----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Virginia Supreme Court reopens door on gun-rights restoration for felons
2. Shoot at Roanoke Rifle and Revolver Club nets $1,600 to VCDL
3. Anti-liberty Jeannnemarie Devolites-Davis running for Lieutenant Governor
4. DC City Council hearing Oct. 2nd on reducing 'unlawful' firearm carry to a fine
5. A look at Kaine and Allen
6. Democrats support stricter gun control, assault weapons ban in platform
7. Miller: Hide your guns
8. Stricter gun laws remain an ineffective way to address crime
9. LTE: DC resident comments on crime
10. 92-year-old Verona man shoots intruder at home
11. Mom with shotgun fends off daughter's would-be kidnapper
12. LTE: Gun control is not crime control
13. LEO encounter in Hopewell - mixed scorecard
14. LEO encounter in Lynchburg - poor scorecard
15. RT Op-Ed: Admitting defeat on gun control
16. Virginia moves to allow ambulance crews to carry guns
17. Anti-liberty restaurant goes out of business
18. CMP Newsletter
19. Watch security guard outdraw thieves
20. Guns and rules
21. Ghei: ATF's latest gun grab
21. Video: Officer pistol-whips man, gun goes off
22. Video: Real assault rifles vs. gun grabber myths
23. NJ's tough gun laws not enough to stop old bridge shooting
24. You don't bring a 3D printer to a gun fight - yet
25. Ammunition recalls
26. Christansburg Wilderness Trail Festival table a success despite short notice!
**************************************************
1. Virginia Supreme Court reopens door on gun-rights restoration for felons
**************************************************
Defense attorney Richard Gardiner, who amongst other things is VCDL's corporate attorney, just had an important victory in the Virginia Supreme Court.
For the last few years, because of a bad legal opinion by a Fairfax judge, felons who have had their civil rights restored by the Governor have been unable to get their firearms rights restored. The judge came up with a "unique" legal theory that he did not have the constitutional power to restore firearm rights. Other judges in other jurisdictions deferred to that opinion claiming that they, too, didn't have the power. That left the citizen in a hopeless position with no way to get his gun rights restored.
Richard appealed one such case all the way to the Supreme Court and won. The Supreme Court ruled 7 to 0 that Circuit Court judges most certainly do have the power to restore the firearm rights of a felon who has had his civil rights restored by the Governor.
This is important to all of us. With more and more laws on the books and more and more felonies to "get tough on crime," any of us could become an inadvertent felon. I've said it before and will say it again: we need to reverse this trend. Felonies should be for very serious crimes, not for killing the wrong frog, having bolt cutters in the trunk of our car, or inadvertently stepping onto school property while carrying.
From therepublic.com: http://tinyurl.com/8hr3527
State Supreme Court says Virginia courts have say in restoring felons'
firearm rights
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
September 14, 2012 - 6:50 pm EDT
RICHMOND, Va. — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday the courts have
the sole discretion in Virginia whether felons who have served their
time can have their firearm rights restored.
The justices ruled in the case of two felons who had their political
rights separately restored by former Gov. Tim Kaine and current Gov.
Bob McDonnell. In both instances, the governors restored the former
felons' rights to vote, hold office and sit on a jury.
Both former felons, however, were not granted the right to ship,
transport, possess or receive firearms. The two appealed to circuit
courts in Fairfax and Buchanan counties and both courts denied the
appeals.
The justices wrote that Kaine and McDonnell correctly exercised their
constitutional authority in restoring political rights, and properly
referred the question about the rights on firearms to circuit courts.
"The jurisdiction to restore firearm rights lost in those
circumstances is vested solely in the circuit court," they wrote.
The justices added, "A person convicted of a felony in Virginia must
first obtain an order from the governor removing his political
disabilities as a condition precedent to his right to petition the
circuit court for restoration of his firearm rights."
Such decisions, the court wrote, involve local concerns about public
safety and should provide an opportunity for local prosecutors to have
a say in the proceedings.
The justices said the lower courts erred in concluding that the
governors' actions precluded them from acting on rights involving
firearms.
The Supreme Court returned both appeals to the lower courts for further review.
**************************************************
2. Shoot at Roanoke Rifle and Revolver Club nets $1,600 to VCDL
**************************************************
A big thanks to the Roanoke Rifle and Revolver Club for organizing a defensive-pistol shoot to benefit VCDL back in May that netted VCDL $1,600! Over 70 people participated in that shoot and local businesses and C&E/Showmasters Gun Shows provided over $1,800 in door prizes.
**************************************************
3. Anti-liberty Jeannnemarie Devolites-Davis running for Lieutenant Governor
**************************************************
Filed under "Oh, I don't believe this," anti-liberty Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis is running for Virginia Lieutenant Governor!
I was fortunate to not be drinking milk over my keyboard when a member emailed this response from Ms. Davis on the Second Amendment:
"As a strong supporter of the US Constitution, I support the 2nd Amendment. [PVC: So does anti-liberty Senator Chuck Schumer from New York.] As a gun owner, myself, I am a strong supporter of CASTLE, as I believe that every individual has the right to protect themselves and their families in the own homes, without fear of prosecution." [PVC: CASTLE? She must think that is an acronym for something! Talk about not knowing what you are talking about. It is called the "Castle Doctrine," Ms. Davis.]
For those of us familiar with Ms. Davis, the bills she's introduced, and her voting record, gun owners would spend many a sleepless night during the legislative season knowing that SHE held the tie-breaking vote on gun bills!
She said this in the Washington Post about VCDL back in 2007:
"They are mean-spirited, and they won't listen or reason."
Yeah, we're the ones who won't listen and don't reason.
Here are some videos that show Ms. Davis' real position on the 2nd Amendment.
Here is a campaign ad from 2007, where Ms. Davis excoriates a moderate Democrat, Senator Chap Petersen, for some pro-gun votes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGZkIydbOeY
Here is a press conference back in 2007 that Ms. Davis held to talk about her "Gun Show Loophole" bill. Notice the orange pins on the antis. Looks exactly like our Guns Save Lives pins, but had some anti-liberty wording instead. The funny part was that because VCDL had been using that color scheme for years, everyone who saw those pins assumed they said "Guns Save Lives" ! ;-) Antis haven't used those pins since.
Not shown on this video was that after the press conference the press rushed to where VCDL members were sitting to get our comments on the bill. Poor Ms. Davis had one lone camera crew interviewing her. It was a classic!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1Vhqd7RlKs
Finally, under "birds of a feather," here is Ms. Davis being supported for re-election in 2007 by none other than New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg! So why is she being endorsed by an out of state politician? Because their common cause is gun control. Of course she lost that race and dropped off the radar, but she's trying for a comeback. Perhaps she should just stay retired.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hobf91i7IHY
**************************************************
4. DC City Council hearing Oct. 2nd on reducing 'unlawful' firearm carry to a fine
**************************************************
For those who might be interested, Washington D.C. City Council is having a hearing on changing their firearms laws to make it an administrative penalty (pay a fine), and not a criminal act, for a non-resident who mistakenly bring a gun or ammunition into D.C.
It would also be a good time to put in a plug for D.C. to honor out-of-state CHPs.
The hearing is being held at 10 A.M. on Monday, September 24th.
Details here, with instructions on how to send in written comments if you can't attend:
http://tinyurl.com/8snkzy3
**************************************************
5. A look at Kaine and Allen
**************************************************
As you know, Tim Kaine and George Allen are now running for the Senate.
Tim Kaine was horrible on guns, actually vetoing multiple VCDL-backed gun bills that made it to his desk over his 4-year tenure as Governor. That was unheard of then, and still is now. The NRA points out in a recent ad, that Kaine was responsible for the Democratic Party platform's gun control provisions.
