Monday, October 10, 2011

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 10/10/11

Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at:
VCDL's meeting schedule:
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT:

1. VCDL meeting, Wed., Nov. 2 at 7:00pm in Mechanicsville -- Hanover Sheriff's Department to discuss how they handle "man with a gun" calls
2. James City County approves changes to gun ordinance
3. New gun store in Falls Church
4. Up coming blood drive event with a lawyer discussing "post shooting" situations
5. State election
6. Another robbery at UVA
7. Elderly man shot during home invasion
8. LTE to Virginian-Pilot
9. Obama evades 'Fast and Furious' questions from Latino media
10. Anderson Cooper CNN piece on "Fast & Furious" (video)
11. 'Gunwalker' reports -- no credit given to Codrea
12. U.S. government used taxpayer funds to buy, sell weapons during 'Fast and Furious,' documents show
13. S.176 could set CHP standards nationwide
14. Oregon court OKs all gun owners on campus
15. 'Chicks with Guns': Some 15 million US women pack heat
16. Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house
17. Media cannot fathom why murder is down when personal gun sales are up over the years
18. Safer streets 2012: Repeal all gun laws, part I
19. ODU and UVA on VCDL "Operation Campus Safety" protest list, too!

1. VCDL meeting, Wed., Nov. 2 at 7:00pm in Mechanicsville -- Hanover Sheriff's Department to discuss how they handle "man with a gun" calls

VCDL is having a membership meeting on Wednesday, November 2, in Mechanicsville. The Hanover Sheriff's department will be talking about how they handle "man with a gun" calls.

The meeting will be from 7 PM to 9 PM at:

7461 Sherwood Crossing Place, Mechanicsville, VA 23111

Thanks to EM Patricia Webb for making the arrangements.

2. James City County approves changes to gun ordinance

I attended the James City County Board of Supervisors meeting and spoke. They brought their air gun laws into alignment with state law and loosened up their hunting laws slightly, too. I open carried to the meeting and spoke with the police and staff - all were very pleasant and professional. Overall a positive meeting.


JCC Supes Approve Changes to Gun Ordinance
By Desiree Parker
September 29, 2011

James City County supervisors voted 3-2 to approve changes to the county's firearm ordinance.

The changes clarify the definition of a subdivision so it specifies property that is divided into two or more lots after August 31, 1964; that has a recorded plat; and that has lots created for residential or commercial purposes. The changes also add an option that make getting an exception from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries easier than it is currently and update a part of the ordinance on pneumatic guns to bring it into line with state code. The board approved the changes, with supervisors Jim Kennedy and Bruce Goodson dissenting.

After explaining the proposed changes, Assistant County Attorney Lola Perkins told the board Tuesday that the county had met with owners of one property in the county who had concerns about the enforcement of the current ordinance regarding discharging a firearm in a subdivision.

Charles and Nancy Sheppard have previously complained to the board previously that they can't discharge weapons on their 50-acre property because it is considered a subdivision, though they argue other buildings are far away from their large lot. The Sheppards' attorney, Steve Roberts, addressed the board Tuesday and said his clients wanted the board to add a large-acre subdivision exception, instead of the changes that were proposed.

County staff explained that residents can currently discharge weapons anywhere in the county to protect property or life, or to shoot dangerous animals such as coyotes.

Staff also pointed out that citizens can currently get an exception to hunt from DGIF through a permit; the proposed change would allow citizens to apply for a DGIF wildlife management plan, which is a somewhat simpler process.

The DGIF change would allow more people to hunt on their land with smaller acreage, compared to offering a large-acre exception, according to staff.

A wildlife plan would have to be approved by the Chief of Police, who can control variables such as what types of guns are used to execute the plan, or when the plan can occur. The Chief can also choose to deny a plan, but a police spokesman on hand could not recall a time when a plan had been rejected.

County Administrator Robert Middaugh explained to the Board that DGIF permits aren't always approved, and permits would not be given if it somehow puts a citizen in harm's way.

County Attorney Leo Rogers told the board that the county had received "numerous complaints about discharge of firearms on this property," likely referring to the Sheppard's land. He also said one citizen had challenged the definition of a subdivision and the change will make the definition very clear and help the county avoid litigation.

A few board members asked staff what the biggest changes were; staff indicated that very few changes were made. The biggest change, according to Middaugh, is it will be easier for citizens to get a DGIF plan, versus using the permit system.

Roberts said that he felt the change in the definition of a subdivision was a significant change, and he seemed concerned that staff didn't indicate this to the board. "I think [this change] will result in unintended consequences," he said.

A few citizens spoke to the board about the issue, including Melissa Conner from neighboring nonprofit Dreamcatchers, a therapeutic riding facility. She said she had "grave concerns" about gunfire being heard by people and animals on the facility and she asked the board to oppose the changes.

A representative for the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League came and asked the board to "be as lenient as you can with this policy," and pointed out that other localities such as York County have gotten rid of their local firearms ordinances altogether.

Kennedy said he felt that hunting conduct is already regulated without the proposed changes and that citizens can get the DGIF to approve permits already, so he decided to vote no.

Goodson said "to me, this is a problem we're looking for," instead of a real problem that needs to be addressed. He said he wouldn't vote for the plan because "the family doesn't support it, and the neighbors don't support it."

Chairman Mary Jones felt the new ordinance "provides more options for citizens," so she chose to vote in favor of adopting it along with fellow board members Jim Icenhour and John McGlennon.

3. New gun store in Falls Church

Scott Kahn emailed me this:



I wanted to let you know that the only Virginia-based gun store inside the Beltway has opened up in--of all places--the City of Falls Church. I stopped in today and the owner seems very knowledgeable and professional. Thought I'd pass along the good word; I'm sure there are many VCDL newsletter subscribers in the area who could benefit from a convenient shop, since Arlington and Alexandria have chased all the others out of business.

NOVA Firearms:
412 W. Broad Street, Suite 2
Falls Church, Virginia 22046
(703) 622-0747

4. Up coming blood drive event with a lawyer discussing "post shooting" situations

Christopher Galosi emailed me this:


Dear Phillip,

There is a Blood Drive going on at the Masonic Temple in Norfolk. What makes this one so special is that I'm having a lawyer from Collins Law coming to talk about Post Shooting Incidents and the Police and the Conservation Officers to talk about the new Hunting and Fishing Regulations.

We will also have Operation Child Id, Norfolk Crime and Fire Prevention, plus a spaghetti dinner ($7.00). Everything else is free.

Below is a link to my webpage with the info.


Christopher Galosi


5. State election

David Gilmore emailed me this. The current Senate leadership here in Virginia is strongly anti-freedom and that must be changed or good gun bills will languish. We need a regime change in the Senate! One way is to vote out the bad Senate leaders. Another is to convince the Democrats to elect pro-gun leadership (highly unlikely, unfortunately). If you can't do either, then another way is to wrestle the leadership role out of the hands of the Democrats by putting them in the minority.

