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

04/28/10 - VCDL Update 4/28/10 - Part 3

on campus,' yet all of them saw despicable acts of violence committed by armed madmen. Since 1991, the year that the 'gun-free zone' laws went into effect, there have been 74 school shootings, and all of these shootings were done in 'gun-free' zones. Add these to the thousands of shootings in 'gun-free' churches, 'gun- free' malls, 'gun-free' cities (Chicago and, until recently, D.C.), and 'gun-free' countries (England), and 'gun-free' starts to look like = open season for criminals - which is exactly what it is. Would you put a sign up in front of your house that said 'gun-free zone'? How about your bank? Would you let everyone know that your favorite security guard is unarmed? How about the police? Would you seek to disarm them, too? Some people, like Ben Price and Cate Hardy, who published her opinions last week, would. Some people will not stop until every gun is deemed illegal. But, as the saying goes, 'If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.' The ordinary law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns, and then the criminals will have free reign. This is exactly what happened in Britain after the 1997 gun ban. According to an October 2009 article in the Telegraph, gun crime has nearly doubled since the 1997 ban. (This is the second half of the statistic that Hardy threw around last week.) While Britain's homicide-by-gun rate is low, it always has been. Its overall crime rate, however, has only been going up since their gun ban. The reasoning for this is simple: If you are a criminal and suddenly citizens have no guns, you are suddenly able to have free reign and commit whatever crime you want. I mean, who is going to stop = you? The police, who almost always arrive on the scene after the crime = has already been committed? Out of the 50,000 people in Benton County, over 5,000 of them have concealed handgun licenses, according to the sheriff. Why, if 10 percent of this county is armed, do we not see more shootings? This is because we see injury and death from mass-shootings drop by 78 = percent in states that changed their laws to 'shall-issue' laws. There = has never been a shooting, accidental or otherwise, at a school that allows guns on campus. More children drown in their bathtubs each year than are killed by guns. Should we ban bathtubs? I don't know about you, but I argue that = Eugene should remain the only city in Oregon that does not bathe. There is no evidence that points to gun control working; meanwhile there is tons of evidence that shows that it does not work. Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers, cites Cesare Beccaria in his 'Legal Commonplace Book': 'Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.' As Plato said, 'Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.' You may note that I said that all of the 74 school shootings happened in gun-free zones. While this is true, it is contradictory to what Price said in his recent column. He mentioned the Appalachian School of Law and said that guns were allowed on their campus. This is false. The Appalachian School of Law in Virginia did not allow guns on campus. Furthermore, the shooter was not tackled by unarmed school kids as people ran away to get their guns from their cars. The two students, who Price mockingly suggested may have been running away from the shooter, were actually both law enforcement officers and were forced to keep their weapons locked in their vehicles due to campus gun restrictions. After they retrieved their guns from their cars, they subdued the shooter with one other person. Don't blame Price for misleading you, though. A Lexis-Nexis search done by statistician John Lott showed that only four of 208 news articles about the shooting mentioned anything about the two students with guns, showing just a speck of the media gun bias. Speaking of misleading, in her article last week, Hardy suggested that = guns in fact restrict our freedom, rather than protect it. Thomas Jefferson proposed the clause 'No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms' be part of Virginia's Constitution. Aristotle said, 'In a polity, each citizen is to possess his own arms, = which are not supplied or owned by the state.' In fact, it has long been common practice for those in power to restrict the right of their = subjects to own arms - as long as slaves have existed, so too have rules that restricted their rights to own weapons. John Stuart Mill, whom Hardy quoted, most certainly understood the need for an armed populace. In fact, in the second volume of his dissertations and discussions, Mill harshly scolds a nobleman who criticized an armed militia for their successful war on crime. Elsewhere, he is quoted as saying that everyone 'is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual' - = a tenet often echoed by gun rights activists. As the saying goes, 'When seconds count between living and dying, the police are only minutes away.' The Second Amendment's main purpose is to protect against tyranny, something that Hardy must have forgotten. As Gandhi said, 'Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the act = depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.' (Mohandas Gandhi, An Autobiography, pg 446) Let there be no doubt; guns can be used to kill people. They are terrible, merciless inventions spawned from the cruelty of the darkest = side of man's imagination. There were extensive massacres in Europe, Russia, China, Cambodia and many other countries over the history of the world, and weapons played = a part in all of them. One thing that many of these massacres have in common, however, is the = fact that arms were taken away