been charged with attempted murder in the altercation that began at the height of Tuesday's afternoon rush hour. Police say Bringham, the driver of a 2007 Ford F550 dump truck, tried to merge into the southbound lanes of I-95 near Route 123, shortly after 4 p.m. Police say the drivers then 'began engaging with one another in an aggressive manner.' The dump truck struck the Jaguar Poventud was driving twice. Both vehicles ended up on the left shoulder of the highway, pinned against the Jersey wall. That's when Poventud got out of his car and started firing at the truck. The dump truck pulled away into traffic, but was struck more than four times by the 13 rounds, police say. Police say Poventud had his 2-year-old daughter in the car during the incident. No one was hurt by the gunfire. Poventud did not have a prior history of mental illness or a criminal background that would have prohibited him from having a gun. The information that the gun was owned legally has supporters on both sides of the debate weighing in. 'It shows that even people that legally have guns do stupid things and make mistakes, and that's one of the risks that goes with having more guns in more places,' Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, tells WTOP. 'Too many people who have guns get angry, get drunk, do something stupid and when that happens, all of us are endangered. It's why we need to treat guns very seriously and make sure that it is not too easy for dangerous people to get guns,' Helmke says. Phillip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, suggests the dump truck driver should have been armed himself. 'Why should he have been murdered helplessly? He should have been able to protect himself. I don't care who it is -- if it was an off-duty police officer that cracked and started doing that. You still need to be able to save your life, if you are the innocent life,' Van Cleave says. 'Your life is precious. Things happen in this world. Crime can happen at any time. Owning something legally doesn't mean you can't misuse it. Basically our view is that you should be able to protect yourself and should be prepared to do so at any time.' ************************************************** 6. Gun rights foes hope to stir opposition against three gun bills in Virginia ************************************************** The antis are grouping together more and more as they become tinier and tinier: http://tinyurl.com/yd7yb3n www.personalliberty.com By Personal Liberty News Desk March 23, 2010 Four gun violence prevention organizations have called on Virginia Governor McDonnell to veto three gun bills currently on his desk that they believe would put state residents at greater risk of gun violence. The Virginia Center for Public Safety (VACPS), the Virginia Chapters of the Million Mom March, Protest Easy Guns (PEG) and the Angel Fund have issued a statement saying that signing SB 334, SB 408 and HB 1217 would violate the governor's earlier declaration that 'the foremost obligation of government is public safety.' SB 334 would allow concealed carry permit holders to bring loaded handguns into establishments that have a liquor license in Virginia, SB 408 would allow those without concealed carry permits to keep loaded handguns in their vehicles or boats if stored in a locked container, while HB 1217 requires the Virginia Board of Education to establish a standardized program of gun safety education for students in elementary school. With respect to this last bill, the coalition referred to 'numerous' studies that demonstrate that familiarizing children with guns makes them more likely to handle firearms when adults are not present. 'The governor talks about the importance of public safety, but in practice he has cut millions of dollars in public safety funding from the state budget and supported a number of dangerous changes to Virginia's gun laws,' said VACPS board member Lori Haas. 'Commonwealth families now have one last chance to hold him to his word and insist he veto [these bills].' McDonnell has until April 12 to make his decision. ************************************************** 7. Richmond Police Chief OK with repeal; Board and EM members have cameo on news ;-) ************************************************** Here is Richmond coverage of the restaurant ban repeal, which has an interview with the Richmond City Police. Chief Norwood said he isn't concerned about permit holders carrying concealed in restaurants. EM Sandy Ferris and Board member Bruce Jackson appear in the video briefly as they are going in the door of a restaurant (stock footage). http://tinyurl.com/yeu7pvf ************************************************** 8. VA-ALERT reader responds to article in Martinsville Bulletin ************************************************** Clark Welsh emailed me this: -- From a recent article in the Martinsville Bulletin: http://tinyurl.com/ycdczbo 'An armed law-abiding citizen might be able to stop a gunman from taking innocent lives, Rogers said. For that reason, he said he disagrees with the recommendation that McDonnell veto the ('guns in bars')bill. Perry wasn't swayed by that line of thinking. 'If a person thinks they need protection when they go in a bar, they've got a choice not to go there,' he said.' Sheriff Perry, by that line of reasoning, if I feel I need the ability to effectively defend my life ANYwhere, say, at the grocery store, the mall, the barber shop, on the street, in my front yard, etc., does that mean I have the 'option' not to go such places, that I should just stay locked in my home like a hermit, and hire people to do my errands for me? Tell me, Sheriff, where is there a place on this entire planet where I am absolutely, 100% guaranteed to be safe? Violent attacks occur sometimes in stores, in schools, in churches, in hospitals, at work, in parks, in people's very homes; tell me where I can go in this world where I am truly safe. You can't, can you, because there IS no such place, a fact that you should be keenly aware of as a law enforcement officer. I have the right to defend my life, if need be, whereEVER I am, wherever I go. And so do you. Period. Self defense is a basic human and civil right, even in a restaurant that serves alcohol. I'm sorry, but taken to its logical conclusion, your position just doesn't hold water, and you need to re-think it. Sincerely, Clark Welsh Falls Church, VA ************************************************** 9. Fed, state rules blur issue of guns in national parks ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/yk87pjr www.fresnobee.com By Mark Grossi March 22, 2010 Federal law now allows visitors to carry guns in national parks, but you can't just slip a loaded pistol into your backpack and take a hike. Pay attention, because this is a little complicated. You will need a concealed weapons permit to carry the loaded gun in the backpack. But you don't need any kind of permit if you just want to stash your loaded weapon in the tent. At the same time, unless you feel your life is being threatened, don't shoot the gun at all. What's going on' Guns in national parks are now under both state and federal restrictions, and the result can be confusing. State law generally applies to the way guns are carried and how a concealed weapons permit is enforced. California's odd exemptions to the concealed weapons rule include sleeping in a tent, which is considered your temporary home. Federal restrictions aim at a bigger picture. They do not allow guns in many federal buildings, such as park visitor centers. They also forbid hunting, target shooting or even firing a gun. 'The fact is, you still can't use a weapon in the park,' said Steve Shackelton, former chief ranger of Yosemite National Park. 'I don't think we'll see much of a difference with this law in Yosemite.' Still, officials across the country now must make sense of differing state gun laws in each national park as the tourist season approaches, said Shackelton, who is now associate director for visitor and resource protection for the National Park Service in Washington, D.C. Supporters of the new federal law said it makes national parks consistent with policy over vast federal acreage in national forests where carrying a gun is legal. They say carrying a gun is a right protected by the Second Amendment. But passage of the law disappointed rangers associations and the National Parks and Conservation Association, a parks advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. They tenaciously opposed the law for years, fearing an increase in wildlife poaching and danger to visitors. The opponents ask: Will someone get hurt if a nervous camper fires a gun to scare away a bear' 'We don't know what will happen,' said Bryan Faehner of the Parks and Conservation Association. 'That's why we fought this law tooth and nail.' Though Shackelton does not expect problems, he said there may be incidents that will require rangers to take action. For example, he warned hunters not to use the sighting scopes on their rifles to admire deer or other animals in the distance. 'We don't know if the rifle is loaded or not,' Shackelton said. 'So we will seize it. If you want to look at the wildlife, take the scope off the rifle or bring binoculars.' Rangers and other federal officials will focus on educating visitors about rules and safety, Shackelton said. Many visitors won't carry guns anyway, he said. Officials at Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks say their adjoining parks are surrounded by the Inyo, Sierra and Sequoia national forests, all of which allow firearms within their boundaries. They said people probably have safely passed through the parks for years with firearms on the way to the surrounding forests. 'People who are carrying guns know how to properly handle them,' said spokeswoman Adrienne Freeman. But there will be challenges in observing some state laws, especially in places such as Yellowstone, which includes parts of three states ' Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. Montana recognizes concealed weapons permits from more than 40 states. Wyoming recognizes fewer than 25 states. A visitor may own a permit from a state that is legal in Montana, but the same permit may not be legal in Wyoming. California doesn't allow concealed weapons permits from any other state. That's not the knock on California's law, though. The law is just confusing, said Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org, an Internet-based group supporting the right to carry holstered handguns. Without a concealed weapons permit, it is illegal to carry a loaded firearm on the body in urban public places, according to the California law. But it is legal to carry the loaded weapon if you are in the act of hunting or fishing. It is also legal to have the loaded firearm in a person's residence, motel room, campsite, business or on private property. Another point of contention: A loaded firearm can be carried openly in an unincorporated area without a concealed weapons permit, unless the area forbids firing weapons. Yosemite officials say the park qualifies as an unincorporated area with a gun-firing ban. But Stollenwerk said he is not so sure Yosemite or any other national park can qualify for the gun-firing ban under state laws. He said California's law could be interpreted to apply only to local jurisdictions, such as counties, not the federal government. 'It's not easy to understand California's laws,' Stollenwerk said. 'It would be much simpler to just allow open carry of loaded firearms in all of California. ************************************************** 10. Firearms regulations in the National Parks ************************************************** The NRA-ILA web site has compiled a list of links to individual parks dealing with firearms possession and carrying. You might want to bookmark the link: http://tinyurl.com/y987f6d ************************************************** 11. NPS carry site ************************************************** Carla & Dave Hicks emailed me this: -- check out: http://tinyurl.com/ycv9lhw BTW -- note the: 'If you feel threatened by someone with a fire-arm, please contact the nearest park ranger or park office for help.' ************************************************** 12. 22 minutes for a concealed weapon permit ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/yg9lbwy www.msnbc.com By Mike Stuckey March 25, 2010 SEATTLE - On a cool morning in the epicenter of Left Coast liberalism, I went looking for what it takes to pack a little heat. Although the NRA held its annual meeting here in 1997, the Emerald City's image is more often associated with Birkenstocks than Glocks. In keeping with that image, then-Mayor Greg Nickels in 2008 banned firearms on all city property in the wake of a shooting at a music festival. But last month, the gun ban was thrown out by a judge who said it violates a state law that forbids local governments from regulating most gun-related matters. Despite Seattle's leftward lean, Washington state actually has some of the nation's least-restrictive gun laws. For instance, it's one of only seven states in which there is no minimum hunting age. And when it comes to concealed weapons, Washington wrote the book on 'shall issue' systems, which enable most adults to obtain licenses to carry hidden guns on demand. The state passed its measure in 1961, long before the 'right-to-carry' movement surged in the mid-1980s, boosting the number of 'shall issue' states and those where no permit is needed from nine to 39. Never held a loaded handgun As a native and 40-year resident of California, which has some of the nation's most restrictive gun laws, including a 'may issue' concealed- weapons permit system, I was not raised in a hunting or shooting family and, at 53, have never owned a firearm. More than 20 years ago, I went trap-shooting with a friend and actually proved pretty good at blowing little clay pigeons out of the sky with a 12-gauge Mossberg. I also seem to remember squeezing off a few rounds from a rifle or two, though I'm not certain. But I know for a fact that when I applied for my Washington State Concealed Pistol License, I had never fired a revolver or semiautomatic handgun of any caliber. Not once. In fact, I had never even held a loaded pistol in my hands. And I had never taken a minute of formal firearms training. The state of Washington cared nothing about this when it came to issuing me a license to carry anything from a .22 revolver in my jacket pocket to a .50-caliber Desert Eagle in my waistband. The state also had no interest in whether or not I own a gun. Indeed, the only requirements under the Washington law that grants me the right to obtain a concealed-carry permit are that I am 21 or older, have no history of mental illness and no criminal past. I meet all three. And there's no requirement that I exhibit any knowledge of firearms or experience with them to buy a gun. That mental health question Curious if it would really be that easy, I decided to go through the process of obtaining a concealed-carry permit of my own. The King County Sheriff's Office in downtown Seattle accommodated me with brisk efficiency. I filled out a single-page application with my vital stats, address, phone number and driver's license number. I then answered eight questions, seven concerning whether or not I'd been convicted of any crimes or had any other run-ins with the law and one that asked if I had 'ever been confined in a mental health facility for more than fourteen days.' The answers to all were 'No.' Moments later, I presented my photo ID and $55.25 in cash for the application and fingerprinting fees and was soon ushered into a back office to be electronically fingerprinted. Twenty-two minutes after parking my car, I was back behind the wheel. Less than one month later, as required by the law, I received my Washington State Concealed Pistol License. It is good for five years. Thanks to reciprocal agreements, it is also good in 21 other states. Despite my best journalistic efforts at impartiality, I was amazed at how easy it was to obtain the license and nonplussed about the lack of a training requirement. Many gun-rights activists say that's as it should be, even though other states require a variety of training and testing, including basic marksmanship in some cases. While they are staunch advocates of extensive training for every aspect of gun-handling, they just as firmly believe the government should not mandate it. 'We encourage anyone who wants to learn more to go attend one of our classes or any class out there,' said Andrew Arulanandam, chief spokesman for the National Rifle Association, adding that more than a million people take NRA classes each year. But gun ownership is a constitutional right, not a privilege, he said, and the government should not require training. Tom Gresham, the host of nationally syndicated television and radio shows about firearms training, said anybody who carries a concealed gun should take at least 'a two- to three-day class,' and that much of the focus of the instruction should be on how to avoid using the firearm. 'The good courses will tell you if you go the rest of your life and Continued ...