I will make the following observation on the email below: while Senator Houck is generally good on guns, he has been terrible on the issue of privacy of CHP holders. He has fought VCDL's efforts to keep the press from publishing CHP holder names and addresses.



I did something that might be of interest to others in VCDL, see what you
think and use it anyway you want if you think it may have some value.

As with all of us, my State Senator, Edd Houck (D, 17th District) is up for
re-election. He has a NRA rating of "A" and from what I can see on the VCDL
Web Site he has not voted against us on Firearm issues. I have sent him an
e-mail, posted on his Web Page and made comments on all Political Surveys
that I have received that I will not be voting for him this year. Although I
will cast my vote for his Republican Opponent, I'm not voting for him
either, I'm voting against Saslaw and his anti-gun agenda. Since the
Democrats control the State Senate and they keep putting Saslaw in as their
Leader, I have to do everything in my power to keep Saslaw, and his anti-gun
agenda, from keeping his Majority Leader Status. I let him know that I'm
sorry I have to vote against him (Edd Houck) because I think he has done a
good job, however, he and the rest of his Democrat Senators keep Saslaw in
place and that is not acceptable!

I think this idea might be effective especially if you have a Democrat
Senator that is normally good for you, and, it would put you in position to
work with that Senator if they were to get re-elected.

David Gilmore

6. Another robbery at UVA

A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this. My comments are in square brackets:


To the University community:

Charlottesville Police are investigating an armed robbery that occurred near the 500 block of Rugby Road at approximately 2:24 a.m. this morning, Sept. 28, 2011. The male victim, a University student, reported that he was walking north on Rugby Road near Grady Avenue behind three black males. As they approached the intersection of Grady Avenue, two of the men turned and walked toward the victim. One pulled out a hand gun, pointed it at the victim and demanded his property. Taken in the robbery was an undisclosed amount of cash and personal items.

The suspect with the hand gun was described as being between 20 and 25 years old and 6-foot-2 to 6-foot-3 and 180 to 190 pounds. He had a light complexion and was wearing dark clothing. The second suspect was described as being between 20 to 25 years old, approximately 6-feet tall, and 170 to 180 pounds. He had a darker complexion and was also wearing dark clothing.

Anyone with any information is asked to call Crime Stoppers (434) 977-4000.

We believe that the Charlottesville-Albemarle-
University area is a safe community, but crime does happen. We encourage you to be aware of your surroundings -- especially if walking alone after dark.

We want to remind you of some of the things you can do to protect yourself and your friends if faced with a similar situation.

During a robbery:

1. DO NOT RESIST! Cooperate. Give the suspect(s) whatever he or she asks for: wallet, keys, jewelry, credit cards or whatever. Your life is more valuable than replaceable possessions [PVC: If he wants your life or your body, then what, Chief??? Just let him take what he wants? Is that what the Chief tells his wife to do - just submit to being murdered or raped? This kind of Mickey Mouse advice disgusts me.]

2. Be the best witness you can be by getting a good look at the suspect(s) so you can describe him or her later. Try to note clothing, scars, marks, tattoos, facial hair and last direction of travel.

3. Don't make any sudden, unexpected moves. A nervous criminal may think you are reaching for a weapon. [PVC: Why? That's exactly what I will be doing!]

4. If the suspect claims to have a gun, knife, razor or whatever, never try to force the bluff. [PVC: I won't. I will assume he is telling me the truth and will react accordingly.]

5. Never try to be a hero and apprehend the criminal yourself. [PVC: Agreed.]

6. Notify police immediately by calling 911.

Please remember that there is safety in numbers. If possible, walk with a companion, either male or female -- especially after dark and in the early morning hours. An armed robber is less likely to confront two or more than a lone individual. [PVC: It's no guarantee and may not be possible. Again, is this how the Chief's wife is expected to live her life? Going out only in the day or going out in numbers at night? What good is freedom if you are expected to hide in your home all the time? After listening to this line of advice, tell me again that gun owners are the ones that are paranoid! Sheesh.]

Michael A. Gibson
Chief, University of Virginia Police Department

7. Elderly man shot during home invasion

John Treaster emailed me this:



Man shot during home invasion treated
Elderly man treated and released from hospital
Tuesday, 27 Sep 2011

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (WAVY) - An elderly Newport News man was shot Monday afternoon after two men forced their way into his home.

Police were called to the scene of a home invasion in the 1200 block of Garden Drive, off State Route 167, around 2:45 p.m.

The 75-year-old, referred to by friends as "Mr. Bob," told police that he went to answer his door and found two men at the doorstep. The men then forced their way inside and began fighting the victim.

Police said as the suspects tried to force their way into the victim's apartment, the victim grabbed a metal rod to defend himself. During the struggle, the victim was shot in the left hand.

The suspects then ran from the scene.

"He doesn't bother anybody," the victim's friend said. "He's there for anybody who needs help, because he is a helping man. I'm angry about it. This is crazy."

Friends told 10 On Your Side that Mr. Bob is a military veteran. He was permanently wounded while in the service and uses a scooter to get around. They believe the robbers thought he had money in his house.

"The people around here want to do things to older folks," Mr. Bob's friend, who didn't want to be identified, said.

Police said the victim was treated and released from the hospital on Monday.

8. LTE to Virginian-Pilot

David Swain emailed me this. Richard Popkin is a VCDL member and gun show booth volunteer:


There was a great letter to the editor in the Virginian-Pilot a couple days ago by Richard Popkin who said he is a donor to ODU and its School of Business and he regularly carries on campus when he attends various events. He said in the letter he will stop donating if ODU's regulation passes.


ODU errs on campus safety

The proposed regulation by the administration of Old Dominion University barring the concealed carry of firearms by permit holders is an ill-advised travesty, almost sure to create tragic, unintended consequences. At best, this would be a feel-good solution in search of a problem. Because this group of educators hates firearms and the freedom guaranteed to us by our heritage and the Constitution, they will loudly advertise to all with violent intent that here is a sanctuary of helpless victims.

I am an alumnus of Old Dominion University and have been to men's and women's basketball games, football games, graduations and business fairs on campus. I feel it is not only my right but my duty as a citizen to be armed.

I have gone to a luncheon with the dean of the School of Business and Public Administration and had a guided tour of the school, all while armed. Everybody was safer for the presence of my pistol, and no one was alarmed at my appearance. I looked just like any other aging baby boomer.

I have given, over the years, to the general fund, to the School of Business and to the Big Blue Club. Should this regulation pass, no more will I make these contributions. I support the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America and The Virginia Citizens Defense League in fighting for the right to keep and bear arms. It strikes me as counterproductive to support businesses, organizations or institutions that fight against these rights.

Richard Popkin

9. Obama evades 'Fast and Furious' questions from Latino media

Board member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:


From [video]

Obama evades 'Fast and Furious' questions from Latino media
By Matthew Boyle

During a White House roundtable with three Spanish-language media outlets on Wednesday, President Barack Obama skated around questions about Operation Fast and Furious.