from the common citizen, usually to 'make them safer,'' before the killing commenced. While there are an ample number of examples to pull from any of the massacres that happened in any of those countries - or, rather, any country around the world - I will draw one from the Holocaust, since it is Holocaust Awareness Week. By the time the Holocaust came around, guns were pretty rare in Germany. Then once the Holocaust started, the Nazis made sure to confiscate any weapons from Jews so that they could not defend themselves. This meant that by the time the Warsaw Ghetto was formed, few Jews had private arms. In order for the uprising that took place to occur, the Jews had to fight for whatever arms they could get or smuggle them in from the outside. As a result of their efforts, a few armed rebels were able to hold off = the Nazi army for almost an entire month in the Warsaw Ghetto. Imagine = if all six million of those killed during the Holocaust had been armed. For those of you who say that a tragedy like this can never happen here in our own time, please note: My great aunt and uncle are both survivors of the Holocaust. There are over six million others from their generation that were not so lucky ... It was not so long ago. As Aaron Zelman of Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership has said, 'Gun control has cleared the way for seven major genocides since = 1915, in which governments gone bad murdered 56,000,000 persons, including millions of children.' Whether you support the Second Amendment because it protects you from tyranny, allows you to defend yourself or because you just like to go shooting or hunting, I invite you to join us in celebration of the United States Constitution this week out in the quad. We are providing a free gun safety course - a requirement for a Concealed Handgun License - on Wednesday at 6 p.m. in Milam Hall, and Lars Larson will be in the quad on Friday, where he will be drawing the name of the winner of the AR-15 rifle we are giving away. I encourage anyone seeking a better understanding of guns to attend. ************************************************** 17. Opinion on campus carry ************************************************** Alan Moore emailed me this: -- http://tinyurl.com/24rdx3f www.connect2mason.com By Alan Moore April 5, 2010 The legality of guns on campus: 'How is our campus safer by taking away our constitutionally protected right to defend ourselves?' Currently, the Supreme Court is considering McDonald v. Chicago which could determine once and for all if state and local governments have the right to restrict and control gun ownership. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees that an individual has the fundamental right to bear arms in the District of Columbia v. Heller case. If this current gun rights case is overruled, then it is likely that all laws and ordinances prohibiting handguns in states and localities will be nullified. As this landmark case is being considered, it seems prudent to examine = the policy on guns at George Mason University. According to University = Policy Number 1120, Section 3-A, 'The possession of any weapon on campus by any member of the faculty, staff or student body, with the exception of law enforcement officials as cited in the policy portion of this procedure, is prohibited.' The policy first defines weapons as = 'pistols and revolvers.' The hypocrisy of this policy must be recognized and the regulation repealed. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, you must be 21 to purchase a handgun and/or handgun ammunition. You are not permitted to purchase a firearm = if you have ever been indicted or convicted of a felony, convicted of jailable misdemeanors, have a restraining order or outstanding arrest warrant against you, are addicted to any controlled substances, are legally incompetent, have ever been an outpatient for mental health treatment, are an illegal alien, have ever been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces or for any number of similar reasons. To obtain a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) you must be able to legally = purchase a handgun as outlined in the previously described requirements and you must complete a state-approved firearms safety or = training course. Next, you must apply for a CHP through your local circuit court by providing a copy of your training course completion certificate, pay a = fee, show proof of residency and submit an application that assesses your eligibility. If you make a false statement in the application, that 'constitutes perjury and is punishable in accordance with =1518.2-434 of the Code of = Virginia.' In other words, you go to jail if you lie. The applicant is then submitted to a lengthy background investigation conducted by the Virginia State Police Department. Then a circuit court judge must sign an order granting you the license. On top of that, if you are not a Virginia resident (which many George Mason University students are not), it's even more difficult. You must meet additional requirements, like providing impressions of your fingerprints and a current photo. With such stringent requirements to both buy a gun and obtain a CHP, why does Mason refuse to allow students who have jumped through the necessary bureaucratic hoops to carry handguns on campus? Strangely enough, this only applies to Mason students, faculty and staff. I could have lunch on campus with 50 of my closest CHP holders, = all carrying a concealed handgun, and there is nothing illegal about it. However, if I personally partook in that Second Amendment extravagance, I could be expelled. This policy is all done in the name = of safety. But how is our campus safer by taking away our constitutionally