George Allen did sign the concealed carry "shall issue" bill into law back in 1995 and also made a positive change to that law (Kaine would never, ever, have signed that bill). However, Allen has spots on his record on guns, with the most recent being his support when he was a U.S. Senator for extending the so-called "assault weapon" ban. VCDL bombarded him with emails asking him not to support renewal of the ban. He eventually relented and the ban expired in 2004. VCDL was greatly disappointed that he supported such a thing in the first place and that it took so long for him to finally relent.
**************************************************
6. Democrats support stricter gun control, assault weapons ban in platform
**************************************************
Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From Breitbart: http://tinyurl.com/8rajlw4
By Tony Lee
September 5, 2012
Democrats' party platform, revealed during their National Convention, calls for more rigorous gun control laws, including reinstating the assault weapons ban.
The DNC platform says Democrats "believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation," then calls for "reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole" and a "focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system."
President Barack Obama personally backed down on support of an assault weapons ban after the tragic shootings in Aurora, Colorado and a Wisconsin Sikh temple, realizing such proposals would not have broad popular support. [PVC: If he's re-elected, I expect the so called "assault weapon" ban will be pushed by Obama, based on his previous history.]
**************************************************
7. Miller: Hide your guns
**************************************************
From The Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/d6wpg3q
By Emily Miller
September 6, 2012
You didn't hear the word "guns" voluntarily pass the lips of any Democratic speaker at this week's convention in Charlotte, N.C. Liberals may be smart enough to avoid alienating the almost half of all Americans who have guns in their homes, but the same can't be said for their party platform.
The Democratic policy statement approved this week calls for enacting "common-sense improvements -- like reinstating the assault-weapons ban and closing the gun-show loophole." The so-called "assault-weapons ban" in the 1990s banned scary-looking guns and magazines that held over 10 rounds. The platform does toss in a line that claims to recognize the right to bear arms, but it is "subject to reasonable regulation." The left wants "an honest, open national conversation about firearms."
I asked many Democratic leaders about the party's position on firearms at the convention, but almost all claimed not to have read that section of the platform. Jesse Jackson was one of the few willing to come out and say he wants to ban all guns except bolt-action rifles, shotguns and revolvers.
"You have the right to have a gun in your castle to protect your house. You have the right to have a gun to hunt," the reverend said in an interview in Charlotte. "Semi-automatic weapons -- military-style weapons -- are beyond the zone of reasonableness." The civil-rights leader asserted, "These mass killings in Aurora and Milwaukee . . . we must end easy access and ban these assault weapons." He added, "Twenty-five percent of all police are killed by assault weapons, and they cannot defend themselves from that."
The District of Columbia has the most stringent gun laws in the country, requiring registration of every firearm while denying any right to carry. D.C. Councilman Jack Evans, a delegate to the convention, explained to me, "We still feel very strongly about guns in the District -- and people not having them." Mr. Evans said of the platform, "the stronger the language, the better."
In contrast, the Republican platform opposes restoration of the "ill-considered Clinton gun ban" and supports national reciprocity for concealed carry, a House-passed bill that's currently stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The GOP also opposes a new Senate bill to restrict "high-capacity" magazines.
Republican vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan embraced the issue in Iowa on Wednesday. "I see a guy with an NRA hat, I see a bunch of camo. I have those myself," said the Wisconsin congressman. He asked the crowd if they remembered when Mr. Obama said people in the Midwest were clinging to their guns and their religion.
When the crowd yelled, "yeah!" he responded, "This Catholic deer hunter is darn proud of that, and I'm guilty as charged. That's who we are in this country. I happily cling to my guns and my religion." In November, Republicans will appeal to more undecided voters with their words and policies supporting gun owners.
**************************************************
8. Stricter gun laws remain an ineffective way to address crime
**************************************************
From Huffington Post: http://tinyurl.com/c7u7t9r
By Connor Pfeiffer
September 4, 2012
In light of recent shooting tragedies in Aurora, Colorado, at the Empire State Building and at Perry Hall High School in Maryland, there have increasingly been calls to pass stricter gun regulations to try to prevent similar tragedies in the future. The thinking behind these calls for stricter regulations, however, fails to acknowledge the simple reality that greater regulation of guns will not help prevent future tragedies.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and the Supreme Court has affirmed the Second Amendment's protection of individual gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), ruling in Heller that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the [District of Columbia]'s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right." However, the court left leeway for varying levels of gun regulations at the federal and state level, and the debate comes down to the wisdom and effectiveness of having stricter gun laws, especially in light of shooting tragedies in recent years.
In understanding this debate, one simple fact has to be acknowledged: anyone desiring to use a firearm to commit violent acts will use almost any means, legal or illegal, to obtain a firearm to commit those acts. Congress, state legislatures and city councils can pass all the gun laws they want that restrict access to firearms to the absolute limit of constitutionality; however, criminals will still find a way to obtain firearms (while, notably, upstanding citizens cannot) and will still be able to commit acts of violence against innocent people. Something lost in the argument over stricter gun laws is always the fact that to every degree access to guns is reduced for potential criminals, the degree of access that honest, law-abiding citizens (who, when armed, can help prevent shooting tragedies) have is also reduced. The fact that, in a state with concealed carry laws for instance, any public place could have many armed citizens able to foil any type of violent plot is a much better deterrent than a section of the U.S. Code to criminals. And in many cases, perpetrators of violent shooting massacres can be so illogical that nothing can prevent their drive to commit violent acts.
Tragic and violent acts like the Aurora theatre shooting and the Virginia Tech massacre make us wonder as a society what we can do to prevent events like them from happening ever again. Sometimes, hysteria sets in and unifying and emotional tragedies become polarizing political battles over how to best address the oversights and mistakes that allowed them to occur. In cases like these, however, stricter gun laws simply aren't the answer, which is why increased gun regulations nationally and at the state level aren't likely to be seen in light of these tragedies.
**************************************************
9. LTE: DC resident comments on crime
**************************************************
Deborah Anderson emailed me this:
--
The comments (see below) were posted on the DC email discussion forum, the "DCWatch."
One minor note about Mr. Suderow's opening statement: he says that the present comments (below) are in follow-up to other comments he made, but those other comments never got published on the DCWatch.
Blessings,
Deborah Jane Anderson
From dcwatch.com: http://tinyurl.com/9myr8pt
September 2, 2012
Crime Rates
Bryce A. Suderow
This is a follow-up to my posting the other night on how drug dealers have turned to beating people up so they can sell their cell phones and other valuable items. I urge people to read the following article to learn why the criminals get away with these assaults, http://tinyurl.com/9qo4g46. It's from 2008, and Washingtonian may be frivolous, but it nails the problem. Lanier and others constantly blame our crimes on the easy availability of guns in Virginia.
BS. If that were true, why does VA, with open carry, have a violence rate less than half of DC's? They put people in jail. Oh, boohoo, how awful. But it works and it stops crime.
Unfortunately, Mendelson, Wells, and the rest of the city council are not willing to look at the facts. This will only get better when we drop the "catch and release" policies and let criminals know we mean business. I am not hopeful. Lack of will.
**************************************************
10. 92-year-old Verona man shoots intruder at home
**************************************************
Paul Mattson emailed me this:
--
From nky.com: http://tinyurl.com/bs5yajf
By Mark Curnutte
September 3, 2012
VERONA - Earl Jones had just turned off his new TV shortly after 2 a.m. Monday when he heard a bang in the basement.
The 92-year-old Boone County farmer walked eight paces to get his loaded .22 caliber rifle from behind the bedroom door. He unwrapped a beige cloth and returned to the living room, sitting in a chair with clear view - and shot - of the basement door, waiting with the gun across his lap.
Some 15 minutes later, when he heard footsteps moving closer up the stairs, he raised the rifle to his eye. The intruder kicked open the door. Jones fixed his aim on the center of the man's chest and fired a single shot. The Boone County Sheriff later announced the death of the intruder, Lloyd (Adam) Maxwell, 24, of Richmond, Ky.
"These people aren't worth any more to me than a groundhog," Jones told the Enquirer. "They have our country in havoc. We got so many damned crooked people walking around today."
Two men with Maxwell, Ryan Dalton, 22, and Donnie Inabnit, 20, both of Dry Ridge, were charged with second degree burglary and tampering with evidence. Police say they removed Maxwell's body from Jones' Violet Road home.
The Boone County Sheriff had no information Monday night on whether Jones would be charged, but he appeared clearly to act within Kentucky's legal definition of justifiable force in the defense of his home and property.
An investigation is ongoing. Police haven't said if the intruders were armed.
Kentucky, like at least two dozen states, has a "Castle doctrine" enshrined in its laws. That's the right to defend one's home with deadly force.
Kentucky law allows the use of physical force if someone believes it's needed to prevent criminal trespass, robbery, or burglary in their house.
Some states, including Kentucky, have expanded the Castle doctrine in recent years, giving people the right to use deadly force outside of their homes.
Called "no retreat" or "stand your ground" laws, they do not require an individual to retreat before using force and allow the individual to match force for force, including deadly force, in public places. Florida's "stand your ground" law is at the core of the Feb. 26 shooting death of black teen Trayvon Martin by crime-watch volunteer George Zimmerman.
The number of killings nationally of a felon during the commission of a felony by private citizens has increased in recent years, from 196 in 2005 to 278 in 2010, acording to FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics.
Two high-profile cases of justifiable homicide took place regionally in recent years.
In January, an 84-year-old Hamilton man shot and killed an elderly intruder at his home in the 2700 block of Hilda Avenue and was not charged. In March 2007, a Covington man fatally shot an intruder whom he said was beating him in his home at 3:30 a.m. and was not charged, either.
'I aimed right for his heart'
In Earl Jones' mind, his actions are justified, as well. He said he was completely within his rights to defend his life and ranch home on the 500-acre farm he has worked since 1955.
"I was hoping another one would come up - I aimed right for his heart," Jones, who served in the U.S. Army Air Forces from 1941 through '46, told the Enquirer Monday afternoon. "I didn't go to war for nothing. I have the right to carry a gun. That's what I told the police this morning."
Not long after the shooting, Kenton County Police responded to a call on Courtney Road of a man who had been shot. There they found Maxwell's body and two uninjured men in a 2001 Chevrolet Impala who later, during questioning, would admit to being at Jones' home on Violet Road.
The break-in was the third Jones has experienced on his farm this year. In April, thieves stole 90 head of cattle from the field behind his house. In August, burglars took from his house a television, a few thousands dollars cash and a personal check they unsuccessfully tried to cash and ripped his phone out of the wall.
"I can't leave the damn house to do my work outside," said Jones, removing his World War II veteran cap with his right hand and running his left through his thin white hair.
Jones has lived alone since his wife, Virginia Pearl, died in 2006. The couple had no children. Jones grew up hunting squirrels in Boone County and volunteered for the forerunner to the U.S. Air Force in 1941. He went through weapons training in the military.
He is not happy that police took the rifle used in the shooting.
"How am I going to protect myself if they come back looking for revenge?" he said.
Maxwell fell back seven steps onto a landing. Jones didn't pursue them into the basement.
He called a neighbor and calmly said, "I need help. I just shot a man,'" he said.
At the same time, the two unhurt intruders, Dalton and Inabnit, fled Jones' property with Maxwell's body. Not long afterward, having driven across the county line, they called Kenton County Police with a bogus story of how Maxwell had been shot.
When Boone County Sheriff's deputies arrived at Jones house, they found the basement door ajar and no one except Jones in the home.
Jones didn't like how deputies treated him. "They stood down there with their guns on me, yelling, `Get your hands up! Get your hands up!'" he said. "I told them, `I'm not putting my damn hands up.'"
Finally, he did. Police approached up the long gravel driveway, flanked by a field of tobacco that Jones rents to another farmer, and questioned him.
"Was I scared? Was I mad? Hell no," Jones said. "It was simple. That man was going to take my life. He was hunting me. I was protecting myself."
**************************************************
11. Mom with shotgun fends off daughter's would-be kidnapper
**************************************************
Why would a woman need a gun? How about to protect her toddler.
Julia McClenon emailed me this:
From Fresnobee.com: http://tinyurl.com/98cgptm
By Jim Guy
August 29, 2012
A mother fought off an intruder who tried to abduct her 2-year-old daughter and then used a shotgun to chase the man away Tuesday morning west of Fowler, the Fresno County Sheriff's Office said.
The woman battled furiously against the man after he broke into her home on the 8000 block of South Maple Avenue about 8:39 a.m., sheriff's spokesman Chris Curtice said. The man used a door or window to enter the home.
The man threw the woman to the floor but she continued to fight him as he struck and kicked her. He then grabbed the 2-year-old and tried to get to his car.
The woman then got the shotgun and ordered the man to release her daughter. The suspect dropped the child and then drove south on Maple Avenue.
Curtice said the toddler was not hurt and the woman sustained minor injuries.
Deputies are looking for a light-skinned Hispanic or white man. He was wearing a long-sleeved, camouflage shirt and a black ski mask. He is in his early 20s with sandy, blond hair. The getaway car was an early-model, bright-blue Honda Civic or Accord that is lowered and has a loud after-market exhaust.
**************************************************
12. LTE: Gun control is not crime control
**************************************************
Board member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
From Leader & Times: http://tinyurl.com/8run3wu
August 30, 2012
By Robert Caraway of Liberal
Read an article by Alan Korwin this morning. He made an interesting point about gun control. The stated purpose of gun control is to reduce crime.
Remember the bad old days before waiting periods, background checks, and age limits? Remember when you could mail order a handgun from the back pages of a comic book?
Where were all the school shootings? Where were all the church shootings? Where were all the work-place shootings? Nobody back then knew what malls were so there were obviously no mall shootings.
If gun control controls crime, why is it that the more gun control we have, the more gun crime we have? Could it possibly be that gun control is NOT crime control?
**************************************************
13. LEO encounter in Hopewell - mixed scorecard
**************************************************
A member sent me the email below on an interaction he had with the Hopewell Sheriff's Department recently.
While the stop went uneventfully for the most part, there was one place where the needle went scratching over the record. The police should not be disarming a citizen during a traffic stop unless they can articulate why they felt threatened by that individual. Here a CHP holder goes out of his way to advise the officer he is carrying and where the gun is located and, as "thank you," the officer disarms him during the traffic stop!
The member follows the officer's directions and unloads the gun and hands it over. This is DANGEROUS for a variety of reasons:
1. When loading and unloading a gun, you increase the chance that an accidental discharge could happen. Imagine the result if that accidental discharge strikes the officer, you, or some third party! Also, police officers have been known to disarm permit holders and then had no idea how to unload or handle the gun safely, endangering everyone. Guns should just be left where they are.
2. A back up officer arriving on the scene could walk up to the car, unbeknownst to either of you, only to see you holding a gun and think you are about to shoot the officer who stopped you. That could be fatal for you. If an officer insists on taking your gun, then insist that he take the gun off you himself.
My question is: does this deputy disarm off-duty officers in the same fashion when he stops one of them? If not, then he has double-standards.
This is why I don't personally have any such hard-and-fast rule on telling an officer I am armed.
--
I got pulled over today for the first time in forever on the way to work...It was the first time I have been pulled over since I had my carry permit. I did not catch the deputy's name (Hopewell Sheriff's Department) that pulled me over, but he handled the situation like a professional and with respect.
I kept my hands on the wheel, put the car in park, rolled down the window...I told him that even though VA is not a "must notify" state, that out of courtesy and respect, I had a permit and was carrying a .380 handgun in my right pocket. I asked him how he would be the most comfortable in handling the situation before I got my wallet out. He only asked that I clear the weapon and let him hold onto it until the end of the stop. He did not order me out of the car at gunpoint, take all my ammo, etc. as I have heard in other cities and states.
At the end of the stop, he told me that my "+5 driving points on my license and cooperation today bailed me out with a warning."
First off, LEO's have some of the toughest jobs out there and put up with a lot of crap. You get out of an encounter what you put into it. I have found 99% of the time that if you are respectful, truthful, and act like you have common sense, they tend to reciprocate that and appreciate it. If you are a smart ass and disrespectful, it will be a long day for you. They are just doing their job like anyone else. [PVC: Agreed.]
Thanks again to Hopewell Sheriff's Department for handling an encounter with an armed citizen with professionalism and like it was just another stop.
**************************************************
14. LEO encounter in Lynchburg - poor scorecard
**************************************************
Here is another stop documented in an email sent to me. This time by Lynchburg PD and shows police overreacting and searching a vehicle for the sole reason the driver told them he had a CHP and a gun. A little research showed that this was a standard operating procedure of Lynchburg PD. Not good.
--
My son was stopped by the Lynchburg PD...
He waited for a safe place to pull off and stop, rolled his window down about 6-7" and waited for the two officers to reach his car and ask for a license and registration...
He retrieved both requested documents and included his CHP when handing them to the officer. At the same time he alerted the officer to the CHP and told him that he had a handgun in a padded case under the drivers seat and wanted to let them know as a courtesy to them, and for everyone's safety. [PVC: As he's about to find out, courtesy doesn't go both ways with some officers.]
At this point the officer ask him to step out of his vehicle and come to the back while the other officer retrieved his gun from under the seat, search the console, glove box, under the passenger seat, as well as the back seat area of his car. [PVC: I would object, saying clearly that I do not consent to any searches of my vehicle or my person. This is really an insult. Criminals don't have CHPs and they certainly don't volunteer they have a gun under the seat. What could these officers possibly think he might have? This is just a fishing expedition.]
After finding nothing else of interest, the second officer told my son he was going to run the serial number to make sure the handgun wasn't stolen, which it wasn't. [PVC: Of course it wasn't. Would they have done any of this to an off-duty officer?]
The officer removed the magazine and extracted the round from the chamber and laid both gun and live round in the back seat, then allowed my son to go on his way. [PVC: At least they didn't ask him to open his trunk so they could put his gun in there. That would allow them to snoop around in the trunk. I would deny such a request and tell them to put the gun on the back seat.]
No ticket was given. [PVC: A consolation prize for all the unnecessary abuse.]
**************************************************
15. RT Op-Ed: Admitting defeat on gun control
**************************************************
The amount of sniveling in this one little opinion piece is incredible. Ms. Biesenbach is admitting defeat, but not because she was wrong to support gun control, but because Americans are too stupid to realize the wonders of gun control.
EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
From The Roanoke Times: http://tinyurl.com/cougdk6
By Betsy Biesenbach
September 7, 2012
There comes a time in every disagreement when someone has to admit defeat. On the matter of gun control, we supporters need to suck it up and accept that we've lost. [PVC: While that would be the proper and honorable thing to do, for those reasons alone it will never happen.]
We've lost to an American culture that believes the right to own a gun trumps the right to go to a public place and not be shot at. [PVC: Since when does owning a gun mean that you will shoot someone in a public place with it?] We've lost to the criminals and the mentally unstable for whom it is ridiculously easy to purchase firearms. We've lost to the ordinary law-abiding citizens who think they are really going to use that pistol under their jacket or in their purse to stop someone who has more firepower and the element of surprise. [PVC: It happens all the time.]
We've lost to a gun lobby with no conscience that throws money at politicians to buy their votes and intimidates them into toeing the line out of fear of not being re-elected. [PVC: Politicians answering to the People for their actions? How absolutely horrible and unfair!] And we've lost to those politicians who don't have the guts to stand up against them. [PVC: Gutless for not violating the Constitution?]
Of course, any time you talk about gun control, opponents drag out that old trope: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. They're probably right. There isn't a law yet that can't be broken. But isn't that why we have a police force to protect us? [PVC: FLASH! Police have NO legal obligation to protect anyone! So has said the Supreme Court multiple times.]
Anyway, they're missing the point. It's not the criminals who are shooting at us. Criminals, for the most part, want to avoid attention and often buy guns illegally. Mass murderers want attention and usually get their firearms in the same way law-abiding citizens do. [PVC: I have no idea what she is trying to say. Mass murderers are CRIMINALS.]
They're also fond of saying: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." I could toss bullets by the handful at someone all day long and, at most, maybe put an eye out. Seems to me that it's the gun. [PVC: You could toss a gun at somebody all day long and probably only create a little boo-boo. So it's not the gun.]
So here's my advice for living in this brave new world: Go out and buy yourself a firearm. Yep, I really mean it. If you can't stomach the idea of using it to take another human being's life, no matter how threatening he or she seems, don't buy the bullets. You can just flash it when you have to. I've been told that once everyone is armed and everyone knows everyone else is armed, peace will reign under the threat of mutual assured destruction. [PVC: Er, not if you go around and "flash" that gun at innocent people. This lady needs someone to explain to her the concept of Darwinism and how it works to take stupid people out of the gene pool.]
Your little gun won't make any difference to a mass murderer or a sniper with superior firepower [PVC: Especially since you won't have loaded your gun as per her previous instructions], so the next thing to do is to buy and wear bullet-proof clothing and to reinforce the walls of your house and the body of your car so the flying bullets can't get you. Also, you should put bars on your windows and invest in a really good security system to thwart home invasions. [PVC: She must be confusing living in gun-free Mexico with living in the U.S.]
But once all those who want to own an assault rifle have one, they'll want to up the ante, so you'd best get with an architect now to plan your underground bunker. [PVC: Maybe we'll all get lucky and Ms. Bisenbach will go live in her bunker for the rest of her life.]
For extra safety, try never to leave your home unless it's absolutely necessary. When you do, avoid public places- - no restaurants, no theaters, no sporting events, no churches and certainly no schools. Above all, be sure to plan your funeral - and make sure it's a good one, because the whole world will be watching. [PVC: Is it just me, or does she sound like a paranoid-schizophrenic?]
Maybe that's the problem. Even if no one bought or made another firearm from this day forward, we'd never be able to pry the existing ones out of the hands of their owners. So one of the best things we could do to cut down on these crimes is to stop glamorizing them.
We know the story already: The shooter was crazy/a little off/the clean-cut boy next door. Those who knew him were not surprised/completely surprised by his actions. The victims were fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who contributed to their communities, their professions, were loved by their friends and families, will be missed and mourned and certainly didn't deserve to die as they did.
There is no need for the hours of air time, the reams of newsprint and the endless Internet postings detailing every event in both the shooter's and victims' lives. No one benefits from these voyeuristic circuses except the gun-crazy copycats who view them as an opportunity to make a name for themselves, and perhaps those few who can't tell the awful reality from the violent games and movies they watch.
If nothing else, the families would be allowed to mourn their loved ones in peace while the rest of us mourn for our society. [PVC: And I mourn for the time I wasted reading this trip through the looking glass.]
**************************************************
16. Virginia moves to allow ambulance crews to carry guns
**************************************************
From examiner.com: http://tinyurl.com/9yxeyjd
SNIP
Continuing the general regulatory trend started by Governor Mark Warner (D), and continued by Governor Bob McDonnell (R), Virginia is continuing to strike more state regulations banning gun carry. This time it's Old Domination ambulance crews who will regain their right to bear arms.
And gun owners are weighing in. Responding to the call for comment in this notice and comment rulemaking process, Virginia citizen Alan Rose posted . . .
**************************************************
17. Anti-liberty restaurant goes out of business
**************************************************
File this under, "Good riddance to bad rubbish." While I feel sorry for the employees having to look for new jobs in the current job environment, I feel no sense of loss at learning that Bill's Barbecue restaurants have all gone out of business.
Bill's Barbecue was one of the loudest anti-liberty voices in the General Assembly for years in the 1990s, fighting to kill the restaurant ban repeal and taking a very vocal position against gun owners.
I hadn't touched their food since and certainly am not going to miss it now.
From WTVR.com: http://tinyurl.com/9lbxv6n
**************************************************
18. CMP Newsletter
**************************************************
From CMP Coordinator, Michael Irvin:
Link to the latest CMP newsletter - http://www.odcmp.org/0912/default.asp
Please note: The CMP has acquired a quantity of .410 gauge, 3 inch, #6 shot M35 military surplus shotgun shells. Our test showed that the ammunition patterned exceptionally well. Tests were conducted at 20, 30, and 40 yards. We did find out that the M35 shells will not feed through a pump action shotgun. From our testing we will assume that the shells will not function in pump action, bolt action, or semi-auto shotguns. The shells are best used in single or double barrel applications or loaded directly into the chamber a single round at a time. CMP has two configurations for sale: Item number 4S410M35-25, 25 round boxes for $20.00 + $7.00 S&H ($12 to HI & AK), and Item number 4S410M35-450, wood case, 450 rounds for $300.00 + $22.00 S&H ($29 to HI & AK).
Order online at the CMP E-Store, http://tinyurl.com/9vl92bz
**************************************************
19. Watch security guard outdraw thieves
**************************************************
The guard in the video below clearly has had some tactical training. He effectively uses cover (shooting from behind cover on either the left or right side, as necessary to hit the bad guys while protecting himself), uses both hands to control his handgun, and minimizes movement, to keep himself from getting hit without impairing his accuracy. Job well done!
Perry Hecker emailed me this:
From CNN: http://tinyurl.com/9md6usd
**************************************************
20. Guns and rules
**************************************************
The person that wrote the following article is totally confused about the history of gun control. Confusing the "Brady Bill" with the "Assault Weapon Ban," he says that the Brady Bill expired in 2004 (we should be so lucky). Some paralegal in the article claimed that Loughner (Aurora, Colorado theater murderer) would not have gotten his ammunition if the Brady Bill was still in place. HUH? Neither bill would have effected ammunition purchases by Loughner.
The article also mentions the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source. That group is nothing but an anti-liberty organization with an important-sounding name. Their main goal is to label groups such as VCDL as "terrorist" organizations.
Board member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
From The Week: http://tinyurl.com/dxdmkg5
By Farwa Imam Ali
September 4, 2012
Oak Creek gurdwara massacre in Wisconsin recently saw Satwant Singh Kaleka, 65, who served as the president of the Sikh temple in Oak Creek taking on the shooter with a butter knife resulting in a "bloody struggle" probably saving many lives, according to his son Amardeep Kaleka. The massacre, like the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings that preceded it years ago, presented the US another opportunity to enact gun control laws. Still, the country that can only sadly be termed "trigger happy" squandered it. "The attempts of American polity to curb gun access have at best been half-hearted and ineffective despite bloodied history repeating itself time and again," points out Wisconsin entrepreneur Samardeep Kaur. And a bloody history it certainly is.
January 2011 saw America waking up to the tragic shooting of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona by Jared Loughner since deemed mentally unfit to stand trial for the attack. The shooting left six others dead and 14 injured.
On February 26, 2012, in Florida, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin was allegedly shot by 28-year-old George Zimmerman, member of the Neighborhood Watch Programme, who called 911 to report the African American Martin as being a "suspicious guy." Zimmerman who carried a 9mm pistol shot and killed the unarmed boy under circumstances yet to be established.
On February 27, 2012, 17-year-old T. J. Lane of Chardon High School, Chardon, Ohio, fired 10 times at a table of students with a 0.22 calibre pistol killing three and injuring others.
Fast forward to April 2, 2012, in Oakland, California, 43-year-old Goh walked into Oikos University, pulled a 0.45 calibre semiautomatic pistol and four magazines of ammunition, went on a rampage killing seven people. July 22, 2012 saw James Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, opening gunfire at the midnight premiere of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" killing over 12 people. "Just what is it going to take for America to get its gun control act together," asks Samardeep. President Obama recommended "soul searching" even as he broke his silence on gun control since the Colorado shootings, with an appeal to Democrats, Republicans and community leaders to "arrive at a consensus" on how to reduce gun violence across America.
Few believe soul searching is the answer to America's gun violence problem. These include over 7,00,000 women who gathered at the National Mall, on May 2000, demanding "reasonable" controls on guns like background checks at gun shows and handgun registration. Dubbing the Million Mom March it hoped to win Al Gore his White House bid. When Gore lost, the Democrats learned a valuable lesson. You could not win red states and push for gun control simultaneously. A feat only President Bill Clinton achieved in his tenure when he signed the Brady Bill in 1993.
The Brady Bill promulgated mandatory instant background checks for buyers of firearms at licensed dealers. In 1994 President Clinton also successfully implemented a ban on the manufacture and import of assault weapons. The Brady Bill expired in 2004. Paralegal Ann Schwarthz says: "Had the Brady Bill been in place Loughner would have been denied access to the ammunition he used in the Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Giffords." The question to be asked is, of course, why was a bill that worked allowed to lapse?
Most gun control advocates blame the National Rifle Association (NRA) for such lapses accusing it of impeding Congress' efforts to implement gun control measures. Founded in 1871, the NRA talks tough with polity given its competence at running political ads for and against candidates based on their stand in the gun control debate. And in an election year any kind of negative spiel is best avoided. "The NRA supported by weapons manufacturers indulges in intense political lobbying to defend the constitutional right to bear arms," explains Ann. Veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, peppered devotees at the gurudwara with a 9mm handgun and several magazines of ammunition, all of which had been purchased legally. "Had there been a legal deterrent to access such ammunition, the outcome would have been different," feels grief counselor, M. Sahara. Perhaps not. But, former governor of Massachusetts and President Obama's Republican opponent in the November 6 election, Mitt Romney maintains additional laws would not have stopped the massacre in Colorado even though he has backed gun control measures in the past.
"Romney has a point to the extent it is not the guns that kill people. It is people who kill people, with the hatred and ignorance they carry in their head and heart," says Samardeep. As was the case with Wade Page. Law enforcement agencies and local civil rights groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center have acknowledged Page as a frustrated neo-Nazi with membership to white supremacist groups such as Hammerskin Nation. When Special Agent Teresa Carlson, head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Milwaukee office, briefed media she mentioned the deceased shooter, as being the subject of a "domestic terrorism" investigation. In fact, in the days following the massacre several message boards across the Internet were abuzz with some racists (like Alex Linder of Vanguard News Network) calling the gunman "brother," and commending his actions on behalf of the white man, and ordering the Sikhs to simply return to India because they did not belong to America.
The community for its part, returned to the gurdwara on August 12, 2012, bowing before the holy book-the Guru Granth Sahib-for the temple's first official service since the shooting. The American flag that had been at half-staff was replaced by a new Sikh flag as scores of people who had arrived from all over the country watched. The show of solidarity may have sent home a message to the general public, but few believe those in the seat of power have paid attention to the fear mongering that led to the massacre. It is such fear mongering that raises anxieties about safety of the common man. And the absence of an absolute federal law results in states having to regulate guns. "This explains how rural states that are pro the second amendment wield the same political power, in the US Senate, as urbanised states like New York and California, which lean in favor of regulation," explains Douglass Spenser who has specialised in electoral law.
The catch-22 also explains why the only directive Giffords shooting has been a demand to ban sale of high capacity magazines like those used by Jared Loughner. Further, two possible bills proposing such changes are unlikely to be passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. So serious are most Americans about their "right to bear arms" that there exists a section of people that believes Giffords shootout would have ended with less bloodshed if more people on the scene had carried guns of their own! In concurrence, the Arizona Citizen's Defence League called for members of Congress and their staff to receive firearms training. These standpoints are reflected in a new national poll sponsored by CNN a few weeks ago revealing 50 per cent of the respondents as being in favor of no restrictions (or only minor restrictions) on owning firearms, while 48 per cent impress on the need for major restrictions or a complete ban on gun ownership by individuals except police and other authorised personnel.
With the 2012 Presidential race promising to be a humdinger like the Gore-Bush run off the Obama administration appears keen on avoiding any discussion of his plans for disarming the US citizens in the name of public safety. But, public safety is what women voters are going to be demanding this year around.
"I merely want my kids to be able to attend school and go to the mall without fearing for their lives. If legislation could deter a stranger from acquiring a semiautomatic weapon and using it to mow down innocent lives, would it be so wrong?" asks homemaker Aarti Chhabria who believes that overtime gun ownership has become synonymous with the American identity. "I read somewhere that the US has the highest rate of civilian gun ownership with nearly 300 million privately owned firearms. That averages to about one gun per American. Makes you wonder does it not?"
Such statistics are perhaps the best evidence of just how powerful the gun lobby remains till date. Today, about 44 states have some form of law permitting gun owners to carry concealed weapons outside their homes for personal protection. Empowering gun holders even more, in 2005, Florida passed the Stand Your Ground law, which prima facie seeks to exonerate from prosecution citizens who use deadly force when confronted by an assailant, even if they could have withdrawn safely. It also extends that protection outside the home to any place that a person has a "right to be." Today George Zimmerman hopes to use this very law pleading not guilty to second degree murder of Trayvon Martin.
Gun control promises to be an issue in the 2012 American Presidential election viewed as perhaps the most crucial election, from a Second Amendment view point. The Second Amendment reads, "....A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The conservatives, for their part are hoping that portraying gun safety legislation as an infringement of a constitutional right will give them the momentum to bring home the 2012 White House bid, especially with vice-president nominee Paul Ryan firing from the hip against any kind of gun control.
Republicans are hoping his passion for gun rights will help win the battleground states especially when their Presidential nominee's stand is not as vehement. As for President Obama, his advocacy for soul-searching and implementation of existing laws may be the closest he will come to addressing the issue for now. The right to bear arms as per the second amendment will come under serious fire. And so will his bid for a second term as the President of the United States.
**************************************************
21. Ghei: ATF's latest gun grab
**************************************************
Being too lazy to have to go through all the trouble of a legal seizure of property under the Constitution, the BATFE now can seize someone's guns simply if the BATFE SUSPECTS a person is involved in controlled-substance abuse. Forget all those messy trials. And presenting evidence? UGH! This is so much more streamlined and will save money!
Steve Scott emailed me this:
--
From The Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/94so4d7
By Nita Ghei
September 6, 2012
The Obama administration is making it easier for bureaucrats to take away guns without offering the accused any realistic due process. In a final rule published last week, the Justice Department granted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) authority to "seize and administratively forfeit property involved in controlled-substance abuses." That means government can grab firearms and other property from someone who has never been convicted or even charged with any crime.
It's a dangerous extension of the civil-forfeiture doctrine, a surreal legal fiction in which the seized property -- not a person -- is put on trial. This allows prosecutors to dispense with pesky constitutional rights, which conveniently don't apply to inanimate objects. In this looking-glass world, the owner is effectively guilty until proved innocent and has the burden of proving otherwise. Anyone falsely accused will never see his property again unless he succeeds in an expensive uphill legal battle.
Such seizures are common in drug cases, which sometimes can ensnare people who have done nothing wrong. James Lieto found out about civil forfeiture the hard way when the FBI seized $392,000 from his business because the money was being carried by an armored-car firm he had hired that had fallen under a federal investigation. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Mr. Lieto was never accused of any crime, yet he spent thousands in legal fees to get his money back.
Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it's extremely lucrative. The Department of Justice's Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, "The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established."
The main problem is that civil forfeiture creates a perverse profit motive, leaving bureaucrats with strong incentives to abuse a process that doesn't sufficiently protect those who may be wrongly accused. Criminal forfeiture is more appropriate because it's tied to a conviction in a court with the option of a jury trial and evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Innocents like Mr. Lieto have to fight against the might of the U.S. government with a watered-down standard that stacks the legal deck so prosecutors can get a quick win.
The rule extending civil-forfeiture power to the ATF recognizes this dynamic, stating with perhaps unconscious cynicism that an uncontested civil forfeiture "can be perfected for minimal cost" compared to the "hundreds or thousands of dollars" and "years" needed for judicial forfeiture. Nowhere is there any recognition of the burden placed on innocent citizens stripped of their property, or of the erosion of their civil liberties. In fact, the rule argues that, because in the past the ATF could turn over requests for civil forfeiture to the Drug Enforcement Administration, there has been no change in "individual rights."
Instead of expanding the profit motive in policing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should be working to eliminate it.
**************************************************
21. Video: Officer pistol-whips man, gun goes off
**************************************************
I guess this officer needs a remedial pistol-whipping course.
Bill Watkins emailed me this:
--
From CNN: http://tinyurl.com/cqm79hs
**************************************************
22. Video: Real assault rifles vs. gun grabber myths
**************************************************
Jay Minsky emailed me this:
From Military.com: http://tinyurl.com/8pvwbqk
By David Reeder
September 4, 2012
[SNIP]
I like this video for two reasons: one, it contains some great perspective on something that causes frequent bouts of confusion and deliberately obtuse misidentification (what one might call lying or bull$hit). Two, the narrator sounds like one of my friends on the Michigan State Police EST, which entertains me to no end, especially after a couple of adult beverages.
On a more serious note, this is a great video to show people that genuinely understand what an "assault weapon" really is. Play it for people that still think an AR15 is a machine-gun.
From the narrator: "While I firmly believe that Assault is a behavior and NOT a description of an inanimate item, there is a proper use for it in military nomenclature and it isn't what the gun grabbers want people to believe. I was there, even debating Josh Suggarmann on it a LONG time ago, and this video can help clear up the lies and misconceptions before our guns and rights are used as pawns again for some perverted agenda. I hope you enjoy it."
Note: if you know a cogent and articulate counter-argument to this video, let us know and we will consider it for publication.
To be clear ahead of time: this is an op-ed, and a long one. If nothing else, watch the first 3 or 4 minutes, I think you'll like it.
**************************************************
23. NJ's tough gun laws not enough to stop old bridge shooting
**************************************************
Yawn. Here we go again. NJ gun control groups claim gun laws in the rest of the country are the reason that New Jersey has crime.
George Overstreet emailed me this:
--
From New Jersey 101.5: http://tinyurl.com/ceo4zyg
By Kevin McArdle
September 5, 2012
New Jersey's strong gun laws couldn't stop the shooting last Friday's deadly shooting at an Old Bridge supermarket that left two victims and the gunman dead.
Leaders of the Garden State's oldest and largest gun violence prevention group are calling for action at the federal level.
New Jersey still has an assault weapons ban, but the federal ban expired in 2004. Ceasefire New Jersey is calling for reinstatement of the ban, so that it would be more difficult to illegally traffic the weapons here. The group also wants federal legislation to close a loophole that allows people to buy guns at gun shows without having to undergo a background check and Ceasefire NJ is pushing for passage of the 'Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act.'
"Assault-style weapons are commonly used in mass shootings because of their unique ability to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time," says Ceasefire NJ project manager Nicole Bocour. "Assault weapons used in the shootings in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek and Old Bridge, among others, belong on the battlefields, not on our streets."
Ceasefire NJ is now under the umbrella of the Princeton-based 'Coalition for Peace Action.' Both organizations say they are not advocating for a ban on all gun sales. They simply want common sense safety measures in place. Officials say the right to self-defense is imperative.
Bocour says, "New Jersey has the second strongest gun laws in the United States and ranks among the lowest in gun deaths per capita. However, we are still susceptible to gun violence by use of illegal weapons due to overwhelmingly weak guns laws elsewhere."
After July's movie theater massacre in Colorado, politicians quickly began crawling out of the woodwork demanding tougher gun laws.
Governor Chris Christie said, "I agree with the President (Barack Obama). The President believes that we have enough gun laws on the books now and that we need to aggressively enforce the ones we have."
**************************************************
24. You don't bring a 3D printer to a gun fight - yet
**************************************************
It's now possible for someone to make parts of a gun on a special 3-dimensional printer in their home or office. Pretty cool. Let me guess - soon we'll have the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Printers - BATFEP.
From CNET News: http://tinyurl.com/9ganbtn
By Rich Brown
September 6, 2012
Welcome to the dark side of 3D printing.
The hobby is best known for creating colorful toys and trinkets, but some enthusiasts are working on design files that would allow anyone to print a working gun. These don't exist yet, but some believe it's only a matter of time.
Why would a 3D-printed gun be appealing? For one, it could potentially be cheap. You can buy a preassembled 3D printer for about $500. A spool of ABS plastic to print with goes for $50. Depending on where you shop, you can buy .38 Special ammunition for 30 cents a round. The plans will undoubted be distributed free like so many MP3s.
In fact, plans for working gun parts already exist. They can be found on a site called Thingiverse and on similar sites, alongside thousands of free plans for toys, jewelry, tools, and design equipment.
Thingiverse is a creation of Brooklyn, N.Y.-based MakerBot and its CEO, Bre Pettis. Pettis and his company have become the de facto faces of 3D printing thanks to regular appearances in mainstream and tech media talking about how 3D printers democratize manufacturing. Pettis usually demonstrates this idea with brightly colored remote-control cars, robots, and other toys made with MakerBot printers. MakerBot and Pettis don't really talk about files related to gun parts.
That doesn't mean the issue has gone unnoticed, with the intersection of 3D printing and firearms having made the news a few times this year. In June, Michael "HaveBlue" Guslick reported on his blog about successfully test-firing a homemade gun whose key component, the lower receiver, he made from ABS plastic on a '90s-era Stratasys FDM 1600 3D printer.
And in August, Forbes' Andy Greenberg wrote about a group called Defense Distributed, which has some lofty goals as mapped out in the video below. In practical terms, their immediate aim is to create a design file for what they call a Wiki Weapon, a functional, 3D-printed firearm.
The increased attention on printable guns comes as Defense Distributed is approaching a firing test, said Cody Wilson, a University of Texas graduate student and the chief spokesman for the group. Depending on the outcome of that testing, 3D-printing companies, file-hosting sites, and law enforcement and legislative groups may have to tackle a challenging set of questions regarding the manufacture and regulation of firearms, both in this country and abroad.
All of this might sound exciting, alarming, or nonsensical, depending on your personal beliefs and familiarity with guns and gunsmithing. Setting aside any moral leanings, the fact is that the idea will need to overcome significant material and legislative hurdles before you can crank out a working, legal, 3D-printed gun in the United States. On the physical side, the ABS printing plastic might not be strong enough to make a stable enough weapon. And law-abiding, gunsmithing Americans must first face numerous federal, state, and local gun regulations and bureaucratic procedures that may not take kindly to people printing their own firearms.
None of that means printing a gun is impossible.
Darwin Award, or upending the means of production?
On his blog, Haveblue.org, Guslick offers thorough documentation of the process he followed to design, print, fine-tune, and test his 3D-printed receiver. Guslick also addresses the reception to his project by the greater 3D-printing community, as well as the ensuing media swirl and the feasibility of the Defense Distributed project. All of those topics are worth reading about, but that last part will be of particular interest to would-be gunmakers.
You can make a receiver like Guslick's out of plastic because it houses only the basic mechanical parts of a firearm -- the trigger mechanism, the magazine, and other components. It's the barrel of a gun and/or the firing chamber, both of which you attach to the receiver, that must be strong enough to contain the heat and explosive pressure that comes from firing a round. A project like that of Defense Distributed and its Wiki Weapon poses a much harder challenge, as Guslick explains on his site (links added where appropriate):
The problem is that even the strongest 3D-printable thermoplastic currently available for the FDM process (Ultem 9085) doesn't even have half the tensile strength needed to withstand the 24,000 psi maximum allowed chamber pressure of the .22LR round as defined by SAAMI (the Sporting Arms and Manufacturer's Institute).
As such, yes, a 100 percent 3D-printed gun made on a RepRap could certainly go "bang," but even with a barrel of large enough diameter to keep it from exploding, there would be so much deformation in the bore that most of the available energy would be sapped by gas leakage around the projectile (to say nothing of the utter lack of accuracy). In the end, you'd have a smoking, charred crater left for a barrel bore after the single shot.
Wilson at the University of Texas says he intends to find out just what's possible with ABS plastic. "I'm excited about the question, because I'm interested to see how it fails," he told CNET.
That doesn't mean Wilson expects to fail. He referred me to this list of barrel pressure tolerances, and said Defense Distributed plans to test .38 Special ammunition, as well as .45 Long Colt, both of which have lower maximum pressure output than the .22. And according to Wilson, "operational pressure is also about half of the SAAMI-suggested maximum tolerances."
Bringing in a specialist
Ryder Washburn is the vice president of Specialists Ltd., the East Coast's largest provider of prop weaponry for film, TV, and theater. "What we try to do is the opposite of what you're talking about," Washburn said. "We want to take as much 'gun' out of our products as possible. Essentially we want to stay 10 feet back from the edge of making an actual firearm. But in order to do that, you have to know where the edge is."
I asked Washburn about Wilson's likelihood of success. "Using lower-pressure ammunition sounds like a good decision, but it depends on how you define success. If his goal is to fire a bullet and not blow his hand off, I give him a 50 percent chance."
To my disappointment, I did not get to meet Washburn at his SOHO office in New York ("It's pretty hectic here," he told me). Instead, we met at a nearby coffee shop.
"People get excited by additive manufacturing [like 3D printing] because it seems like you're making something out of thin air. But it has been possible to make guns with reductive technology, like a CNC mill, for years, and it works the same way as a 3D printer. Most of the work goes on in 3D-modeling software. Then you take the design file from the computer and send it to the machine to build. You can make a working metal gun with a $3,000 CNC machine. If all you want to do is make a cheap gun, you can go down to Home Depot and build one with $20 worth of parts."
Washburn also backed up Guslick's assessment that using Ultem or any other plastic-based FDM printer feedstock to make a complete, functional firearm would be very difficult, if not impossible. I asked him if it was possible for a gun made entirely from ABS plastic to fire a .22 caliber round, the same ammunition Defense Distributed had in mind initially. "You might be able to do that, but it would take a lot of design work, and a lot of research and funding. And the end result would still be an inferior product compared with what you can currently make using traditional machine tools."
For Wilson, making a practical, working gun isn't necessarily the point. "We have to start here. This is the fundament. It's the beginning." The Defense Distributed project is less about the gun, according to Wilson, than about democratizing manufacturing technology. His intention is that "the non-expert user will have the ability to make a gun with just a click."
As Washburn points out, you can already do that with a CNC milling machine. But, Wilson adds, it still requires some expertise in the assembly. Wilson also argues that 3D printers are unique in their potential to print using multiple materials. That, he says, gives 3D printing a more capable future than traditional machine tools.
In summing up my goal for this article to Wilson, I said that it was in part to communicate the present-day reality of using a 3D printer to make a plastic gun and submitted that it was not currently feasible. Citing his team's upcoming ammunition test, he disagreed. "Literally, it might be possible to print out a gun in a few weeks."
Not everyone will agree with Wilson's goals or philosophy, but enough people do that the project has made substantial progress toward its $20,000 fundraising goal. After stagnating at just over $1,000 toward the end of last week, on the evening of August 30, the group received a $10,000 windfall. Wilson tells me they also have a commitment for matching funds for every dollar above $10,000. According to the Defense Distributed Web site, the fundraising tally currently stands at $11,304, and he intends to conduct his firing test soon.
But is any of this even legal? From the 1934 National Firearms Act to the 1968 Gun Control Act (PDF) and a variety of other laws, the federal government has all kinds of regulations pertaining to firearm manufacturing and possession. And those laws supply only the minimum standard. Layer state and local laws on top of those, and the legal obligations for the would-be home gunsmiths become rather burdensome.
From a federal point of view, you have three primary legal considerations before you hit print.
If you aim to sell your services as a gunsmith (e.g., "I charge $50 an hour to make a gun") or you intend to sell the weapon once you've made it (e.g., "I charge $500 for this particular gun"), you need to obtain a federal manufacturer's license. If the weapon is for personal use, no manufacturing license is required.
You then need to consider the kind of weapon you intend to make. Crafting a Title I class weapon at home -- a long-barreled semi-automatic or single-action rifle, a long-barreled shotgun, or a traditional pistol or a revolver as defined by the Gun Control Act -- generally requires no preliminary paperwork. You may still need to register the weapon once you've made it (depending on state and local laws), but, federally speaking, you're free to engage in the act of making it without any prior permission. The problem is that using a consumer-grade 3D printer to make a functional firearm that meets the specifications of a Title I weapon would be extremely difficult, not to mention impractical, for the reasons outlined above.
Instead, any successful design would most likely be considered a Title II-class weapon as defined by the National Firearms Act, specifically one that fits the "Any Other Weapon" category.
Title II-class weapons are the more heavily regulated firearms under federal law. Guns in this category consist of, among other things, machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, explosive devices, and what the U.S. government calls "Any Other Weapon." The latter includes pen, cane, and other gadget-type guns, and smooth-bore pistols. According to David Goldman, managing partner of Jacksonville, FL's Apple Law Firm, and publisher of the NFA Gun Trust Lawyer blog, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms would most likely put a 3D-printed plastic gun in that category.
Assuming your design does fall under the Title II Any Other Weapon classification, federal law mandates that before you make it, you fill out ATF Form 5320.1 (PDF), aka Form 1, aka the Application to Make and Register a Firearm. You then need to submit it and have it approved by the ATF.
As part of the approval process, an ATF spokesperson informed me that the agency will want to see the design for your homemade gun. This will help them determine its classification, as well as whether the weapon would be legal for you to possess in your state or municipality.
Form 1 also requires that you receive approval from a local law enforcement officer. Others have sued after failing to secure this approval for the transfer of weapons between owners, which requires a different form, but Goldman is familiar with no case law supporting those who have been unable to obtain this approval for a Form 1 application.
You must also consider the obscure but very relevant Undetectable Firearms Act. It was Wilson who told me about this law ("I'm doing your research for you," he joked).
The Undetectable Firearms Act says, simply, that you may not manufacture or possess a firearm that cannot be detected by an airport metal detector. The law is a product of the debut of the Glock 17 handgun that caused a stir in the 1980s for its composite plastic components. That gun was itself never capable of defeating an airport metal detector, but the law is still in place regardless, although it's due to expire in December of 2013.
Trying this at home
There are more legal considerations to making a Title II-class gun, but also interesting is the case of the Guslick's receiver design. According to federal law, the receiver is so integral to the specific functionality of a given weapon that the receiver itself is considered a firearm. Guslick's design in particular mirrors that of a Colt AR 15 hunting rifle, making it a Title I-class weapon. In New York City, possessing Guslick's receiver would be illegal.
It's for that reason that I printed a significantly reduced-scale version of Guslick's receiver from ABS plastic on a MakerBot Replicator 3D printer. It's also why I felt even more secure when the print came out a little mangled after one corner pulled up from the build surface during printing. It's also the reason why, even despite the small size and the imperfect print, I destroyed the mini receiver last week.
I printed the receiver first to see if the end result seemed like a feasible gun part. I'm neither a materials scientist nor a gunsmith, nor am I even a particularly adept 3D-printer user, but my miniature receiver felt solid enough, at least to me, to accept some mechanical internal components and mounting hardware.
"This is about 25 percent scale," Washburn said of my mini receiver. "There's probably nothing illegal about this. If you made it at 100 percent scale, I wouldn't want to be your lawyer."
Even if a consumer-level 3D printer can't currently make a functioning gun, it can make some rather serious gun components. "I'd hate to see some 15-year-old get in trouble for printing this full-sized," Washburn said.
I am become death, the destroyer of my garage
The obvious retort to any discussion of the legalities of making your own firearms or firearm components, 3D-printed or otherwise, is that criminals don't care about gun control laws. And even if it's impractical, if not downright impossible, to make your own plastic gun now, as 3D-printing technology improves and grows you might envision a near-term future where crooks regularly arm themselves with cheap, easily reproduced plastic firearms.
Even if you dial down the scare rhetoric, 3D printing at the very least seems like it could disrupt the idea that a government can regulate guns or their manufacture. Defense Distributed outright claims that kind of disruption among its goals.
"In a sense, every dollar [that you donate to their project] is a statement to these international kleptocrats that this isn't in [their] control anymore."
Here's the problem with that idea. As Washburn pointed out, you can already make a cheap gun with a trip down to the hardware store. And with only a little training, you can already use relatively affordable, widely available machine tools to mass-produce functioning weapons.
This is not to say that zip guns and other illegal homemade weapons don't currently exist. Yet despite the widely distributed means of production and low financial and knowledge requirements, the regulation-shaking, homemade gun-making revolution hasn't happened in this country.
Washburn, the ATF, and gun rights attorney Stephan Halbrook all believe current U.S. legislation is already well-equipped to handle the prospect of a plastic, 3D-printed firearm. You never know, of course. "You might find a legislator somewhere who wants to do something about it," Halbrook said. But the federal government has been regulating alternative gun designs, the Any Other Weapon, since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Wilson counters that if his group can design an effective, easily distributed plan for a printable plastic gun, "there is just not enough manpower to control it."
"3D printing 20 years from now is a different animal," Washburn said, allowing at least the possibility that printing a functional firearm might one day become more practical. Even if it does, it will only offer another means to an end that we can already accomplish easily. "This has all been done before," Washburn said, "and there are smarter ways to do it."
Meanwhile, Defense Distributed is going forward with its testing.
**************************************************
25. Ammunition recalls
**************************************************
EM Patricia Webb sent me these recall links
These just came out:
Fiocchi (.22-250 and .243 Win):
http://www.fiocchiusa.com/foa/CMS/_news_recall.aspx [PDF file]
Remington (.338 Lapua):
http://tinyurl.com/93nn4hm
**************************************************
26. Christansburg Wilderness Trail Festival table a success despite short notice!
**************************************************
On short notice VCDL got a table at the Christansburg Wilderness Trail Festival and handed out ***3,000*** Guns Save Lives stickers! We also got VA-ALERT sign-ups and revenue due to sales of buttons, hats, etc.
Thanks to John Wilburn, Dave Hicks, Chris Rakes, Nina Wilburn, and Marvin Wilburn for manning the VCDL table.
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
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: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************
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:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303 [https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303]
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
No comments:
Post a Comment