"We're working very hard to have a much more effective interdiction effort ... we are checking southbound transit ... to capture illegal guns, illegal cash transfers to cartels," he said at the morning event with representatives from Yahoo!, MSN Latino, and AOL Latino/Huffington Post Latino Voices. "It is something we've been building ... it's not yet finished, and there's more work to do," he said.

Conservative Action Fund treasurer Shaun McCutcheon told The Daily Caller that Obama's inability to answer basic questions about Operation Fast and Furious suggests the administration is covering up even more about the controversial program.

"The more that comes out about this Fast and Furious scandal, the more we realize that there are very real dangers in a government that is too big to monitor itself," McCutcheon said in an email. "The Obama administration refuses to take responsibility for the deaths of Americans and Mexicans alike under their watch because of their program."

Obama blamed budget problems, in part, for what some see as ATF's incompetence. "Part of the problem is budgetary [and] ... we are going to have to figure out ways to operate smarter and more efficiently in investigations without a huge expansion of resources because those resources are aren't there."

No reporters at the roundtable pressed Obama further on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives program. Operation Fast and Furious was an Obama administration program in which ATF agents facilitated the sale of firearms to Mexican drug cartels via "straw purchasers" who could legally purchases guns in the United States, but were doing so with the intention of trafficking them into Mexico.

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa and Sen. Chuck Grassley have pursued a congressional investigation into the ATF operation over the past several months, and that has led to at least a few high-ranking Obama administration resignations. Their investigations have also revealed that White House officials were aware of Fast and Furious and the ATF tactics the program employed.

Conservative groups are unlikely to let this scandal die down without greater accountability.

"This Fast and Furious scandal reminds us that cronyism is murderous and its politics are dangerous," Ali Akbar, a political consultant for the conservative Vice and Victory told TheDC. "I'm talking with other conservative groups and we're not letting this go. We applaud Chairman Issa for pursuing this national tragedy that looks like it trickles all the way up to the top."

UPDATE 5:21 p.m.

From the White House press office, here's the full transcript of Obama's Fast and Furious exchange on Wednesday:

MR. [JOSE] SIADE [of Yahoo! Espanol]: Mr. President, this question comes from Karina in Ohio: Mr. President, what is your strategy to stop the flow of weapons bought with drug money in the U.S. and then sent to Mexico, especially after what happened in Operation Fast and Furious?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is a great challenge, and I've been the first one to admit -- I've said this publicly in bilateral meetings with President Calderon that there's a two-way street in terms of the problems of transnational drug operations. The Mexican government I think has been very courageous in taking on these cartels, at great cost, obviously, with respect to violence in Mexico. That's the right thing to do.

We have to be a more effective partner in both reducing demand for drugs here in the United States and for stemming the flow of weapons and cash that help to finance and facilitate these cartels. So we're working very hard to have a much more effective interdiction effort of south to north -- or north to south traffic than we have in the past, so we are checking southbound transit to try to capture illegal guns, illegal cash transfers to drug cartels. It is something that we have been building over the last couple of years; it's not yet finished.

And there's going to be more work to do.

Part of the issue here, obviously, is budgetary. At a time when the federal government is looking for ways to save money, we're going to have to figure out ways to operate smarter and more effective in our investigations without a huge expansion of resources because those resources aren't there.

MR. SIADE: And in terms of the demand here in the U.S., what kind of efforts -

THE PRESIDENT: With respect to the demand in the U.S., our drug czar here in the United States I think has done a very good job working with schools and local communities, working with local law enforcement to try and continue to reduce drug demand. One of the things that I've always believed is that -- and this is reflective in my administration's policy -- is that we can't just think about this as a law enforcement issue; we also have to think of it as a public health issue.

If you think about the enormous changes that have been made in terms of people's use of tobacco, for example, that wasn't because they were arrested. It was also because young people were taught that smoking was bad for your health, it didn't make you cool -- public service announcements. So I think taking a comprehensive approach that includes interdiction and law enforcement, but also takes into account public health strategies, treatment.

A lot of cities around the country, if you decide that you want to rid yourself of drugs, you may have to wait three months, six months, to get into a local treatment program. Well, that's not going to be particularly effective. So what we've been trying to see is can we get more resources into treatment, more resources into a public health approach, even as we continue to target the cartels, the drug kingpins, those who are really responsible for perpetrating the drug trade in communities across the country.

10. Anderson Cooper CNN piece on "Fast & Furious" (video)

Dean Rogers emailed me this:


Anderson Cooper had a scathing report on Fast & Furious tonight on CNN. It is a winner of a piece considering that it is CNN. Here is part of it:


11. 'Gunwalker' reports -- no credit given to Codrea

EM Hal Macklin emailed me this:


This is really a story of how the Grassroots can accomplish a great deal of good -- only to get no credit for it.


Taxpayer Dollars Used To Purchase Weapons for Mexican Cartels
26 SEP 2011

From David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh writing at Examiner and Sipsey Street Irregulars we learn how Operation Gunwalker (or Fast and Furious) was no botched sting operation.

In a letter dated June 1, 2010, then Phoenix ATF Group VII supervisor David Voth instructed a Federal Firearms Licensee in Arizona as follows:

Dear Sir,

Per Section 925(a)(1) of the Gun Control Act (GCA) exempts law enforcement agencies from the transportation, shipment, receipt, or importation controls of the GCA when firearms are to be used for the official business of the agency.

Please accept this letter in lieu of completing an ATF Form 4473 for the purchase of four (4) CAI, Model Draco, 7.6239 mm pistols, by Special Agent John Dodson. These aforementioned pistols will be used by Special Agent Dodson in furtherance of the performance of his official duties. In addition, Special Agent Dodson has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. If you have any questions, you may contact me at telephone number 602-605-6501.



David Voth

ATF Group Supervisor

Phoenix Group VII

In the lower left-hand margin of the one-page letter is the hand-written notation:

"Picked guns

up 6/10/10

Paid Cash"

"Paid Cash" is underlined.

The existence of this letter provided to these reporters by a previously reliable source familiar with the Fast and Furious investigation, coupled with interviews of other sources across the country which put it into context, provides startling proof that the Federal government did not merely "lose track" of weapons purchased by "straw buyers" under surveillance by the ATF and destined for the Mexican drug cartels. In an undercover operation ordered by Fast and Furious supervisor David Voth, the U.S. government purchased firearms with taxpayer money from licensed firearms dealers, instructed them to conduct the sales "off the books," and used an ATF agent, John Dodson, to deliver them directly to people that Dodson believed were conducting them across the border.

They go further to discuss how Dodson was almost surely set up to keep him from becoming a whistle-blower for the illegal operation. This isn't news. But what is certainly news is how the news treated this revelation. Bob Owens followed up this story with analysis of his own, and then remarks concerning a Fox News article on the same subject in one of the comments:

Fox News pretty much lifted their article part and parcel from Codrea and Vanderboegh, and should be considered plagiarists. No link to either of their sites, and Sispsey Street was only mentioned in passing; the Examiner not at all.

David Codrea and Mike Vanderboegh have been out front on this scandal ever since it broke. In fact, they helped to break it. Their contacts beat any other in the main stream media. Yet as Owens notes, there isn't even a single link to Sipsey Street Irregulars or Examiner. The failure properly to source simply propagates, with The Daily Mail sourcing Fox News.

For a period of time Matt Drudge had a link to the Fox News article as his headline. This, my friends, is stolen traffic. Fox News stole the content investigated and written by Codrea and Vanderboegh and posted it as their own.

This is shameful in professional journalism. Fox News owes David and Mike an apology and explanation.

One final note concerns the explanation by Voth of how the Gun Control Act allowed exemption from its stipulations for LEOs. One commenter remarks at Owens' post:

Using agency funds (taxpayers' money) to buy the weapons to be transferred to the cartels means that the operation has, prima facie, violated U.S. Code Title 18, Part 1, chap. 96, section 1960-61, defining the use of federal funds to illegally obtain and/or transfer controlled substances and/or items to unauthorized third parties.

To do this within the law (as in a drug transaction) requires a bench warrant from a state or federal court. The buying or selling has to be done in a controlled manner, the item(s) must never be out of law enforcement control (meaning they at least must be tracked), and they cannot cross state lines or national boundaries without proper notification of authorities on the "receiving end".

"Fast & Furious" and "Gunwalker" have, on the face of it, violated all of the above provisions.

The argument that the exemptions were intended to allow the trafficking of weapons across national borders is ridiculous in the superlative. Of course, this won't fly anywhere, not in court or even with the court of public opinion. Also note how Voth failed to mention the Arms Export Control Act.



Where Due

The Captain is right--we should have been given links and name credit in the Fox piece--but my biggest beef is with Drudge, who has never given a link to exclusives we have generated even though I always send him the tips.


From the Gun Rights Examiner:

Another F&F 'bombshell' and a familiar name rises to surface
By Dave Workman
September 26, 2011

While Congressional and public attention is focused on Monday's revelation that taxpayer money was used to purchase several, AK-style firearms that were subsequently allowed to "walk" into the hands of suspected gun runners, there are two key details to this story that should not be overlooked.

First, according to Congressional sources, the case reported Monday about taxpayer money being used by an ATF agent working undercover to directly purchase guns is apparently not a Fast and Furious case but a separate case. More about that in a moment.

Second, and more important, the name of former Phoenix Group Supervisor David Voth with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is dead center in this new development. Voth is the man who infamously sent the following message, first noted by this column on March 4, to his unhappy subordinates in Operation Fast and Furious back in March 2010:

12. U.S. government used taxpayer funds to buy, sell weapons during 'Fast and Furious,' documents show


U.S. Government Used Taxpayer Funds to Buy, Sell Weapons During 'Fast and Furious,' Documents Show
By William Lajeunesse
September 26, 2011

Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared.

This disclosure, revealed in documents obtained by Fox News, could undermine the Department of Justice's previous defense that Operation Fast and Furious was a "botched" operation where agents simply "lost track" of weapons as they were transferred from one illegal buyer to another. Instead, it heightens the culpability of the federal government as Mexico, according to sources, has opened two criminal investigations into the operation that flooded their country with illegal weapons.

Operation Fast and Furious began in October 2009. In it, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives encouraged gun stores to sell weapons to an arms smuggling gang, then watched as the guns crossed the border and were used in crimes. Each month, the agency allowed hundreds of guns to go South, despite opposition from some agents.

All told, the gang spent more than $1.25 million for the illegal guns.

In June 2010, however, the ATF dramatically upped the ante, making the U.S. government the actual "seller" of guns.

According to documents obtained by Fox News, Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy six semi-automatic Draco pistols -- two of those were purchased at the Lone Wolf gun store in Peoria, Ariz. An unusual sale, Dodson was sent to the store with a letter of approval from David Voth, an ATF group supervisor.

Dodson then sold the weapons to known illegal buyers, while fellow agents watched from their cars nearby.

This was not a "buy-bust" or a sting operation, where police sell to a buyer and then arrest them immediately afterward. In this case, agents were "ordered" to let the sale go through and follow the weapons to a stash house.

According to sources directly involved in the case, Dodson felt strongly that the weapons should not be abandoned and the stash house should remain under 24-hour surveillance. However, Voth disagreed and ordered the surveillance team to return to the office. Dodson refused, and for six days in the desert heat kept the house under watch, defying direct orders from Voth.

A week later, a second vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons. Dodson called for an interdiction team to move in, make the arrest and seize the weapons. Voth refused and the guns disappeared with no surveillance.

According to a story posted Sunday on a website dedicated to covering Fast and Furious, Voth gave Dodson the assignment to "dirty him up," since Dodson had become the most vocal critic of the operation.

"I think Dodson demanded the letter from Voth to cover both himself and the FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee). He didn't want to be hung out to dry by Voth," a source told the website "Sipsey Street Irregulars."

Subsequent to this undercover operation, sources told Sipsey, "Dodson just about came apart all over them (his supervisors). In a 'screaming match' that was heard throughout the Phoenix office by many employees, Dodson yelled at Voth and Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett, 'Why not just go direct and empty out the (ATF) arms room?" (to the cartels), or words to that effect.'

After the confrontation, ATF managers transferred Dodson to a more menial job. Months later, after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, Dodson blew the whistle and went public about the federal government's gunrunning operation.

13. S.176 could set CHP standards nationwide

One concern of VCDL is that if a national concealed carry bill passes, that the feds will eventually try to set standards and control the issue of CHPs. The first bill discussed below attempts to do just that.

William Noell emailed me this list of federal gun control bills. More reasons why next years federal elections will be critical in many ways:


S.176: Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sen. Barbara L. Boxer (D-Calif.)
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

This bill mandates a nation-wide concealed carry permit process, forcing states with less stringent permit laws to accommodate a more restrictive federal standard. Under this bill, Vermont could no longer allow concealed carry simply on the basis of American citizenship, and a permit applicant would have to prove he is worthy of the public trust. Rather than assuming the right to carry for personal safety, in the words of the bill, gun owners will have to demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit.

S.436: Fix Gun Checks Act of 2011
Sponsors: Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Kirsten E.R. Gilibrand (D-N.Y.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

This bill would withhold federal justice funds from states which do not provide a sufficient number of names to the FBI's InstantCheck system. It allows any lawful authority to deem a person mentally ill and unfit for firearm ownership, and additionally forbids possession to anyone who admits to using illegal drugs. It also bans all private person-to-person sales of firearms, which would eliminate intrafamily sales and the typical transactions conducted at gun shows.

S.34: Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2011 (Also H.R. 1506)
Sponsors: Sen.s Franklin R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Barbara L. Boxer (D-Calif.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Diane G.B. Feinstein (D-Calif), Kirsten Gilibrand (D-N.Y.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), John F. Reed (D-R.I.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

This bill would give the attorney general the power to disallow the sale of a firearm or explosive if the he has a reasonable belief that the prospective transferee may use a firearm in connection with terrorism. This bill has no provisions for due process and opens firearm sale to discriminatory profiling; the bill specifically states that the attorney general would never have to tell the permit-seeker why his or her request was denied. If the permit-seeker does appeal, this bill permits the attorney general to withhold documents and only bring redacted evidence before the court.

S.35: Gun Show Background Check Act of 2011 (Similar to H.R. 591)
Sponsors: Sen.s Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), John F. Reed (D-R.I.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), Diane G.B. Feinstein (D-Calif), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Barbara L. Boxer (D-Calif.) and Ronald L. Wyden (D-Ore.)
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

A 2001 Bureau of Justice report states that less than .7% of guns used in violent crimes originated at gun shows. Regardless, the proponents of this bill wrote: "Gun violence is a pervasive, national problem that is exacerbated by the availability of guns at gun shows." This bill requires anyone who wants to hold a gun show to pay a special fee to the attorney general, buy a special license, and submit to continuous inspection, under penalty of fines or imprisonment.

14. Oregon court OKs all gun owners on campus

Alan Rose emailed me this:



Ruling allows guns on campus
The Oregon Court of Appeals strikes down a state administrative rule that bans firearms on OUS property
The Register-Guard
Sept. 29, 2011

People licensed to carry concealed weapons can't be barred from bringing guns onto university campuses, a state appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals strikes down a state administrative rule that prohibited carrying guns on property owned or controlled by the Oregon University System.

The court ruled that state law allows only the Legislature to enact laws regulating guns and that the OUS exceeded its authority in writing the rules and attempting to bar guns.

The ruling doesn't distinguish between people who carry guns openly and those with a license to carry concealed weapons, although the OUS rule presumably applied to both.

As a practical matter, though, the decision is of particular importance to those with concealed weapons permits.

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, said state law clearly prohibits administrative rules such as the one adopted by the OUS and the court was correct to strike it down.

"The final conclusion that the administrative rule was invalid is what we had always believed," he said. "I believe (the law) is as black and white as it can be."

OUS Chancellor George Pernsteiner issued a statement saying he was disappointed by the ruling and would consider his options. He did not say whether the OUS would appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court, but he said he remains concerned about gun violence.

"Our greatest concern is for the safety of our students and the entire campus community," he said. "Whether accidental or intentional, firearms violence continues to hurt or kill thousands of Americans each year in this country. We will continue to review the opinion in order to consider future options to protect the safety of our students, faculty, staff and visitors."

A University of Oregon spokeswoman said the UO also is reviewing the decision and has not taken a position on whether to appeal.

Ben Eckstein, the UO student body president, said students have consistently opposed allowing firearms on campus -- to the point of also opposing armed campus police -- and he urged the university system to appeal.

"This is an institution of public education, and weapons don't support a positive educational environment where students can feel safe," he said.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation, an offshoot of the Oregon Firearms Federation.

It was filed in response to a 2009 incident in which a student at Western Oregon University, who had a concealed handgun license, was arrested for carrying a gun on campus.

The charge was later dropped, but the university system defended its rule. That led to the OFEF lawsuit, which was argued before the court in March.

The court ruled against the foundation on some points. Judges declined to rule on the contention that the campus gun ban violates the Constitution's Second Amendment and denied a claim that the OUS lacks the authority to impose rules governing the conduct of campus visitors.

The court also rejected a claim that state law "expressly permits" licensed gun owners to carry weapons on campus. But it agreed that the gun rule runs afoul of a state law that reserves to the Legislature the authority to regulate weapons.

Universities argued that administrative rules did not amount to the type of regulation the law was meant to prohibit. But the court disagreed, saying "this particular rule would seem on its face to be the type of regulation that was intended to be pre-empted."

Because the court ruled that the university system exceeded its authority in imposing the gun ban and invalidated the rule, judges said it was not necessary to rule on the Second Amendment issue. But that issue most likely will be raised again if the decision is appealed.

Starrett said he disagreed with many parts of the ruling and said other judges have interpreted the gun law with "far more complicated and convoluted" reasoning than necessary.

He said it should be clear that the Legislature intended to prevent other agencies or local governments from adopting rules that would create a patchwork of gun laws, making it hard for licensed gun owners to know what was legal where.

He also flatly rejected the notion that allowing licensed gun owners to carry concealed weapons raises safety concerns, noting that thousands of people are carrying concealed weapons everywhere people go.

He said people have been ignoring the university rule all along -- Starrett said he has carried his gun on campuses many times -- with no evidence of any problems.

"It makes no sense at all," Starrett said. "People are deluding themselves if they think that prior to this decision no one was carrying a concealed gun on campus."


Jim Mullins (West Virginia Citizens Defense League) emailed me this:


A victory for gun owners on the left coast.


Oregon Court of Appeals rejects university system's ban on guns on campus
By Bill Graves, The Oregonian
September 29, 2011

Students and faculty with permits will be allowed to carry concealed guns on Oregon's seven public university campuses - at least for now - as the result of a court ruling Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the Oregon Court of Appeals said that an Oregon University System ban on guns exceeds its authority and is invalid.

That means people with permits can pack concealed guns, said Di Saunders, spokeswoman for the university system.

"We don't have the authority to kick them off campus unless they show the weapons," she said.

But anyone brandishing a gun on campus would be approached immediately by security, she said.

Kevin Starrett, executive director of the Oregon Firearms Educational Foundation that filed the suit challenging the gun ban, said as a practical matter the ruling does not change much.

"There are students and staff and visitors carrying guns on every campus of every college in this state every day," said Starrett, whose nonprofit group fights for Second Amendment constitutional rights. "My interest is having people who have power over other people conform to the same rules that everyone else is expected to conform to and not use their bureaucratic position as a way to harass, intimidate and humiliate people who are doing nothing wrong."

University officials have not decided whether they will appeal the decision, seek new legislation or take other action, but they will be looking for a way to ban all guns from campus, even those carried by people with permits, Saunders said.

One possible option would be to require students to sign a statement agreeing not to carry a gun before allowing them to enter classroom buildings, sports events or their dormitories, she said.

University of Oregon students will urge the university system to appeal what they see as a "flawed" and "dangerous decision," said Ben Eckstein, 21, a senior and student body president.

"Students feel our college campus should be a place where we can learn safely, engage safely," he said. "When anybody brings a lethal weapon on campus, it threatens our ability to learn safely."

The lawsuit grew out of a controversy in early 2009 over Western Oregon University's suspension of a student for packing a handgun, even though he had a permit.

The court ruled that while the State Board of Higher Education has authority to control and manage its property and to enact administrative rules, it cannot override a state law that says only the Legislature can regulate the use, sale and possession of firearms.

The university system rule that bans guns on university property "exceeds the agency's authority," the court wrote. The gun ban was developed in the 1970s and modified in 1991.

Rep. Kim Thatcher, R-Keizer, supported the firearms foundation in its suit and called the ruling a vindication for gun owners. She said she was concerned both about the university system's restrictions on guns and its overstepping its authority.

"How many other agencies are out there making up rules outside the law?" she asked. "I don't have a problem with someone carrying a gun on campus. That should make it safer to be on campus, to have a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun."

The university system, however, will be looking for other ways to keep guns off campus, Saunders said.

"This does not erase all the safety protections we have on campus," she said. "It invalidates one Oregon administrative rule, but it doesn't invalidate our mission to keep students safe."

15. 'Chicks with Guns': Some 15 million US women pack heat


'Chicks with Guns': Some 15 million US women pack heat
Photographer Lindsay McCrum explores unexpected aspects of gun ownership in new book
By Laura T. Coffey contributor

Pop quiz: Name one accessory that grandmothers, moms, girls, wealthy socialites, middle-class females and low-income women might be likely to own -- and cherish -- all across America.

If you answered "a gun," you'd be correct.

Based on polling research and gun-sale statistics, an estimated 15 million to 20 million women in the United States own their own firearms. Dozens of those heat-packing women are documented in "Chicks with Guns," a new book by photographer Lindsay McCrum that is sure to challenge almost anyone's assumptions about gun ownership.

"Their numbers are really high but their profile is actually really low," said McCrum, who spent three and a half years capturing artistic and arresting portraits of women with their weapons of choice.

"I was so surprised by the variety and breadth and diversity of these women," McCrum said. "There are so many stereotypes about guns, mostly derived from popular culture, but the reality is so much more complex and varied than you can imagine."

"Chicks with Guns" reveals just how true that is. The book features nearly 80 portraits and captions in which women describe the role of guns in their lives in their own words. It quickly becomes apparent that rich women, poor women, young women, old women, athletic women, sedentary women and a fair number of confident girls possess guns for reasons that are peculiarly their own.

"I learned two main lessons while working on this book," said McCrum, who divides her time between New York City and California when she isn't traveling for work. "One is that on the subject of guns, nobody is neutral. And the other is that when you get outside of the blue-state cities, everybody has a gun."

Some women in the book work in law enforcement. Some work on ranches. Some relish the thrill of hunting birds or big game. Some are accomplished competition shooters. Some are fiercely concerned about protection and self-defense. Some have guns that have been passed down in their families for generations and have become cherished heirlooms.

Some shoot because the activity is a natural outgrowth of their relationships with their fathers, husbands or brothers. Some chuckle because they're much better shots than the men in their lives. And some delight over bringing specific guns home because the weapons make them swoon.

"I own a gold .50-cal Desert Eagle with tiger stripes, one of the largest, most powerful pistols out there," a Minnesota resident named Theresa writes in her caption in the book. "Any girl would understand when I explain it was something I saw and HAD TO HAVE. Some women experience that feeling with clothes, some with jewelry. For me it was with a large firearm."

In one memorable photograph in "Chicks with Guns," Alexandra Knight, 38, of Houston, Texas, is pictured with a gun in one hand and her naked baby boy in the other.

"As much as I have an affinity for the beauty of guns, it's not so much about that with me, and the act of hunting I could really care less about," Knight said in an interview. "For me it's the camaraderie and the time spent around the idea of hunting and guns that I love. It's about being with my children and being with my father and being with people I love in beautiful parts of the country. ... It opens up beautiful dialogue about the respect of guns and how that translates to respect of nature and respect of other humans. Ironically, it brings up a lot of things I'm passionate about."

Knight said she knows her portrait with her then-9-month-old son Truett has the potential to generate strong reactions from the people who see it -- but she had strong reasons for wanting it to look just so. The gun she's carrying used to be her grandfather's, and her father taught her how to use it. She's also wearing her father's belt buckle in the photograph.

"It was all about family and tradition," Knight said. "Here it was the gun that was passed on to me, and I'm holding in my right hand what I'm going to pass on to my son. It was kind of that circle of life and tradition and everything else."

Gun safety in the home

It stands to reason that a book about women and guns would touch on the issue of gun safety in the home -- particularly in households with young children. "Chicks with Guns" stays neutral on this and other highly charged subjects and allows women to share their feelings and thoughts without judgment.

One mother named Elena who lives in Roseburg, Ore., explains how her job as a 911 dispatcher led her to overcome the discomfort she felt about owning a gun.

"Dealing with the calls that we field on a daily basis made me really aware of what people are capable of doing," Elena writes. "I'm a single mom and I've got two kids, so I feel like if I'm ever put in a situation where I need to protect them, I'd prefer to have a gun.

"I had to sit my kids down and talk to them. Kids are kids and they can get into things like that. They are 7 and 8, so I wanted to take them shooting so they could see how powerful guns are. It scared them at first -- the loud bang and seeing the watermelon explode like it did -- but they realized how important it was that you never, ever play with guns."

Meanwhile, Liz, another woman featured in the book, is a former police detective who has handled cases of sexual assault, domestic violence and homicide. She, too, has been deeply affected by the inhumanity she's witnessed, but she has a different take on guns in the home if children are present.

"Since I've been in law enforcement, I've always had a gun in my nightstand that I keep loaded, no safety on, ready to go, one in the chamber, because that's the only way I feel it's effective," the San Jose, Calif., resident writes in the book. "If I had kids it would be a different story. I would never, under any circumstances, have a loaded gun in the house if there were children there. That is extremely unsafe. I can't think of a worse thing to do."

So 'comfortable with those firearms'

McCrum said almost every woman she encountered while working on this project talked passionately about gun safety. Many also were completely conversant on the gun laws in their states. McCrum, who doesn't own a gun herself, was struck by the ease and confidence so many women had with their weapons after years of training with a huge emphasis on safety.

Stephen L. Meagher, a former federal prosecutor who wrote the introductory essay for "Chicks with Guns," made a similar observation about the women in the book.

"I found the looks on the faces of the women themselves to be striking," Meagher said in an interview. "You just see how comfortable they are with those firearms. There are hundreds if not thousands of books about the political side of gun ownership in America, but I have never seen one that put together the artistic side and the personal side of gun ownership and women like this."

McCrum -- who didn't want to reveal her age but described herself as "old enough to dislike overhead lighting" -- was a painter for most of her life before 2003, when she switched exclusively to portrait photography. She still fondly remembers an art history teacher she had at age 16 who taught her that art should be a reflection of its time and should push people to think about the world around them in new and different ways.

"[Gun ownership] is a really serious and complex issue, and it deserves serious consideration," McCrum said. "It deserves far more than sound bites geared toward people's fear and hate. This project is not about politics or policy. I'm not interested in glorifying anyone, nor am I interested in vilifying anyone. I was just really curious."

16. Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house

Who needs a gun at home? Not having one nearly cost this man his life.


Chased home: Mob attacks man in his house
September 27, 2011

ABOUT 11 P.M. on Sept. 9, dozens of youths with bats and pipes descended on a tidy residential area of Port Richmond looking for white teens who allegedly had attacked an African-American kid at Stokely Playground a couple of hours earlier.

Two fearful white teens spotted Mark LaVelle on Indiana Avenue near Belgrade Street and asked for help. Suddenly, the mob appeared. LaVelle, who said that he didn't know the two kids, who looked to be 13 or 14, ran with them into his nearby house.

" 'We got you, you white mother-------!' " LaVelle said he heard someone yell in the "mob" of black and Hispanic youths.

Inside his house, LaVelle, 37, called to his wife, Kim, 30, to go to their bedroom with their twin 13-month-old boys, Mark and Mason, and to call police. He also ordered his two other sons, 11 and 17, and his nephew, 7, to stay upstairs.

With the two teens hiding in the house, LaVelle, 5 feet 10, 220 pounds, a well-known sports-league organizer and coach in the community, went outside to try to calm the angry mob.

They were standing on his steps. One shouted, " 'Something's going to happen now!' " LaVelle recalled in an interview Friday at his house. LaVelle got nervous and went back inside, locking his door with a deadbolt.

But the attackers pounded on his front windows and kicked his wooden door so hard, it flew open and some of them entered his house.

"The first guy hits me with a pipe. The second guy knocks me in the face. All I'm hearing is my wife and kids screaming," said LaVelle, who feared that the next time they saw him, he would be in a casket.

He said that he was able to push the attackers out the door, but then a third man - who had a gun - tried to extend his arm. LaVelle grabbed onto the gunman's lower arm and shoulder so he couldn't raise the weapon. Then, police sirens screamed in the neighborhood, and the mob turned and ran.

LaVelle was able to identify three of the people from the melee. He said he did not know if they had been chasing the white teenagers, or if they were just trying to find someone to attack.

Police arrested Bergson Morin, 21, of Rosehill Street near Wyoming Avenue, Feltonville, as the man with the gun. They arrested Enrique Delgado, 32, of Rockland and C streets, Feltonville, as the man who hit LaVelle with the pipe. And they arrested a 17-year-old juvenile as the one who punched LaVelle in the face, giving him a black eye.

LaVelle said that the next day the mother of the juvenile came back with some other people, banging on his door, screaming. LaVelle, who was at a charity sports event, was called back to the house by one of his sons.

When he got home, LaVelle said, the mother yelled at him, " 'You white mother------, you got my kid locked up! You got my son locked up because he's black, you're white!' " The mother claimed that her son had been "a witness," not an attacker. To that, LaVelle said if that were true, it would come out in court.

But the mother, according to LaVelle, then yelled: " 'If you make it to court! I know where you live!' "

Police public affairs could not confirm yesterday if the mother has been arrested for making threats.

Patty-Pat Kozlowski, president of the Port Richmond on Patrol and Civic Association, said that police told her that the attack on LaVelle stemmed from the incident at Stokely Playground, Indiana Avenue and Thompson Street, a few blocks from LaVelle's house.

She heard that an African-American "kid got knocked off his bike or fell off" and white kids were laughing at him. The group of African-Americans and Hispanics came back for retaliation, Kozlowski believes.

She said she didn't know any of the people involved in the playground incident or in the attack on LaVelle. LaVelle said he also did not know anyone involved.

Morin and Delgado, who face charges of aggravated assault, conspiracy, burglary, weapons and related offenses, were scheduled to face a preliminary hearing in Municipal Court today, but the hearing got postponed to Nov. 7. Delgado, who is in state prison, was not brought down to the city. Also, both defense attorneys requested a lineup in the case, which the judge granted. Morin is in custody in county prison. Their family members could not be reached for comment Monday.

Freddy Godoy, Delgado's attorney, said yesterday that someone Delgado knows "was probably related to the child" who was attacked in the playground. But he contends that Delgado was not one of the people who attacked LaVelle.

Richard Patton, Morin's attorney, declined comment yesterday.

Kozlowski, a legislative aide to City Councilwoman Joan Krajewski and a lifelong Port Richmond resident, wrote about the attack in The Spirit community newspaper, which serves the river wards. Since then, the story has created a lot of buzz in the predominantly white neighborhood.

Kozlowski and Maryann Trombetta, president of the Port Richmond Town Watch, both recalled the murder of Sean Daily, a white teen who was beaten and shot by bat-wielding youths, mostly Latino, in May 1989.

They don't believe that the attack on LaVelle started as a racial incident, but believe that there was a racial element to it when the mob "called him a white mother------" and when the juvenile's mother allegedly threatened LaVelle.

LaVelle, who runs sports leagues composed of youths and adults of different races, said he doesn't want any retaliation on the people who attacked him. But the attack has instilled fear in him and his family, and he hopes that there will be more of a police presence in the neighborhood.

His wife is afraid to stay at home, and "every time I hear a car, I'm looking out the door," he said.

"It's not a good way to live."

17. Media cannot fathom why murder is down when personal gun sales are up over the years

Monty Oakes emailed me this:



Gun crime continues to decrease, despite increase in gun sales
By C.J. Ciaramella

Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI.

The FBI recently released its Crime in The United States statistics for 2010. Overall, murders in the U.S. have decreased steadily since 2006, dropping from 15,087 to 12,996. Firearms murders -- which made up 67 percent of all murders in the U.S. in 2010 -- have followed this trend, decreasing by 14 percent.

At the same time that firearms murders were dropping, gun sales were surging. In 2009, FBI background checks for guns increased by 30 percent over the previous year, while firearms sales in large retail outlets increased by almost 40 percent. The number of applications for concealed carry permits jumped across the country as well.

"There was a huge spike," NRA spokesperson Rachel Parsons said. "It's probably mellowed out and gone back to normal now."

There is no national registry of guns, but based on sales-tracking and other figures, the National Rifle Association estimates there are 80 to 90 million gun owners in the U.S.

Naturally, there is dispute over the significance of the surge in gun sales. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, for instance, says gun ownership in America is actually declining.

"While there are more people with concealed carry permits and there has been an increase in gun sales, the research indicates overwhelmingly that the same people are simply buying more guns and that there has been a sharp decline in the percentage of Americans who own guns," Brady Campaign spokesperson Caroline Brewer said. "So while there may be more guns, they are in the hands of a smaller percentage of Americans."

Pro-Second Amendment advocacy groups have used the decrease in gun crime, and crime in general, as a counter to gun control advocates' claims that more firearms lead to more gun violence. They also point to the statistics as evidence of the ineffectiveness of gun control laws. (RELATED: Widow of 'Whitey' Bulger victim suggests foul play in payment of $2.1 million FBI reward)

The top three states for gun murders in 2010 were, in order, California, Texas and New York. While Texas has lax gun control laws, California and New York are among the strictest gun-control states in the country.

"California is in a category of its own as far as gun control laws there," Parsons said. "New York is a little bit better, but they still have discretionary concealed carry laws."

According to FBI data, California had the most gun murders last year --- 1,257, which is 69 percent of all murders in 2010.

Nevertheless, California gun murders are still down by 8 percent from the previous year.

Broken down by firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, the District of Columbia is number one, with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 people in the District.

D.C. also topped the list of firearm robberies per 100,000 people with 255.98.

Yet D.C. arguably has the tightest gun laws in the country. Although an outright ban on handguns was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2008, legislators ensured the new regulations for obtaining a registered handgun would be anything but easy.

Like California, the number of firearms murders in D.C. -- 99 in 2010 -- dropped by 12 percent from the previous year.

However, the Brady Campaign argues cities with high rates of gun crime, yet strict gun laws, suffer from being next to states with more lax gun control.

"You've got states with weaker laws right at the border and have populations that are constantly coming in and out," Brewer said. "Chicago is right next to Indiana, which has almost no gun laws."

Likewise, Washington, D.C. is sandwiched between Maryland and Virginia.

The Brady Campaign also points to the Brady Law, which was enacted in 1993 and requires background checks for firearms purchases, as a reducer of gun crime.

Assigning causes to increases or decreases in the national crime rate is a notorious fool's errand because of the amount of variables at play, but what the numbers don't suggest is any clear correlation between gun crime, gun ownership and gun-control laws.

It bears noting that the FBI's data, based on reports from local law enforcement, is far from comprehensive. There are no numbers for Florida on firearm murders, and the data for Illinois is "incomplete."

The FBI also warns against using the data to rank areas against each other, noting that rankings "are merely a quick choice made by the data user; they provide no insight into the many variables that mold the crime in a particular town, city, county, state, region or other jurisdiction."

"Consequently, these rankings lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting cities and counties, along with their residents," the FBI continued.

18. Safer streets 2012: Repeal all gun laws, part I


Safer Streets 2012: Repeal All Gun Laws, Part I.
by John Longenecker

Gun owners often remark that they carry a gun because a policeman is too heavy. This is cute, but it makes the point. In this country, the citizen is supreme authority, and when a citizen is armed, the law is present. It is on our authority that we delegate to law enforcement powers we wish them to have in order to do the jobs we ask of them. In doing this, however, we have never surrendered the totality of our supreme authority as the Sovereign. It is this which is recognized by forty-eight states who affirm the armed citizen within their borders, and who respect the rights of visitors from other states to be armed.

When I write about guns on campus, or other venues of armed citizen, I point out that the citizen has not only the right to armed self-defense, but also the legal authority to act in the absence of police. I compare this to Citizen CPR in the absence of Paramedics.

This comes from many sources, from public policy and public interest to just powers to general codified law and most of all from the idea that the citizens in this country are in fact the Sovereign. The second amendment in this country is the lethal force which backs our authority as the Sovereign. As the Sovereign, citizens cannot be subject to any gun control laws which attempt to regulate our being armed with lethal force. Our states predate the federal government and the feds are a creation of the states. As such, gun laws are a challenge to our sovereign authority as supreme. Little by little, our sovereignty is not only being blamed as hostile attitude and anti-government, but attitudes against guns and sovereignty are instigated as part of a larger movement to transfer sovereignty from the citizen to the State. I assure you, such a transfer is possible. Gun control is essential to losing our sovereignty over our government servants and our freedoms of movement. As such, there can be no such thing as so-called sensible gun laws.

All gun control is illegal because it challenges our authority and plumbs the depths of the careless tolerance of the electorate. In time of violence, more gun control is politically made to sound reasonable. In this country, there is no legal standing with which to challenge or infringe on the second amendment. It would be the same as claiming standing to own another human being somehow. Even a little is illegal.

But in time of violence, the armed citizen plays a vital role in community safety by dint of that very citizen authority. Put simply, when gun control is applied, it creates a void in how violence is fought. The State then purports to fill this void with costly bureaucracies which never quite work. Some recognize this as the Hegelian model of governing by crisis. It is amazing how popular 19th century German philosophers are. My mission is to show the role of the armed citizen in the 21st century in reducing Hegelian influence and how the second amendment fights tyranny non-violently and through due process.

That citizen purpose is to meet and respond to violent crime in the absence of first responders such that the costly bureaucracies are impeached as unneeded. The repeal of gun laws is necessary if 2012 candidates are going to stump for smaller government. A return to the values of Independence and Integrity is necessary, and 2012 candidates need to enunciate these. Nothing would say it better than the repeal of gun laws.

You see, the armed citizen is the first line of defense in time of violent acts, and when these come under greater control of the electorate, the many policies of anti-violence, anti-hate, anti-greed and anti-bigotry are impeached as unneeded, a redundancy practice which as at the core of big government. Impeach that incentive of apparent necessity and you have your list of which bureaucracies to cut first. It can begin to unwind billions in unneeded programs. Tens of billions.

Tactically speaking, armed citizens work very well in those forty-eight states who affirm the armed citizen. Legislators have been given no reason to regret affirming second amendment values, and enjoy a better rapport with constituents. Some states have no gun registration, for instance, and no requirements for a permit.

[Only 20% of the electorate describes itself as liberal or thinking in terms of big government gun control, while the rest are libertarian, conservative and independent and think more of personal independence from their servants.]

In 2008, the nation saw a dramatic increase in gun sales among those libertarian, independent and conservative adults. Estimates run close to about ten million adults who bought guns. Many liberal writers posted that conservatives bought guns after the 2008 presidential election as a temper tantrum and bought while they could, thinking of the prospect of gun confiscations under the Obama administration. The fact was, however, more contemplative than that: conservatives, libertarians and independents sensed instead adverse changes in law enforcement funding, law enforcement missions in how crime is defined, new rules of plea bargaining, the early release of thugs, crowded court calendars and, as always, the experience that many serial killers and others are not caught (or they wouldn't be so serial). Too many murders, for instance, are unsolved.

Millions came to realize that it would be better to heed 80 million gun owners and the reality that it is better to have the upper hand with authority and lethal force than to be victimized by both the thugs now and then the system later. This doesn't mean you shoot people, it means you are able to stop the crime in progress from becoming a completed act, thereby avoiding becoming a victim of an indifferent system as well.

When the sovereignty of the citizen is officially acknowledged - as it is in a majority of states but not so many major cities - you can get a better handle on violent crime. That means you get a handle on revenues and spending. You can actually reduce the size of government if gun control is repealed and sovereignty is affirmed.

This is because, at the scene of the crime, gun control is among the policies most absent. If its purpose is to reduce violence, anti-violence programs have called in sick.

In contrast, in time of violence, when the target of crime is armed, there is more law present, more public policy present, and more public interest served than by all the gun laws in force, gun laws which are utterly absent from that scene at the moment they are needed most. There is then no more void. The citizen authority has filled it.

Remember that you do not find violence, it finds you, and any policy of disarming the Sovereign in this country is essential to the eventual transfer of our sovereignty away from the citizen and to the State.

Every 2012 candidate needs to be asked if they believe the citizens of this country are the Sovereign. They then need to be asked on the record why they would permit the servants' gun control of the Sovereign even one more day.

19. ODU and UVA on VCDL "Operation Campus Safety" protest list, too!

There are two more universities that were inadvertently left off the "Operation Campus Safety" list: ODU and UVA. If you are an alumni of either, send me a short statement for the VCDL brochure.

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: []
IMPORTANT: It is our intention to honor all "remove" requests promptly.
To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you
receive messages, please go to: []

Modify Your Subscription:
Powered by Listbox:

No comments:

Post a Comment