protected right to defend ourselves? Students, faculty and staff should also be permitted to carry concealed weapons. And quite frankly, I'd feel safer knowing there are = armed and sensible people on campus who know how to handle a firearm. While gun rights opponents would have you believe that guns sneak around at night committing crimes, such claims are simply false. Criminals and the mentally deranged (if they are separate groups of people) commit crimes, guns do not. Criminals would like nothing more than a ban on guns because they will = still find ways to get them and it makes their victims powerless to defend themselves. If the ban on guns is lifted, here is what will happen: crime will go down, women will feel safer walking around at night, criminals will think twice about victimizing students and Mason will gain a reputation for being a friend to the U.S. Constitution. ************************************************** 18. State police stances puzzle some legislators ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/yyoxzf4 www.roanoke.com By Julian Walker (The Virginian-Pilot) April 21, 2010 RICHMOND -- For years the Virginia State Police made no secret of their view on raising highway speed limits and on certain gun proposals, particularly allowing concealed weapons in bars. Both, officials said, weren't good ideas. But this year, following a change in leadership at the governor's mansion, the agency either switched its stance or remained silent. Some tenured legislators raised their eyebrows during this year's General Assembly session when a state police official spoke in favor of raising speed limits to 70 mph on certain state highways because the agency previously had opposed it. The shift in position followed instructions from Gov. Bob McDonnell's administration to the law enforcement agency that a public endorsement = was expected, according to a government source with knowledge of the conversations who spoke on the condition of anonymity. Administration officials made it clear to state police that they were expected to back the speed limit change, which McDonnell supported, and remain silent on some gun measures, the source said. State police offered testimony on at least one gun proposal this year -- defeated legislation to require criminal background checks on certain private gun sales -- before being hushed on others, the source added. 'Of course we discuss the administration's positions on legislation with executive branch agencies that may be asked for technical comment,' said Tucker Martin, a spokesman for the governor. 'We want them to know where we stand and what our preferred outcome is for each = measure. That's not a conspiracy, that's just basic communication.' Through a spokesperson, state police Superintendent Col. Steven Flaherty declined to comment for this article. Dictation to executive branch agencies certainly isn't unique to McDonnell's staff. Each new administration pursues its priorities, which can differ dramatically when there is a partisan shift at the top of government, as there was when McDonnell, a Republican, took over in January after eight years of Democratic control. However, some critics said that pushing administrative priorities despite past public safety concerns raises troubling questions. Senate Majority Leader Richard Saslaw, D-Fairfax County, acknowledged that a new administration means new priorities, but added, 'If the state police believes something is not safe, they ought not be muzzled.' [PVC: Governor Kaine directed the State Police to testify in favor of closing the non-existent 'gun show loophole' a few years ago. Saslaw didn't seem to find Kaine using the State Police as political puppets as objectionable. But that's just more of Saslaw's duplicity on guns.] 'It seemed jarring to me at the time that you'd have a reversal like this,' said Del. David Toscano, D-Charlottesville. He said he would have concerns 'if an agency were prevailed upon to put its thumb on the scale' instead of objectively evaluating the facts. In the past, state police opposed efforts to increase highway speed limits, believing it would increase the potential for wrecks and fatalities, former state police Superintendent Gerald Massengill said. Russ Rader of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety said those fears are validated by several studies showing 'that when speed limits = go up, fatal crashes go up on those roads.' Still, 2009 figures from the National Conference of State Legislatures = show that more than 30 states have speed limits of at least 70 mph on some highways. In Virginia, state highway and law enforcement officials will have input on which roads will get speed limits boosts, noted Del. Bill Carrico, R-Grayson County, a retired state trooper who carried a 70 mph bill for McDonnell. When Massengill was told of the state police's change in stance, he wasn't shocked. 'You don't go out and advocate for something that's in opposition to the governor's policies,' explained Massengill, who served as superintendent from 2000-03. State police aren't the only law enforcement group that eased off past = concerns this year. Interest groups are aware that a governor is powerful enough to influence how their legislative priorities fare and how their operating budgets are funded. As a result, there can be reluctance to pick a fight with the administration on something it favors, and has the votes to pass. Because it was focused on protecting funding for law enforcement operations amid a recession, the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police wasn't as publicly vocal on bills such as the speed limit increase and some gun rights measures this year, even though the group = had previously made known its reservations about them. The group did write McDonnell after the session asking him to veto a bill that would = permit concealed weapons in bars. The Virginia Sheriffs' Association likewise gave much of its attention = to budget issues this year and didn't engage in the speed limit bill or on gun measures, association Executive Director John Jones said. [PVC: Good for them!] But in the past, said former Del. David Poisson, D-Loudoun County, who = served on the committee that considers gun bills, a variety of law enforcement advocates including the state police lobbied him to vote against bills expanding certain gun rights. 'There was never a case where a police officer came into my office and = said, 'You need to vote for that' ' gun rights expansion bill, added Poisson. ************************************************** 19. Dan (from NY/NJ by way of MD) Casey at it again ************************************************** More signs of desperation. Dan Casey wants everyone to get excited about a murder THIRTEEN YEARS ago by a couple of brothers who had been = approved to get a CHP (but shouldn't have been - another governmental 'snafu'), had not received their permits, and were carrying illegally in a restaurant where alcohol was served. One single event, out of hundreds of thousands of CHP holders carrying for all those years. Is that the best you can do, Mr. Casey? For that all hundreds of thousands of gun owners should have their rights ripped away? I think not. EM Dave Hicks emailed me this: -- http://tinyurl.com/2dnpy7p www.roanoke.com By Dan Casey April 18, 2010 Gov. Bob McDonnell put his signature on a law Tuesday that has been long desired by the pro-handgun crowd. Starting July 1, concealed-carry permit holders may legally bring their hidden handguns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol (but they may not legally drink). Whether this prospect frightens you, excites you, or instantly makes you feel more secure, here's a true story. It's about a couple of Virginia concealed-carry permit holders, and another guy, and events that unfolded in a Blacksburg bar on Aug. 30, 1997. Those permit-holders' names are Terry and Kerry Scales and today they are 35 years old. They're identical twin brothers and they grew up as fine, upstanding, church-attending young men in Henry County. Their concealed handgun permits were approved by the Henry County Circuit Court on Aug. 28, 1997. The other guy's name is Richard Bullard. Though he was 6 feet 3 inches tall and 300 pounds, Bullard's friends and family described him as a gentle giant. He was 30, single and worked at a Sears store in Fort Walton Beach, Fla. His aunt, Peggy Darden of Biloxi, Miss., said this about him: 'He was not an aggressive person. He could have been a great football player if he'd have had the killer instinct. He had the size but not the disposition.' His sister, Phyllis Bullard, of Waco, Texas, told this newspaper: 'He was so gentle you would not believe. ... I'd start an argument and = fuss with him, and he wouldn't even open his mouth. I always called him my big gentle giant.' On Aug. 30, 1997, Bullard was visiting our region to be part of a wedding party. One of his best friends, Tim Shoemaker, was marrying a woman from Giles County, Christina Beasley. The ceremony took place at a church in Giles County. After a reception = in the church's gym, the bride and groom left for their honeymoon. Later that night, Bullard and some others from the wedding group decided to continue the party in Blacksburg. They wound up at Arnold's Restaurant, a since-closed bar in downtown Blacksburg. The Scales twins and their older brother Leon and their uncle, Marlin Scales, were at Arnold's as well. And the twins had handguns in their pockets. The trouble started because one of the men in the Scales group flirted = with one of the women in the wedding party. That launched an argument, which became a shoving match, which may or may not have caused Bullard to grab Kerry Scales' neck and begin choking him. What happened next is not in dispute. Kerry Scales pulled his .357-caliber revolver out of his pocket and fired five shots into Bullard's chest and abdomen. Bullard crumpled to = the dance floor. Someone else threw Terry Scales down on the ground. He pulled his .38- caliber revolver and wildly fired two shots. One struck Bullard in the head. The other struck Paul Shoemaker, the groom's cousin, in the chest. He was critically wounded but later recovered. Bullard was dead on the spot. The Scales brothers and their uncle ran out the door. The twins hid their handguns in some nearby trash cans. Police arrested them later, and a grand jury charged them with second-degree murder. A jury convicted them and each got 24 years. They're incarcerated at the Lawrenceville Correctional Center. At his sentencing hearing, Terry Scales' lawyer asked him this question: 'If you had this to do all over again, would you have taken that gun in there that night?' 'No, sir,' Terry Scales replied. There you have it. One man dead, two brothers serving long prison sentences. Three lives ruined. Because of two handguns in a bar. And now, nearly 13 years later, it will be legal for concealed handgun = permit holders to take their hidden pistols into Virginia bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. One argument you always hear from the gun lobby is this: Concealed guns are already in those bars, but they are being carried only by lawbreakers. The new law levels the playing field, they say. But this can only result in more guns in Virginia bars. That cannot be a good thing. Those permit-holding gun hiders will most likely be trained and sane (though not necessarily). And at least they will be law-abiding citizens with clean criminal records. Just as the Scales brothers were -- until Aug. 30, 1997. ************************************************** 20. Good write-up on Arizona's Constitutional Carry ************************************************** http://tinyurl.com/2bdyccd www.freerepublic.com By Alan Korwin April 17, 2010 [SNIP] 'Freedom To Carry' may replace so-called 'Right To Carry' nationally PHOENIX - With governor Jan Brewer's signature on the new 'Constitutional Carry' firearm law today, Arizona becomes a beacon state for the nation on the gun-rights issue. Arizonans, who have been free to carry firearms openly since statehood = in 1912, will now be free to carry discreetly as well, without permits = or red tape. Low-crime Vermont has had this freedom intact since Colonial days. The permit system remains in place but will no longer be required for discreet carry. Alaska enacted a Constitutional Carry law in 2003, and Texas passed a limited version for traveling in 2007. Montana has enjoyed this freedom since 1991 on 99.4% of its land (outside city limits). These states experienced no increase in crime or accidents from the expanded = freedom to discreetly bear arms in public. However, numerous dire warnings of 'blood in the streets' preceded those new laws, but proved = false. A list of circulating myths about the law, also known as 'Freedom To Carry,' appears at the end of this article. Arizona's extremely strict laws on criminal misuse of firearms are unaffected by the new public freedoms, although a penalty for criminals got tougher. New language now makes concealed carry in the commission of a serious crime a felony. This led to support of the bill from police around the state. Formerly, that offense was a misdemeanor. The intrusive government 'permit' system in Arizona, introduced in 1994 with paperwork, approvals, fingerprinting, criminal-database listings, required classes, two mandatory tests, taxation and expiration dates to exercise 'rights' is still available, but is now optional. Enormous police resources that could be going directly toward reducing crime have instead been diverted by the program into registering, regulating and tracking the innocent. About 3% of the public have signed up for the plastic-coated permission slips, though an estimated 50% of the state's population keeps and bears arms. Official sources acknowledge they get millions of dollars per year from the permit taxes called 'fees.' 'This new law brings rights restoration for the public, and an increase in freedom for law-abiding people,' said Dave Kopp, a lobbyist for the Arizona Citizens Defense League that requested and promoted the new law. 'The people have the same right to bear arms discreetly that they have to bear arms openly, we are simply correcting statute to reflect that. If your jacket accidentally covers = your sidearm, that no longer exposes you to criminal penalties.' A woman will be able to put a handgun in her handbag, go about her business, and not be subject to arrest. The key changes in the law were made by repealing the infringing language in A.R.S. =1513-3102, not by enacting new rules. A number of other changes were made in SB 1108, the bill that carried the Constitutional Carry law, and these will be described in plain English = and posted by gunlaws.com next week. The new law will become effective = 90 days after the legislature closes, or approximately in July. 'Opportunities for firearms training and gun safety can increase tremendously with this new law', said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide, the book that describes the state's gun laws in plain English. 'Instead of focusing on a tiny percentage of the market willing to submit to the permit system, smart trainers can now offer Freedom To Carry classes to the general public. We're anticipating Family Days At The Range and Constitutional Carry classes = to spring up statewide,' he said. Removal of the $60 tax for the permit represents a significant discount, he notes. 'We sold The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide by the truckload for five years = before there was any CCW law, and expect to do the same now, though permit holders did become and will remain a segment of our business,' Korwin said. The Guide is now in its 24th edition, and a free update will be released shortly. The book's publisher, Scottsdale-based Bloomfield Press, is the largest publisher and distributor of gun-law books in the country. http://www.gunlaws.com The permission-slip system is unaffected and offers some advantages to = citizens. Other states recognize the Arizona permit under 'reciprocity,' which allows permit holders to carry firearms when in those states (currently 23 according to the Dept. of Public Safety). In addition, since permitees are constantly monitored through the criminal databases DPS registers them in, they can shop at retail for firearms without undergoing separate FBI background checks each time they make a purchase. Also, some people just get a sense of security by having a plastic government 'authorization' card in their wallets, and they enjoy showing it to friends. Another CCW-permit benefit is the ability to carry in restaurants that = serve alcohol, as long as the restaurant itself doesn't ban possession = and the person doesn't drink while there. Whether those various denials of rights will be eliminated in future legislation, making the = general public equal to permission-slip holders, was unknown at press time. Previously only people with government-permission cards in their possession could bear arms in certain parks. That ban was eliminated by a separate bill this year, which now makes permit holders and the general public equal. According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven