Sunday, April 14, 2013

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 4/14/13

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

Thought for the day: "I am a gun. My eye cannot see but where I am pointed. I have no motive. I have no soul. I have no compassion. I hold no malice." From "I am a gun" by R.G. Yoho.

1. Protecting both gun rights and public safety
2. VA enacts privacy law for concealed handgun permits
3. Poll: Majority in VA supports sealing names of concealed carry permit holders
4. Fusaro: Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis's double dealing on guns must end
5. Gloucester man gets suspended jail sentence for having gun at school
6. National Airport traveler found with loaded gun in carry-on bag
7. Suspect robs woman with shotgun near Tysons [VIDEO]
8. Check out MyTime2Stand - a girl and her gun
9. Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership
10. VIDEO: Emily Miller on CNN with Anderson Cooper (Mar. 28, 2013)
11. Sens. Rubio, Paul and Cruz: Gun control won't hit Senate floor
12. Keene: U.S. agencies join war against gun owners
13. The universal background check dog and pony show [VIDEO]
14. Special Section: Second Amendment and Gun Control
15. How not to shoot a semi-automatic pistol [VIDEO]
16. NRA's LaPierre has 'blood on his hands'
17. Is America irresversibly pro-gun?
18. NRA's new commentators pander to women, minorities, veterans
19. The left's continuing war on women
20. The fat lady sings on gun control, 2013 edition
21. Carter County, TN passes second amendment resolution 16-2
22. State grants secret service vast new powers
23. Woman accused of providing gun used to kill Colorado prisons chief
24. Lawmaker sends shocking rant to gun-rights constituent, copies state legislature
25. Miller: Mayor Bloomberg's irresponsible gun attack ads
26. Juan Williams: Race and the gun debate
27. Marcus Hook's mayor arrested, charged with reckless endangerment
28. Principal dead in grenade attack in Pakistan

1. Protecting both gun rights and public safety

An opinion piece by Senator Marsden in NoVA. He writes:

"...some elements of the gun owning community (the ones that tend to be the loudest) exhibit very little willingness to compromise … Over 70 members of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League visited me in Richmond this year…."

Guilty, as charged! ;-)

EM Mack sent me this:



Protecting Both Gun Rights and Public Safety
Thursday, March 28, 2013

It was an historic year in the Virginia General Assembly. We passed a once-in-a-generation transportation funding bill and laid the foundation for 400,000 thousand Virginians to gain health insurance through an expansion of Medicaid that will create nearly 30,000 new health care jobs.

But which issue do you think generated the most e-mails and phone calls to my legislative office? The Second Amendment. A few constituents called for an all-out ban on certain high capacity magazines and assault weapons, and a few others expressed a desire to close the "gun show loop hole" to stop the private sale of weapons at commercial gun shows without background checks. But the majority of the communications defended the Second Amendment and asked me not to support any changes, at all, to our gun laws. A large number of these folks passed on form-messages written by gun advocacy groups. A much smaller number of email writers provided thoughtful ideas and suggestions of their own. In responding to these messages by e-mail, or by phone calls and in-person meetings, it is my experience that the Second Amendment proponents who contacted me fell into three broad categories:

Thoughtful people with genuine concerns about the constitutional ramifications of the Second Amendment and our nation's problem with violence. These individuals tended to be willing and able to hold an open dialogue about the problems our communities face with gun violence.

People who passed on pre-written messages that said that they are responsible gun owners, who are sorry about what happened in Sandy Hook, Conn., but who do not want the guns or ammunition they may purchase, or the method by which they might procure them, to be changed in any way. These individuals tended to explain gun violence as stemming from mental health problems, criminal activity, video games and violent themes in movies, television and music. When pressed for more dialogue, they tended to have little more to add other than a suspicion that the government wants to take their guns away and that the Second Amendment is absolute.

The last and fortunately smallest group were those who tended to tell me who they might need to shoot and under what circumstances. They imagined situations where they have to take down a shooter in a mall, defend their home from a street gang, or defend themselves from the tyranny of the government. These individuals generally believed that the only answer to gun violence is more guns.

I support the Second Amendment, quite simply, because it is the constitutional law of the land and I took an oath to defend the constitution. That is an oath I take very seriously. However, we now lose more people every year to firearm deaths than we do to traffic accidents. That is a situation that alarms me greatly.

When people purchase a gun, it is usually for a good reason. They purchase a gun to protect themselves or to participate in shooting sports. Yet, while that gun never changes its nature, the life situations and circumstances of the gun owner often change dramatically. No one ever foresees that their adorable toddler may grow up to be an angry and disturbed adolescent, or that their occasional drinking in young adulthood will turn into raging alcoholism, or that a sane and well-adjusted family member will deteriorate over the years into mental illness and despair. In these cases, that same responsible gun owner's gun may be used in ways the owner never could have imagined. Working as I did for many years in the juvenile court and running our juvenile detention center in Fairfax for 17 years, I have seen the look on too many peoples' faces who never imagined that the device they bought for self-defense or sport would be used in a tragic shooting or a criminal act.

I do not have the answer as to how we protect Second Amendment rights while still addressing public safety needs. I don't believe that there is any one answer. What does strike me, however, is that some elements of the gun owning community (the ones that tend to be the loudest) exhibit very little willingness to compromise. That is a problem for all of us. Over 70 members of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League visited me in Richmond this year, mostly carrying weapons. These constituents were adamant and sincere in their beliefs that restricting gun ownership, regulating sales, or adding any additional requirements would infringe on their constitutional rights while doing nothing to promote public safety. In their view, the more guns we have the safer we become. With over 300 million weapons in circulation and gun deaths continuing to be a national crisis, there continues to be a far too limited number of individuals and advocacy groups willing to engage in meaningful compromise.

I agree that guns are often not the problem, but all too often they are. Many people believe that criminals establish the intent to commit crimes and then seek out a weapon to execute that intent. In reality, especially with young people, they come across a gun first and then develop the intent to do harm. When youths find guns, it does not lead to thoughts of shoplifting or vandalism … it leads to violence. The gun becomes the parent to the act.

When I am able to talk to individuals in the first category mentioned above, we typically can agree that requiring background checks on private sales at commercial gun shows would offer real safety benefits without interfering with any law abiding citizen's ability to obtain firearms. I thank these individuals for their thoughtful contribution to my knowledge of this subject area. Sadly, most of the people who communicate with me are unwilling to give an inch. For many good people, there is an obsession with guns and their rights surrounding them that precludes meaningful dialogue. No one in the legislature wants to take guns away from anyone who obeys the law and does not suffer from certain mental health infirmities. Many of us, however, do want to reduce the dangers of guns without unduly restricting gun rights.

I introduced two bills this year to do just that. They both dealt with gun owner responsibility and accountability. The first would have held gun owners civilly responsible if it could be shown through clear and convincing evidence, the highest civil standard, that the owner did not take reasonable measures to prevent the theft or misappropriation of their gun and the gun was then used in a crime. The second bill required gun thefts to be reported to police. Responsible gun owners should be open to this, but both bills were defeated in sub-committee with little attention or debate.

I will continue to further the discussion around protecting both the Second Amendment and public safety. Improving mental health outreach and reducing media violence should also be on the table. Not doing anything is unthinkable.

2. VA enacts privacy law for concealed handgun permits


Virginia enacts privacy law for concealed handgun permits
by Mike Stollenwerk
March 27, 2013

Last Thursday Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell (R) signed into law SB 1335, patroned by Senator Mark Obenshain (R - Harrisonburg), a bill which provides privacy protections for Virginia Concealed handgun Permit holders. The measure provides confidentiality to concealed handgun records held by Circuit Court Clerks in much the same way that the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act protects driver licenses and motor vehicle records.

"Now that Senate Bill 1335 has been signed by the governor, law-abiding Virginians will no longer risk having their private information disclosed simply because they choose to exercise a constitutional right," Senator Obenshain told the Richmond Times Dispatch. A candidate for Virginia Attorney General, Obenshain demonstrated his parliamentary prowess by introducing version of the bill in the Senate which simply shielded the identity of permit holder applicants already protected by a judicial protective order.

3. Poll: Majority in VA supports sealing names of concealed carry permit holders

The press, over and over again, has abused and endangered CHP holders by pointlessly printing their private information. The public, however, sides with CHP holders by big margins.

Stephen Wenger sent me this:



Poll: Majority in Virginia supports sealing names of concealed carry permit holders
by Matthew Cella-The Washington Times
March 28, 2013

A majority of Virginians say the names of concealed weapons holders should not be made public, according to a poll released Thursday.

A Quinnipiac University survey shows 60 percent of respondents think permit information should be sealed compared to 35 percent who think such records should be open. It comes on the heels of the passage of a bill in the General Assembly that would prohibit court clerks from releasing such information.

And while the poll showed some pockets of discontent, particularly among Democrats and black voters, overall support for restricting access to the names was strong.

Among Republicans, 76 percent support sealing concealed-carry records compared to 16 percent who oppose. Only 40 percent of Democrats thought the list should be off limits and 55 percent thought it should be public record.

Fifty percent of black voters support offering the public access to the names of permit holders, 42 percent object.

Across all demographics, the percentage of people who said they did not have enough information or did not have an opinion on the subject registered in the single digits.

"On the question of keeping secret the names of those with concealed weapons permits, almost everyone has an opinion, and it strongly supports keeping those names out of public view," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

The survey, of 1,098 registered voters using interviewers to call land lines and cellphones, was conducted March 20 to 25 and had a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

The recently passed bill prohibiting disclosure, introduced by Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, originally shielded just the names of permit applicants protected by a protective order. The House of Delegates expanded the bill to cover all permit holders. Mr. Obenshain, Harrisonburg Republican, welcomed the change and urged the Senate to accept it.

Supporters of the bill have said it protects the privacy of law-abiding gun owners. They point to a New York newspaper that published the names and addresses of permit holders in December in the wake of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, recently signed legislation allowing his state's handgun permit holders to remain confidential. Mr. Obenshain said that left Virginia as one of 12 states that make such information public record.

A Virginia newspaper in 2007 published a similar list of permit holders, and the General Assembly in 2009 passed a bill that removed a list of concealed-carry permit holders from the website of the Virginia State Police, but the records were still available through county court clerks.

Open-government groups opposed the expanded bill that passed last month, saying it would impede the public's ability to monitor government regulation of a constitutionally protected activity.

Among other findings, the poll also found revealed a sharp societal divide over whether to expand Medicaid. It found 45 percent favor expanding the federal-state program that helps pay health care costs for the elderly, poor and disabled to an additional 400,000 Virginians just above the poverty level. Forty-three percent oppose it — within the poll's margin of error, meaning public opinion on the issue is essentially even.

Women favor Medicaid expansion 48 percent to 39 percent, and men oppose it 48 percent to 42 percent. Black voters back expansion 68 percent to 20 percent, while whites oppose it 50 percent to 38.

In the poll, 73 percent of respondents who identified themselves as Democrats preferred expansion to just 18 percent who did not. Among Republicans, 67 percent opposed while 22 percent supported broadening the program. Among independent voters, 47 percent supported expansion and 40 percent opposed it.

Expansion of Medicaid was mandated by the federal health care overhaul. It would extend the program to cover the working poor — households with income up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, or about $32,000 a year for a family of four or $15,400 for an individual.

4. Fusaro: Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis's double dealing on guns must end

Dennis Fusaro is an Executive Member of VCDL and former Chairman of the VCDL PAC.


Fusaro: JMDD's Double Dealing on Guns, Taxes Must End
By Guest Post
March 27th, 2013

I've been staying on the sidelines of the LG's race so far, but in the past few days I've seen and heard things so challenging that it has forced me off the sidelines.

For background I want to offer that I and my family are no strangers to the criminal use of firearms against innocent victims. In 1982 when I returned from a successful summer of training at Marine Corps OCS in Quantico, Virginia, I found my sister Susan in a full hip cast as she was preparing to leave for her first year of college in Beloit, Wisconsin.

She had been shot on the street in a robbery in Baltimore, Maryland.

Maryland is a state that is effectively a giant victim disarmament zone where pointy-headed liberals have the run of the place, and criminals have been given a safe work place environment. The underage thug who shot my sister for her purse clearly didn't submit to Maryland's waiting period before he got his gun. He didn't seek government permission for a government approved firearm from bureaucrats sitting in some central records office deciding who was and who was not fit to exercise a constitutional right.

In that exchange back in 1982, the problem was, and continues to be, the victim was the one who was disarmed by stupid laws designed to comfort social weepers.

Back then I didn't and I do not now, agree with the likes of President Barack Obama, New York Mayor "Nanny" Bloomberg, and defeated Virginia State Senator Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis that banning concealed weapons from public places and destroying gun shows by banning non-government approved private sales of firearms between law-abiding citizens – a big-government, freedom-destroying scheme – will make us safer and protect us from criminals. It will make government tyranny easier and less restrained.

Now I want to say I respect the ruthless political skills of Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis. She's one of the better speakers on the current campaign trail. But I have to say Jeannemarie simply has no shame. She seems willing to do and say anything to get back into elected office.

When Davis was facing defeat in her State Senate District in the closing days of her 2007 campaign she chose to make gun control the number one issue in her race and abandoned the Second Amendment to run to the LEFT of her opponent, a Northern Virginia Democrat. I proudly worked to defeat her as a grassroots member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. In her failed campaign, Jeannemarie brought in leading gun control advocate NYC Mayor Michael " Nanny" Bloomberg to endorse her and campaign on her behalf to "out gun control" Northern Virginia Democrat Chap Petersen.

Davis blasted her Democrat opponent on national television and in TV ads for being "out of touch" with Northern Virginia because he voted for a minor exception to banning guns at schools in Fairfax County. No surprise, Davis was the only Republican State Senator to receive an "F" rating from the NRA. Davis' last ditch effort to hang onto power failed miserably as Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike punished her at the polls. Jeannemarie was soundly trounced by Northern Virginia voters in that election yet she continues to brag about how "electable" she is as a candidate.

I've been one of many Virginia grassroots advocates on the 2nd Amendment and gun-owner rights since 1987, and I thought I've seen it all in my time, but I continue to be amazed by the contradictory actions, attacks and position changes of Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis.

Now that Jeannemarie wants to get back into office, does she really think we are all fools with no memory of her anti-gun attacks. In her current campaign for Lt. Governor, she claims to be a conservative, this is after she described herself as "non-partisan" and even a RINO (Republican In Name Only) to audiences and the media in 2007. Davis has claimed on several occasions during forums to be against "gun free zones" and even had the audacity to attack one of her Republican opponents at a debate in the 9th Congressional District, of all places, on this issue.

The issue was a vote to ban guns at William and Mary where the BOV is controlled by a cozy silk-stocking, wine-and-brie crowd Jeannemarie and Nanny Bloomberg would have been quite comfortable with at their 2007 press conference. They rammed it through while one of the few conservative members was absent from the room.

So not only was Davis' charge false, but Davis wants us to forget that she was for "gun free zones" before she was against them. But stay tuned. She might flip-flop again. This is very entertaining coming from a desperate, defeated former politician who is currently running radio ads chiding "politicians who say one thing and do another".

I've been involved in gun rights politics for a long time but I've never seen any politician with the ability to shape-shift as Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis does. But she does make it fun to watch.

Jeannemarie is wrong on the Second Amendment. Jeannemarie Davis is also wrong on taxes, even stating to the Washington Post that she'd "try her darnedest" to pass Democrat Senate Leader Dick Saslaw's income tax increase. She has raised taxes more than any candidate I see running for statewide office in either party. Jeannemarie is simply shameless and MUST BE STOPPED.

Each and every Republican candidate for lieutenant governor needs to be asked to pledge not to support Jeannemarie on ANY ballot. Urge all of these fine conservative and 2nd Amendment defending candidates NOT to cut a deal with Jeannemarie Devolites-Davis.

It's time for her political career and double-dealing on the 2nd Amendment to end.

5. Gloucester man gets suspended jail sentence for having gun at school

Remember, if you have a gun in a vehicle on K-12 school property, it MUST remain in the vehicle. You can't take it out of the car to move it from the passenger compartment to the trunk, or vice versa.

Walter Jackson sent me this:



Gloucester man gets suspended jail sentence for having gun at school
by Matt Sabo
March 26, 2013

GLOUCESTER — A Hayes man was ordered on Tuesday to serve a year in jail but had all the time suspended after a judge in Gloucester County Circuit Court found him guilty of a felony charge of carrying a firearm onto Gloucester High School property last May.

Jerry Wayne Farmer II, 45, had a concealed weapons permit on May 2, 2012, when he drove onto school property where his wife worked, according to court testimony. Farmer's wife had previously accused him of assault and he would later be convicted of a misdemeanor assault charge for kicking her.

School resource officers had been notified by his wife of the assault accusations on the day he appeared at school, according to court testimony. A handgun was in a coat pocket that Farmer had removed from the trunk of his vehicle and was moving to another part of the vehicle.

When he was approached by school resource officers, he advised them that he had a concealed weapons permit for it, according to court testimony. But Farmer was subsequently arrested under a law that forbids firearms on school grounds.

Farmer's attorney, Amy VanFossen, told Circuit Judge R. Bruce Long that her client had a gun and was strictly at fault.

"This is a good man," she said. "He has caused no one any problems but for the strife and stress in his marriage."

Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Katherine Womack said signs are posted on school grounds warning visitors against bringing firearms onto the campus.

"Who knows what would have happened if the school resource officers hadn't acted so swiftly," she said. [PVC: Oh, for crying out loud. Mr. Farmer was just moving the gun from one place to another in his vehicle. What an inflammatory thing for Ms. Womack to say. As if when someone moves a gun, they are doing so with criminal intent.]

Long said that under state law, a person can carry a weapon onto school grounds as long as they have a concealed weapons permit, but may not leave the vehicle with it as Farmer did. Citing recent school shootings, Long said it's a recognition of those horrific crimes that led the legislature to ban guns on campus.

It would send a wrong message for the court to excuse Farmer's actions that are strictly covered by the law, he said.

Long also revoked Farmer's concealed weapon permit.

6. National Airport traveler found with loaded gun in carry-on bag

You should always know where your guns are located. Forgetting can get you in a world of trouble, even when you have absolutely no evil intent. Always triple check your pockets and hand-carried items for guns or ammunition before you check-in at an airport or step onto school property.

Stephen Wenger sent me this:



National Airport traveler found with loaded gun in carry-on bag
by Scott McCabe, Staff Writer-Crime
March 26, 2013

A Virginia man was stopped at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport after TSA officers found a loaded gun in his passenger carry-on bag, authorities said.

Donald Gramling, 50, of Stafford, was cited Monday with carrying a weapon on airport property after TSA found a .40-caliber handgun loaded with five rounds and one bullet chambered inside his carry-on luggage.

Gramling had a Virginia concealed weapons permit and said he forgot that the firearm was inside the bag.

The gun and ammunition were confiscated, and Gramling was allowed to catch his flight to Montreal.

7. Suspect robs woman with shotgun near Tysons [VIDEO]

Mark Shinn sent me this:



Suspect robs woman with shotgun near Tysons (Video)
March 26, 2013

WASHINGTON - Fairfax County Police are searching for a man who held up a woman at an ATM near Tyson's Corner using a shotgun.

A 37-year-old woman told police she was robbed near an ATM on Sunday, March 24 at 8:45 p.m.

Fairfax County Police released a video showing the suspect walking into an ATM lobby and displaying a shotgun. The man demanded money of the woman and left with the woman's purse, according to police information attached to the video.

The man got into an older, dark colored 4-door SUV with Virginia plates, similar to a Honda CR-V, with a roof rack and outside spare tire, police say.

8. Check out MyTime2Stand - a girl and her gun

Member Paul Henick sent me this:


VCDL gets a positive mention.


by A Girl
March 27, 2013

This morning I clicked on a link shared by Kathy Jackson on her Facebook page. It lead me here.

Over the past 2 years(especially this last year) I have grown a lot. Learned a lot about myself and standing up. I have been more outspoken this year then I ever have been.

I do regret that I didn't wake up sooner, but also I feel like I am just beginning to find my voice. I have seen the things I do and say making a difference in a positive way and I am encouraged by that, but we have a mighty big fight on our hands and we are going to need to stand together.

I am fortunate to live in Virginia and to be a part of a group of people who know exactly how to stand and fight. The VCDL is a powerhouse of hardworking 2nd Amendment supporters who absolutely do not back down.

My time is limited and I am spread pretty thin, but I think I can be doing more.

I do not have a clue how I can help in this effort, but I am going to stay tuned and jump in where I can.

9. Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership


Buyers, beware: UN Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership
By John Lott,
March 28, 2013

The U.N.'s Arms Trade Treaty, which seemed dead last July, is beginning to wrap up negotiations. The Obama administration is committed to getting it passed . Secretary of State John Kerry confirmed: "The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

The treaty was resurrected on Nov. 8 – the very day after President Obama's re-election. Very conveniently, that the Obama administration delayed the U.N. vote in favor of renewing negotiations delayed until the president was no longer constrained by public opinion.

The Arms Trade Treaty will regulate individual gun ownership all across the world. Each country will be obligated to "maintain a national control list that shall include [rifles and handguns]" and "to regulate brokering taking place under its jurisdiction for conventional arms." In fact, the new background check rules approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee include just those rules -- a registration system and a record of all transfers of guns.

But nations themselves will be responsible for enforcing the rules. That means Iran, China, Russia – the leading countries for the truly troubling parts of the international arms trade – are supposed to curb it. Does anyone actually believe these nations will actually enforce these regulations against themselves?

Democracies are a different story. Many of their civilians have freedoms to lose. And they are much more transparent on whether they are actually honoring the rules that apply to their governments.

Just like with gun control, in general, it is only the "good guys" who will obey the new rules. The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, if passed, would only be effective against those countries that choose to obey them.

The treaty pretends that individual weapons smugglers are the main problem. But governments, not private individuals, are the primary source of weapons. For example, the FARC guerrillas fighting in Colombia get their guns from the Venezuelan government.

Unsurprisingly, the U.N. treaty provisions are the long-time favorites of American gun control advocates: registration and licensing of guns and ammunition, along with restrictions on the private gun transfers. Unfortunately, these expensive measures have a long history of failing to curb crime wherever they have been tried and primarily end up disarming law-abiding gun owners.

The treaty pushes gun registration and licensing as a way to trace those who supply these illicit weapons. Yet, to see the problem with these regulations, one only needs to look at how ineffective they have been in solving crime. Canada just ended its long gun registry last year, as it was a colossal waste of money.

Indeed, it is a costly scheme. Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry just for long guns. With more people and more guns in the United States, the estimated costs for a similar registration scheme for 13 years would be about $67 billion.

Gun control advocates have long claimed registration is a safety issue. Their reasoning is straightforward: If a gun is left at a crime scene, and it was registered to the person who committed the crime, the registry will link it back to the criminal.

Unfortunately, it rarely works out this way. Criminals are seldom stupid enough to leave behind crime guns that are registered to themselves.

As to restrictions on the private transfers of guns, the most common type of regulation discussed in the U.S. today involves background checks. Yet, whether one is talking about the Brady Act or the so-called gun show loophole, economists and criminologists who have looked at this simply don't find evidence those regulations reduce crime. It may even increase crime, as fewer would-be victims acquire guns. Unfortunately, just like criminal gangs in the U.S. obtaining guns, it is simply wishful thinking that a United Nations treaty – no matter how well intended – can do much to stop rebel groups from getting weapons.

Obama likes to believe that his re-election gives him a mandate for sweeping changes. Well, he certainly lacks a mandate for these new gun restrictions, as he tried so hard to avoid the U.N. treaty until after the election.

The good news is that even if President Obama signs the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, it is unlikely to be ratified by the US Senate. Nonetheless, by promoting gun control elsewhere in the world, it might eventually lead to more pressure for gun control here at home.

10. VIDEO: Emily Miller on CNN with Anderson Cooper (Mar. 28, 2013)

Emily Miller stands up for gun-rights on CNN.

Shane Belanger shared this:



CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Emily Miller on "AC360" about President Obama's White House press conference Thursday calling for more gun-control laws. Emily Miller is senior editor of opinion for The Washington Times.

11. Sens. Rubio, Paul and Cruz: Gun control won't hit Senate floor

We can't take anything for granted, but this is at least good news.

Bob Solla shared this:



Sens. Rubio, Paul and Cruz: Gun control bill won't hit Senate floor
by Jessica Chasmar-The Washington Times
March 28, 2013

Sen. Marco Rubio decided Thursday to join Sens. Mike Lee, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz in informing Senate Majority Harry Reid via letter that they will block any attempt to bring the Senate gun control bill to the floor.

Sen. Rubio explained in a statement that he stands firm in opposing any legislation that will limit the Second Amendment for law-abiding citizens.

"We should look for ways to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill prone to misusing them, but I oppose legislation that will be used as a vehicle to impose new Second Amendment restrictions on responsible, law-abiding gun owners," he said. "We should work to reduce tragic acts of violence by addressing violence at its source, including untreated mental illness, the lack of adequate information-sharing on mental health issues, and the breakdown of the family."

Sen. Cruz penned the letter to Sen. Reid, which reads, "We, the undersigned, intend to oppose any legislation that would infringe on the American people's constitutional right to bear arms, or on their ability to exercise this right without being subjected to government surveillance," the senators wrote. "The Second Amendment to the Constitution protects citizens' right to self-defense. It speaks to the history's lesson that government cannot be in all places at all times, and history's warning about the oppression of a government that tries."

Sen. Rubio signed the letter just hours after President Barack Obama held a White House presser urging members of congress to support new gun control legislation.

12. Keene: U.S. agencies join war against gun owners

Bill Hine sent me this:



KEENE: U.S. agencies join war against gun owners
The Second Amendment in the cross hairs
by David Keene
March 27, 2013

America's gun owners are under siege on virtually all fronts. Congress is after us, and so are governors such as New York's Andrew Cuomo and Maryland's Martin O'Malley. They must think that when they run for the Democratic presidential nomination, a strong anti-gun stance will help them with left-wing primary voters.

It doesn't stop there, however, as the media, liberal legislators and both federal and state regulators are looking for new and often unique ways to please their liberal bosses by harassing gun owners, dealers and manufacturers.

One major national firearms retailer, for example, has been under fire for more than two years from the Obama administration's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It seems the company won't hire convicted felons, which the commission claims amounts to illegal racial discrimination. The federal government these days argues that policies that have what government lawyers call a "disparate impact" on racial minorities amount to impermissible discrimination - even when the policies themselves were not put in place for discriminatory reasons. Thus, the government argues that a higher percentage of minorities within the felony population than in the population at large means that any policy that discriminates against felons as a class is discriminatory because its impact falls disparately on minorities.

Company officials pointed out to commission investigators threatening to charge the company with discrimination that they couldn't hire felons even if they wanted to, because federal law prohibits federal firearms licensees from hiring felons. The investigator's response was, according to a company official I talked to: "That's your problem, not ours." These are investigators and regulators who can read between the lines, know their bosses are anti-gun and will do anything they can to please them.

Perhaps an even more creative bureaucrat came up with the idea that resulted in the visit of two Homeland Security agents to the Fredericksburg, Va., home of Kristopher Gasior on March 8. Mr. Gasior is a gun collector, author and expert on Polish-made firearms. Mr. Gasior owns a collection that includes a rare military rifle made by the Polish government in 1938, was captured by invading German forces the next year, and brought to the United States by a GI who took it from a German in the final days of the war.

The agents who came to his door didn't have a warrant, but Mr. Gasior's wife invited them in, and when her husband came into the room, they asked if he had the rifle. When he said yes and showed it to them, they seized it and gave him a receipt after informing him that they were taking it on behalf of the Polish government. They claimed it was a "one-of-a-kind rifle" that had been looted from the Polish government during the war.

Mr. Gasior, who is, after all, one of the world's experts on just this kind of firearm, argued that it was rare, but certainly not "a one-of-a-kind rifle." It was, he said, a limited-production model that was never in a museum, but was issued to Poles and surrendered to the Germans along with similar rifles during the German invasion of Poland in 1939 and subsequently, captured by a GI and brought home as a souvenir. The agent replied that as far as the U.S. government is concerned, anything brought over the border at any time was within Department of Homeland Security jurisdiction and could be seized.

Collectors and veterans in this country are worried that owners of war trophies could be treated as Mr. Gasior was, and in the days since the incident, the National Rifle Association museum has received numerous calls from collectors worried that the Department of Homeland Security might use this newly declared power to go after firearms in their collections.

Misusing governmental power in this way might not upset you if you're not a gun owner or collector, but it should. It is indicative of the way in which the Obama administration is redefining the jurisdiction and powers of various agencies in its war on gun owners. That war is likely to continue even if Congress refuses to pass much of the anti-gun legislation President Obama says he wants.

13. The universal background check dog and pony show [VIDEO]

I will keep repeating this until I drive everyone nuts: spread the word far and wide - universal background checks are dangerous to our rights and will lead to registration (as an excuse to "enforce" the registration law). Confiscation follows registration. Guns have been confiscated in the U.S. at least 5 times so far (Post-Katrina gun confiscations being the most recent).

EM Dave Hicks sent this to me:



14. Special Section: Second Amendment and Gun Control

A smorgasbord of gun articles from the Washington Times.

Bill Hine sent me this:



Second Amendment and Gun Control
The latest news coverage, opinion and information on Second Amendment rights and gun control. The Second Amendment states "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…"

15. How not to shoot a semi-automatic pistol [VIDEO]

Ray Allen shared this:



Published on Feb 22, 2013
This is a "Basics" video for those very, very new to firearms. Hopefully, you didn't learn this the hard way! If so, you might still have scars on your thumb to prove it. :-)

16. NRA's LaPierre has 'blood on his hands'

Roger Simon's stupid and slanderous remarks about Wayne LaPierre get torn apart in this piece.


by John Nolte
March 27, 2013

Politico columnist Roger Simon has never been the brightest bulb in the chandelier. But he has always been a reliable bellwether for what the extreme left is thinking. And according to Simon's Wednesday column, the left is a little freaked out over what is shaping up to be a big loss for those desperate to restrict our civil rights:

"Wayne LaPierre may have more blood on his hands than Dracula, but — fair is fair — he also has the guts of a burglar.

He will say anything to advance the agenda of the National Rifle Association, which he runs, and he doesn't worry about his critics. Under his leadership, the NRA has grown and today is one of the most feared lobbies on Capitol Hill."


"Blood,' "Dracula," and "burglar" all in a single sentence. Simon is so desperately bummed he's mixing metaphors in under 25 words.

By the way, don't be surprised if next week Simon throws up a column about how the right has to tone down the political rhetoric.

Of course the left is frustrated. They were so sure after Sandy Hook that the gun-grab was in the bag. The fascist crusade to appeal to cheap, anti-intellectual emotionalism was swift and hard. Both Obama and his media hit the ground running within seconds of the news of the tragedy breaking.

This was "never let a crisis go to waste" on steroids!

And it was more than gun-grabbing the likes of Obama and Simon had in mind. The left was just as eager to do to the NRA what they have always wanted -- demonize the civil rights group to the margins.

All in, baby.

And then the demon suggested we guard school children as opposed to cook them up and eat them.

And then the assault weapons ban died.

And then the polls turned.

And now background checks are on life support.

And now Roger Simon is screaming "Dirty, bloody, Dracula burglar-man!!"

The only people with blood on their hands are those driven to ensure that only the bad guys have the most effective weapons, and that our precious children be conveniently labeled as "sitting ducks" for madmen with signs that read "gun-free zones."

17. Is America irresversibly pro-gun?

Benjamin Portman shared this:


A thrill went up this bitter clinger's leg while reading this article:


Is America irreversibly pro-gun?
by Jake Miller
March 28, 2013

Opposition to gun control, by contrast, is a firmly entrenched sentiment, particularly on Capitol Hill, where groups like the National Rifle Association have been mostly successful in thwarting any signs of insurrection among wavering legislators. The group's lobbying arm plays the inside game, while the public faces of the NRA - CEO Wayne LaPierre and President David Keene - fan the flames among the NRA faithful, reaping millions of dollars from gun owners and second amendment advocates who fear that their freedom is under assault.

The payoff, to put it modestly, has been handsome. According to reports filed with Federal Election Commission, in just the first two months of 2013, the NRA's political arm has already raised almost 20 percent of what they raised during the 24 months of the 2012 presidential election cycle - a period that has traditionally been the peak of fundraising. In January, the group soaked up $1.1 million dollars; in February, $1.6 million. From January 2011-December 2012, the group raised $14.4 million.

The NRA's leaders have proudly touted their fundraising as crowdsourced - the product of millions of passionate benefactors, not a billionaire with an agenda. "We have people all over, millions of people, sending us five, ten, 15, 20 dollar checks, saying, 'Stand up to this guy'," said Wayne LaPierre about Bloomberg last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"He's going to find out that this is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people," LaPierre said, "and he can't spend enough of his [money] to try to impose his will on the American public."

The NRA's own swollen coffers have enabled it to carry a big stick on Capitol Hill, and past fights have shown lawmakers that the group is more than willing to use it. Certainly, the NRA does not speak for all gun owners, whose political influence cannot be measured or channeled by a one organization. Democrats in staunchly pro-gun states, for example, do not need the NRA to tell them that support for gun control could be politically risky - they have millions of constituents for that. What the NRA has done, however, is heighten awareness of guns as a political issue, coalescing and directing the energy (and money) of gun rights supporters.

"The organization's political strength rests on the bipartisan and diverse make-up of its membership and of the millions of nonmember firearms owners who look to the NRA for leadership and their willingness to step up to the plate and the ballot box when their rights are threatened," explained NRA President David Keene in an op-ed on

"It is that second attribute of Second Amendment supporters that has surprised the president and his allies" in this latest fight, Keene added. "Gun owners have been energized rather than cowed. They are presenting a truly united front as they rally to fight for their constitutionally guaranteed rights."

Glaze, however, believes there may be less to the NRA's political muscle than meets the eye.

"The NRA has never had as much electoral influence as it claims to have," he said, explaining, "I think some elected officials have lived in a world in which only hardcore gun rights supporters reliably turned out to vote, and the NRA was the only organization providing political support. That world is gone."

That world might be gone, but the memories of it linger.

The last assault weapons ban was passed in 1994 through a Senate and House that were both strongly Democratic. Then-President Bill Clinton signed it into law as part of the 1994 crime bill. And before the year was out, dozens of Democrats were given the boot as Republicans stormed Congress to claim a bicameral majority for the first time in decades.

Many of the Democrats who lost seats in the bloodletting had voted for the assault weapons ban, among other gun control bills in 1994, and the NRA made sure that their members knew it. The gun lobby's ferocious assault on congressional Democrats during the 1994 midterm election became a key player in the fight to oust Democrats from Congress, according to those who lived through it.

Historian Taylor Branch, who interviewed then-President Bill Clinton for his book "The Clinton Tapes", recounted Clinton's estimation that the NRA had "picked off at least twenty incumbent members of Congress on gun issues alone" during the 1994 midterms. Of the NRA, Clinton explained, "If you don't smoke them out and confront them...they'll cut you to death."

Since then, the Democratic Party has been, well, gun-shy. The issue scarcely surfaced in the 1996 and 2000 campaigns as Democrats labored to shed the impression that they were hostile to gun-owners. In 2004, the Democrats' nominee for president, John Kerry, was ridiculed for staging a photo op in hunting fatigues, carrying a rifle. The symbolism, though clumsy and perceived as patronizing, spoke for itself: this was not a party that was preparing to take on the gun lobby.

The ceasefire persisted until the tragedy in Newtown jolted the parties out of their uneasy holding pattern. The debate about America's gun laws, calcified for decades, was shaken loose, and policymakers began considering the issue in earnest.

But today, despite the impetus provided by a string of mass shootings, from Newtown to Aurora to Tucson to Virginia Tech, gun control advocates are again fighting an uphill battle. The assault weapons ban is virtually dead, and other elements of Mr. Obama's gun control agenda are on shaky political ground. The few proposals that have emerged from the Senate Judiciary Committee have yet to make their way to the floor. No piece of gun legislation has seen a floor vote in either house of Congress. In fact, apart from the executive actions by Mr. Obama in the tragedy's immediate aftermath, not a single thing has happened to seriously change the nature of gun ownership in America. All of this, despite a Senate that has only two fewer Democratic senators than the chamber that passed the original assault weapons ban in 1994.

It's a discouraging environment for those who hoped that the scars of Newtown would be indelibly etched into the political consciousness of policymakers. But despite the slow progress and the uphill climb, Glaze remains optimistic.

"We think we're going to achieve some significant victories this spring and summer," he said, saying an assault weapons ban is still possible despite a "narrow road," and predicting that public opinion would sway wavering lawmakers to support background checks.

And regardless of how these battles pan out, he added, Mayors Against Illegal Guns is prepared to wage the full war, digging in for a siege that could take years.

"Once the dust has cleared, the NRA will still be there, and so will we," he promised.

Meanwhile, the NRA won't be turning off the heat any time soon. "Second Amendment advocates are in no mood to give those who would deny them their rights a pass," said Keene in his CNN op-ed, and they "will vote in the next election."

18. NRA's new commentators pander to women, minorities, veterans

When gun organizations are inclusive, they are "pandering" to the gun grabbers.

I read that as pure fear and desperation from our opponents.

Sorry, gun haters, more and more of your base is deserting you and warming up to gun ownership.

James Durso sent me this:



NRA's New Commentators Pander To Women, Minorities, Veterans
by Christina Wilkie
March 27, 2013

WASHINGTON -- The National Rifle Association this week debuted a new lineup of special commentators -- three young adults whose biographies are tailor-made to appeal to three groups the NRA is targeting with special outreach programs: minorities, women, and military veterans. Colion Noir, Natalie Foster and Dom Raso each will produce regular, short video segments on issues that include gun control and politics for NRA News Network.

Foster, a Los Angeles-based gun blogger, founded Girls Guide To Guns, a blog that combines posts about the joys of shooting semi-automatic weapons with advice, such as how to look "extra cute at the [shooting] range." Pandering to women is nothing new for the NRA, which has long maintained special programs aimed at increasing gun ownership among women, which the gun industry views as a huge market.

The veterans' outreach is covered by Raso, who the NRA said is a former Navy SEAL. In 2011, the NRA launched a veterans recruitment program called "Life of Duty", which offers free annual memberships to active duty military, police, and first responders.

Minorities are the NRA's newest target group, and so far the effort begins and ends with Noir, who the NRA bills as an "urban gun enthusiast." Noir wears hip-hop clothes and tailors his topics to African Americans. He said in a recent segment that gun control is racist because it prevents inner-city minorities from getting the kinds of guns they need for self-protection.

Before working for the NRA, Noir had a popular YouTube page, where posted clips of himself railing against gun control. His first NRA production featured Noir complaining about ignorant people who trust "the government" to protect them. "The same government that hosed us down with water, attacked us with dogs, and wouldn't allow us to eat at their restaurants," Noir tells viewers.

Foster has yet to film a solo op-ed. In her introductory video, she sits before a crackling fire and tells the camera, "I just love shooting the AR-15," because "I feel like a badass." She also equates gun rights with women's rights, and abortion in particular. "If you're going to be able to choose what you do with your body, then why are we not allowed to choose how we defend our bodies?" she asks.

Raso is the only one of the new stars who didn't already have a Web presence. In his opening profile video, Raso says that after "being overseas and being in combat and seeing the government take away weapons and how it negatively affects the population, then coming back home and watching the same thing unfold -– I'm in shock by it." None of the gun curbs proposed since the Newtown, Conn., elementary school massacre involve taking people's guns.

Raso doesn't say where he was deployed as a SEAL, but it's difficult to rationalize how a U.S. soldier could want more guns in civilian hands after the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In both countries, heavily armed civilians quickly morphed into nebulous militia groups that shot and killed thousands of U.S. troops.

19. The left's continuing war on women


by Ann Coulter
March 27, 2013

The New York Times caused a sensation with its kazillion-word, March 17 article by Michael Luo on the failures of state courts to get guns out of the hands of men in domestic violence situations.

The main purpose of the article was to tweak America's oldest civil rights organization, the National Rifle Association, for opposing some of the more rash anti-gun proposals being considered by state legislatures, such as allowing courts to take away a person's firearms on the basis of a temporary restraining order.

It's a new position for liberals to oppose the rights of the accused. Usually the Times is demanding that even convicted criminals be given voting rights, light sentences, sex-change operations and vegan meals in prison.

Another recent Times article about communities trying to keep sex offenders out of their neighborhoods quoted a liberal saying: "It's counterproductive to public safety, because when you have nothing to lose, you are much more likely to commit a crime than when you are rebuilding your life."

But that was about convicted child molesters. This is about guns, so all new rules apply.

As is usually the case when liberals start proposing gun restrictions, they assume only men will be disarmed by laws taking guns from those subjected to temporary restraining orders. But such orders aren't particularly difficult to get. It doesn't occur to liberals that an abusive man could also get one against his wife, whether his accusations are true or not.

Rather than helping victims of domestic abuse, this -- and other Times' proposals on guns -- only ensures that more women will get killed. A gun in the hand of an abused woman changes the power dynamic far more than keeping a gun out of the hands of her abuser, who generally can murder his wife in any number of ways.

The vast majority of rapists, for example, don't even bother using a gun because -- as renowned criminologist Gary Kleck notes -- they typically have a "substantial power advantage over the victim," making the use of a weapon redundant.

As the Times eventually admits around paragraph 400: "In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order (taking guns from the accused wife abuser) would have prevented the deaths."

No kidding. In one case the Times cites, Robert Wigg ripped a door off its hinges and heaved it at his wife, Deborah, after having thrown her to the floor by her hair.

Deborah Wigg moved out, got an order of protection and filed for divorce. But doors were not an impediment to Robert Wigg. He showed up at her new house and, in short order, broke down the door and murdered her.

He happened to have used a gun, but he might as well have used his fists. Or an illegal gun, had the court taken away his legal guns. Or another door.

As her husband was breaking in, Deborah called her parents and 911. Her neighbors called 911, too. But the police didn't arrive in time. Even her parents got to the house before the cops did, only to find their daughter murdered.

The protection order didn't help Deborah Wigg; the police couldn't help; her neighbors and parents couldn't help. Only if she'd had a gun and knew how to use it -- after carefully disregarding everything Joe Biden has said on the subject -- might she have been able to save her own life.

Numerous studies, including one by the National Institute of Justice, show that crime victims who resist a criminal with a gun are less likely to be injured than those who do not resist at all or who resist without a gun. That's true even when the assailant is armed.

Liberals' advice to rape and domestic abuse victims is: Lie back and enjoy it. The Times' advice is: Get a restraining order. The NRA's advice is: Blow the dirtbag's head off. Or, for the delicate: Resist with a gun, the only effective means to stop an attack.

Apparently a lot of abused women prefer not to lie back and take it. Looking at data from Detroit, Houston and Miami, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly found that the vast majority of wives who killed their husbands were not even indicted, much less convicted, because it was found they were acting in self-defense.

But the Times doesn't want abused women to have a fighting chance. Instead, it keeps pushing gun control policies that not only won't stop violent men from murdering their wives, but will disarm their intended victims.

20. The fat lady sings on gun control, 2013 edition

EM Dave Hicks sent me this:



The Fat Lady Sings on Gun Control, 2013 Edition
By Stuart Rothenberg
March 27, 2013

Whether you are a staunch supporter of the National Rifle Association or an enthusiastic backer of the effort by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Sen. Dianne Feinstein for stronger gun control laws, it now should be clear who is winning — indeed, who has won — the latest skirmish in the gun control wars.

As my friend Chris Cillizza noted recently in an excellent piece, supporters of new gun control measures are poised to fail, yet again, in their efforts to pass significant new legislation.

The Senate's gun violence bill doesn't include an assault weapons ban or a ban on high-capacity magazines, so almost any legislation eventually enacted is likely to fall far short of what activists on the gun control side really want — or hoped for after the Newtown, Conn., tragedy.

The assault weapons ban was officially declared dead last week, and even a new requirement for expanded background checks could fail unless its supporters work with congressional Republicans to fashion a proposal that both parties can accept.

The liberal Center for American Progress, which in January proposed more than a dozen policies "to prevent gun violence in our nation," on Wednesday issued a report arguing that the Newtown shootings "changed the debate" on gun control" and criticizing polling for missing "emerging trends on gun issues" even before the Connecticut tragedy.

But a CBS News poll released this week suggests the gun control issue is losing steam.

The March 20-24 survey found 47 percent of respondents favoring stricter gun control laws, while 39 percent said gun control laws should be kept as they are and 11 percent favored fewer restrictions — a 10-point drop in support for greater regulation since a February survey.

Advocates of additional restrictions warn that the issue could be decisive in the 2014 midterms, arguing that it could draw more women and minorities to the polls who will vote for Democratic supporters of gun control.

In fact, given the geographical distribution of support for more gun control (disproportionately in the Northeast and in urban areas around the country) and the way congressional districts are drawn, higher turnout among liberals and minority voters isn't likely to improve Democratic prospects.

And the Senate map for 2014 — with seats up in Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia — is more likely to be a problem for Democrats who support substantial new gun control measures.

In fact, gun control advocates must decide whether to go after Democrats who oppose stricter controls on guns in primaries, including those where pro-gun Democrats have been successful. Bloomberg has already shown he is willing to spend many millions of dollars to try to persuade senators to vote in favor of gun legislation. And a super PAC that he funds has been active in House races over the past cycle.

Gun control generates extreme passion at both ends of the spectrum, and almost everyone seems to have an opinion about whether additional restrictions are necessary and what those restrictions might be.

But the key political question is whether (and how much) the issue will alter voters' traditional vote choices in November 2014. For now, there is little reason to believe the Connecticut shootings have altered the political landscape dramatically.

21. Carter County, TN passes second amendment resolution 16-2

Walter Jackson sent me this:


States and localities are voting to nullify fereral laws. This is a followup story about " Nullification for Lawyers " This may be the beginning of a broad effort by state anf local government to nullify federal law(s).


Carter County, TN Passes Second Amendment Resolution 16-2
by Tim Ravndal

Carter County, Tenn. recently joined the swelling ranks of local governments condemning any unconstitutional federal acts violating the Second Amendment.

County commissioners met on Monday, March 11, and took a stand against Federal Gun laws. By a 16 to 2 vote, the commission adopted a resolution calling on the state to step in and protect citizens from Second Amendment violations.

The resolution calls upon the governor and the Tennessee legislature "to immediately pass acts to protect, preserve and defend the citizens of Carter County and the state of Tennessee guaranteed by the Second Amendment … and specifically to immediately pass any acts as may be appropriate to nullify the implementation within the state of Tennessee of any federal law, regulation or executive order enacted to restrict the rights of citizens of Tennessee to keep and bear arms."

The commission considered the same resolution during their Feb. 19 meeting, but failed to secure a needed two thirds majority vote to pass the legislation. County Mayor Leon Humphrey presented the resolution again and it passed overwhelmingly on the second go-around. Humphrey said he was pleased with the vote.

"They took the appropriate action. All of us work for the people and when an issue is brought to us by a great number of people it is our responsibility to act on that."

Hardin County, Tenn. commissioners passed a similar measure that same week. Details weren't available at publication.

While resolutions like these aren't binding, they do send a strong message that can impact policy at the state level. Tennessee state lawmakers and Gov. Haslam should take not of the popular support for state intervention to stop any unconstitutional federal gun acts.


If you would like to see model legislation to introduce in your state or local community to nullify federal firearm laws, please see The Tenth Amendment Center's Model Legislation: The 2nd Amendment Preservation Act.

22. State grants secret service vast new powers

The Democrats in Colorado are making quite a name for themselves in the realm of spitting on their constitution. The next elections in Colorado will be interesting.

Stephen Wenger sent me this:



Soon will be able to enforce Obama gun laws without sheriffs' help
by Jack Minor
March 30, 2013

A bill is heading to Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper's desk that Republican lawmakers say would give members of the Secret Service broad arrest powers in the state and could provide a framework for federal agents eventually to enforce gun restrictions.

"This is absolutely insane," Rep. Lori Saine, R-Dacono, said. "In theory if a Secret Service agent is in a county where the sheriff has refused to enforce some of the recent unenforceable gun laws, the agent could arrest an individual if he believes the law has been broken."

The idea actually aligns with an Obama agenda to create vast new restrictions and regulations on guns. WND has reported that hundreds of sheriffs nationwide, including many in Colorado, have said they cannot enforce federal restrictions that would violate the Second Amendment.

In Colorado, Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs "won't bother" with several laws poised to go into effect in Colorado because they would be impossible to enforce.

One of the laws would require private sellers to do a background check on purchasers in private gun transaction, but the sheriffs wonder how to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.

Cooke said many new gun laws are "feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable" and would "give a false sense of security."

Cooke said he and other sheriffs are considering filing a lawsuit to block the laws. And sheriffs in other parts of the nation agree, with more than 340 already banding together to promise to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

The Colorado Legislature also passed a bill putting a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.

The new bill regarding the Secret Service, SB-13-013, passed on a nearly party line vote in the Democrat-controlled House and is now awaiting the governor's signature. The bill grants members of the Secret Service arrest powers by considering them to be a peace officer, putting them on a par with state law-enforcement officials with respect to arrest authority.

The legislation does not only apply to agents guarding the president or other government officials but also to special agents, uniformed division officers, physical security technicians, physical security specialists and special officers of the United States Secret Service.

Republican lawmakers say that when they asked why the bill was needed they were given a series of conflicting answers.

Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, said he was told the purpose of the bill was to make it easier to hold a person for mental health reasons.

"When I asked in committee why they need this I was told it was so we can exercise 72-hour mental holds on our own citizens," Lundberg said.

"I found it curious that this was the big reason they thought they needed it. Currently a police officer, doctor, psychiatrists, registered nurses and other professionals just on the strength of their word can say they want a person taken against their will and put in a mental institution for up to three business days, meaning it could be even longer if it was over the weekend, for an evaluation as to whether they are mentally sane or a danger to themselves or others."

Sen. Vicki Marble, R-Fort Collins, said despite the bill being sponsored by a fellow Republican, the 72-hour mental hold caught the attention of several Republicans in the Senate.

"This was one of the big flags for us in the bill," Marble said. "It's very suspicious because we have the separation of federal, state and even the local police services. Everyone has their own jurisdiction, and there is a special reason for keeping federal agents away.

"No federal authority should have the ability to detain somebody for 72 hours," she said. "If there is a legitimate reason for doing so for someone who is mentally ill, that should come at the local level where people in the community know one another."

Marble said the mental hold was the reason the bill slipped under the radar.

"The mental health hold was what they testified to in committee, and that was the big thing they didn't want to get out, but it does give them the authority to put that hold on people."

Lundberg said the big concern is that the bill essentially places members of the Secret Service on an equal footing with law-enforcement, without being constrained by jurisdictional issues.

"If you look at the bill, it says they can operate alongside of local police authorities and function as equals you might say," he said. "However, when you read it carefully it basically gives them state police power so whatever power a regular policeman such as the state patrol, sheriff's office or local police has they will have also."

However, in debate on the House side, Saine said she was given a different reason for why legislators needed to pass the bill.

"Rep. Jared Wright was talking about how when he was in committee he asked several times why they needed it, and the reason given was if there was a motorcade and something happened during the procession the Secret Service needed the authority to arrest the perpetrators," Saine said.

"Then we were told by the sponsor that's not it, it's because they were going to help our local law enforcement and sheriffs with check and wire fraud. However, check and wire fraud are not mentioned anywhere in the bill," she said.

The bill states that the agents are automatically granted peace officer status when several conditions apply. For instance, if the agent is responding to a non-federal felony or misdemeanor being committed in their presence, he has the full authority to arrest any Colorado citizen.

The bill also gives the Secret Service agents wide discretion to arrest citizens based merely on probable cause that a non-federal felony or misdemeanor involving injury or threat of injury to a person or property has been or is being committed.

Lundberg said one of the problems with bills like this is they start out by giving broad authority to a government agency or entity, then they place language later in the bill that appears to restrict that authority in an attempt to provide cover for those expressing alarm about the language.

"Often in laws like this they will give broad authority in one section, then later in another section they will have wording which appears to restrict the authority," he explained. "Unlike the state's law enforcement, the Secret Service would not have any jurisdictional concerns. Under this bill they can go anywhere in the state of Colorado regardless of jurisdiction."

But Wright, a former law-enforcement official, told Marble the Secret Service told him their current policies would prohibit them from arresting Colorado citizens under the bill's provisions.

"They told Jared that making an arrest of a Colorado citizen for a misdemeanor crime unrelated to their own duties would actually violate their own guidelines," Marble said. "So his question was why are we passing a law that violates their own internal policies."

In Texas, a Democrat in the state legislature has proposed a bill that would allow the state to remove an elected sheriff for refusing to enforce the law. The bill defines law as including any rule, regulation, executive order, court order, statute or constitutional provision.

After the passage of a several gun control laws, which would among other things restrict magazine size and prohibit private sales between individuals without a background check, several sheriffs have said the laws are unenforceable and they will not enforce what they call unconstitutional laws.

Under Colorado law, the only individual with the authority to arrest a sheriff is the coroner.

Saine said she believes the bill is intended to be used as a foundation for later legislation that will surrender still greater control to federal officials.

"There've been so many explanations for the reasons they really need this bill passed. So what is it really?" Saine asked. "I believe it is intended to be used for setting up a framework so that at some other time they could expand it to possibly include being able to arrest a sheriff who is refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. They would justify it by saying that since we've already given the Secret Service this ability, why not give them just one more?"

Lundberg said he agrees with Saine's assessment that the bill could be used to expand federal power beyond what is stated in its language.

"It does give Secret Service powers in a broad sense, but I'm not sure the changes as stated will automatically change things significantly. It's not a broad overreach, but it is an overreach. It's one more step in the wrong direction."

Lundberg said rather than expanding the ability of federal officials, state and local officials should be looking for opportunities to stand up against federal intervention in local affairs.

"I believe sheriffs can enforce their authority," Lundberg said. "I also think we need to draw the line as clearly as we can and at every opportunity to say the states are in charge, not the federal government."

WND has reported that sheriffs across the country are expressing concern that they cannot enforce a Washington mandate that clearly violates the Second Amendment.

A growing list of now more than 340 sheriffs who have reportedly vowed to uphold the Constitution against efforts to undermine Americans' gun rights is being accumulated by the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association.

As WND also reported, Cooke said he is getting political pressure to support the laws. He said he received an email chain pointing out that Senate Majority Leader John Morse, a Democrat, said if a salary bill were introduced, it would not be until late in the session, after the gun-control bills had been voted on.

Cooke said while he's not willing to conclude the emails meet the legal definition of extortion, it was apparent that was the intent.

"When you look at the email, I don't see how you could look at it any other way," Cooke said. "It definitely implied the reason a pay raise bill was being held up was to punish us for our stance against these gun bills. Then they had another email suggesting if we were to support this bill, it would look better for us and maybe we can get a bill introduced for a raise.

"To me, that didn't sit well at all. I'm not willing to say its extortion yet, but it just looked bad. We were not willing to compromise on our principles. We felt the bill was bad, and we were not going to support it."

The sheriff's pushback against the gun measures is significant because Democratic lawmakers are crafting similar bills in other states.

"The bills are a model for what they'll try to push in Congress," said Independence Institute research director and Denver University law professor Dave Kopel.

"Colorado is a pawn for the Obama-Biden plan," he added.

In fact, Vice-President Joe Biden called undecided Democrats and pushed for passage of the bills. Obama is scheduled to visit the state in just a few days.

While some see the measures as models for other states, laws that preserve gun rights are gaining momentum.

The first of these was the Firearms Freedom Act passed in Montana, which says any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states.

Lawmakers in other states are now following suit.

Two senators in Ohio have introduced a bill which would prohibit firearms seizures, registration and bans in their state.

A bill in Kentucky would prohibit the state from enforcing new federal gun-control laws, if enacted.

Idaho's House passed a bill that would criminalize enforcing any new federal laws that ban, restrict, confiscate or require registration of firearms or ammunition in violation of the state's constitution.

A bill in Louisiana would prohibit the enforcement of federal restrictions regarding the ownership or possession of semi-automatic firearms.

A bill that would prohibit the enforcement of federal gun laws passed in the House Public Safety Committee in Oklahoma.

The Texas House is considering a measure to prevent state and local police from enforcing new federal gun-control measures.

A bill in Arizona would make it a felony for the federal government to enforce new laws or regulations on guns, accessories and ammunition owned or manufactured in the state.

And a bill in Michigan would exempt firearms and firearms accessories made and sold exclusively in Michigan from federal gun restrictions.

Some of the strongest language to that effect has come from Utah, where 28 of the state's 29 elected sheriffs signed a letter to President Obama warning him not to send federal agents to start confiscating guns.

Similarly, in New Mexico in January, 30 of the state's 33 county sheriffs paid a visit to the state house, reminding the governor and state congressmen that a sheriff's job is to defend the Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

23. Woman accused of providing gun used to kill Colorado prisons chief

Background checks, including proposed "universal" background checks are a joke. Any background check can be gotten around easily with a straw purchase. That's apparently what happened in this murder of a Colorado prison chief.


Woman accused of providing gun used to kill Colorado prisons chief
by Associated Press
March 28, 2013

CENTENNIAL, Colo. – Investigators are looking into how much the woman accused of buying the gun used to kill Colorado's corrections chief knew about the slaying.

Twenty-two-year-old Stevie Marie Vigil made her first appearance in court Thursday in Centennial after being arrested for buying the gun and giving it to Evan Ebel. Ebel was a felon who was barred from possessing a firearm.

She was ordered held on $25,000 bond. She faces one count of unlawful purchase of a firearm. It carries a penalty of between two and 16 years in prison.

An El Paso County Sheriff's Office spokesman says investigators don't know yet what Vigil knew about what Ebel planned to do.

Prosecutor Mark Hurlbert wouldn't comment on whether other charges are being considered. Vigil's lawyer left the hearing without comment.

24. Lawmaker sends shocking rant to gun-rights constituent, copies state legislature

A lawmaker in Alabama shows the seething hatred that many gun grabbers have.


Alabama lawmaker sends shocking RACIST rant to gun-rights constituent, and copies every member of the state legislature
by David Martosko
March 27, 2013

A black member of the Alabama legislature uncorked a racist tirade in an email this week to a constituent who urged him not to embrace new gun control laws - copying his incendiary language to every member of the state legislature.

Joseph Mitchell, a Democrat who has represented parts of the city of Mobile since 1994 and ran for re-election unopposed in 2010 and 2006, castigated a voter named Eddie Maxwell, a Jefferson County man whom he correctly presumed was white.

'Hey man,' Mitchell wrote. 'Your folk never used all this sheit [sic] to protect my folk from your slave-holding, murdering, adulterous, baby-raping, incestuous, snaggle-toothed, backward-a**ed, inbreed [sic], imported criminal-minded kin folk.'

The email he was responding to asked him, and the other members of the Alabama legislature, to keep state gun laws in step with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, which guarantees citizens access to firearms.

'Do not violate your oath of office by introducing additional gun control bills,' Maxwell urged Mitchell, or by allowing those already enacted to remain in the body of our laws.'

The exchange, which occurred during a stretch of two weeks ending on February 13, was first reported by Yellow Hammer Politics, an Alabama-based conservative political blog. Mobile's Press-Register published the complete, unedited email chain Wednesday morning.

Mitchell's reply also suggested that he favored arming black Alabamians before enforcing new gun-control measures, in case they needed to defend themselves from racist white southerners.

'You can keep sending me stuff like you have however,' he wrote, 'because it helps me explain to my constituents why they should protect that 2nd amendment thing AFTER we [blacks] finish stocking up on spare parts, munitions and the like.'

'Bring it,' he concluded. 'As one of my friends in the Alabama Senate suggested – "BRING IT!!!!"'

Maxwell, a retired coal miner, objected to amending the state constitution with new gun laws 'when the change is forbidden by the people.'

'You have sworn to support our constitution,' his initial email read. 'Do not violate your oath of office by introducing additional gun control bills or by allowing those already enacted to remain in the body of our laws.'

After reading Mitchell's race-laden reply, Maxwell sent another follow-up email.

'That's not the type of reply I expect to receive from a state legislator,' he wrote.

'I'm not a racist and I find your reply to be especially offensive considering the position you hold.'

'My parents and grandparents taught me to love God and my fellow man as myself. My father was threatened by members of his church back in 1954 for inviting a black family to attend the church he pastored.

'My father-in-law was threatened when he hired a young negro man to work in his shop back in 1968 in a community where several neighbors were members of the Ku Klux Klan. He didn't allow those threats to keep him from treating people of all races equally.'

'Racism,' Maxwell concluded, 'is not exclusive to my own people. I learned that before 1955. It is just as ugly now as it was then, regardless of the race of the person who is consumed by it.'

Mitchell kept the thread going, continuing to copy all his legislative colleagues and insisting that it's impossible for a black man to be a racist.

'Historically, violence on Black folk was committed by White folk,' he insisted. 'It's a fact but is it "racist?" It is "racial."'

'A person without the power to exercise a threat cannot be a racist because he or she will be eliminated. A person who can, by merely stepping back on the sidewalk ore [sic] being quiet can support racism and benefit from the 'first hired,' affirmative action, preferential treatment fostered by systemic racism and bigotry.'

Mitchell ended his email with the taunting sign-off: 'Lock and load'

Neither MailOnline nor the Press-Register got responses when they reached out to Mitchell's office for comment.

But Maxwell told the Press-Register that he had no regrets about challenging his elected representative.

'It just makes me more determined that we the people need to stay involved," he told the paper in a telephone interview. 'It's up to us as citizens to watch our government.'

Maxwell also told the Press-Register that two other members of the state legislature have reached out to him to register their shock about their colleague's language.

This member hears you loud and clear,' he said Democratic state Rep. Patricia Todd of Birmingham wrote. 'I just received this chain of emails and wanted to let you know that I am with you on the gun issue and am saddened by the tone of my colleague's email. All of us have suffered from the racism of the past and I thank you for your civic and thoughtful response.'

Maxwell added that he was hopeful that Mitchell would be sanctioned by his fellow lawmakers.

25. Miller: Mayor Bloomberg's irresponsible gun attack ads


MILLER: Mayor Bloomberg's irresponsible gun attack ads
Man violates all three NRA gun-safety rules
by Emily MIller-The Washington Times
March 25, 2013

Mike Bloomberg is spending $12 million on attack ads designed to force U.S. senators to vote for national gun control laws that will supposedly save lives. However, the New York mayor's commercials running in 13 states over the next two weeks could cause injury or death by showcasing irresponsible handling of a firearm.

Mr. Bloomberg's organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, produced two ads featuring a man holding a shotgun, wearing plaid flannel with a camouflage cap and sitting on the tailgate of a pickup truck. While a child swings on a tire in the background, the man says, "I support comprehensive background checks so criminals and the dangerously mentally ill can't buy guns."

The ad does not specify if the man is an actor, but the text accompanying it says he is a "gun owner." Either way, the man violates all three gun safety rules taught by the National Rifle Association (NRA). (Click here to see the ads.)

The first rule is to always keep the gun pointed in a safe direction. In this case, the children are playing in the yard. Although the viewers can't see what is to the side of the truck, the man should be pointing the muzzle in the air or at the ground.

The second NRA rule is always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

In the ad "Responsibility," the man has his finger on the trigger, as if ready to shoot. While doing this, he says, "I believe in the Second Amendment, and I'll fight to protect it. But with rights come responsibilities." To make an ad demonstrating actual gun responsibility, the man would put a straight forefinger above the trigger guard to make sure he doesn't accidentally touch the trigger.

The third NRA safety rule is always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use. This means a situation in which the gun is available for immediate use — such as when hunting and a deer could step out at any time or when the firearm is safely stored but ready for quick self-defense as needed.

In the ad called "Family," the man says that, "My dad taught me to hunt, and I'll teach my kids. I've owned a gun all my life, and I'll fight for my right to keep it."

While saying this, he holds the pump-action shotgun with the action (bolt) closed, so it is impossible to know if it is loaded. To make this a demonstration of safety, the bolt would be wide open to demonstrate that it is unloaded.

A man who grew up hunting would know that by holding a shotgun straight horizontal, with the action closed and his finger on the trigger, he is committing all three cardinal sins of gun safety.

The dangerous ads are intended to pressure senators to get 60 votes for regulating private gun transactions, one of the measures the Senate take up when Congress returns from Easter recess. The legislation, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer, New York Democrat, was supposed to be negotiated with Republicans, but instead a partisan bill was voted out of committee. Mr. Schumer said he will try to find consensus before the floor vote.

Lawmakers who support gun rights don't easily divide along party lines. While most Republicans in Washington are pro-Second Amendment, some Democrats from rural or other pro-gun states support the right to keep and bear arms. So Mr. Bloomberg is directing his ire at both sides of the aisle.

Hizzoner believes that these Republicans might be willing to bow to the pressure from the attack ads: Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Dan Coats of Indiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Chuck Grassley of Iowa (who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee), Dean Heller of Nevada, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

The Democrats getting whacked are Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

If Mr. Bloomberg is sincere in wanting to save lives, he should consider spending his billions on TV ads that showcase people demonstrating basic gun safety measures.

26. Juan Williams: Race and the gun debate


Juan Williams: Race and the Gun Debate
The No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34: being murdered with a gun.
by Juan Williams
March 26, 2013

This week much of the talk about gun control concerns New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's $12 million ad campaign to put pressure on senators in key states to support legislation that he backs. Or the talk is about the National Rifle Association's pushback against the Bloomberg campaign. Then there was last week's mini-tempest over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision not to include Sen. Dianne Feinstein's assault-weapon ban in a comprehensive gun-control bill the Senate will take up next month.

One thing you don't hear much about in the discussions of guns: race.

That is an astonishing omission, because race ought to be an inescapable part of the debate. Gun-related violence and murders are concentrated among blacks and Latinos in big cities. Murders with guns are the No. 1 cause of death for African-American men between the ages of 15 and 34. But talking about race in the context of guns would also mean taking on a subject that can't be addressed by passing a law: the family-breakdown issues that lead too many minority children to find social status and power in guns.

The statistics are staggering. In 2009, for example, the Centers for Disease Control reported that 54% of all murders committed, overwhelmingly with guns, are murders of black people. Black people are about 13% of the population.

The Justice Department reports that between 1980 and 2008, "blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."

The dire implications of these numbers is evident in a Children's Defense Fund report that included a chilling historical perspective: The 44,038 black children killed by guns since 1979 (when national data on the age of gun violence victims was first collected) is "nearly 13 times more" than all the black people killed by lynching in the 86-year period of 1882 to 1968.

This awful reality explains why support for gun control in the black and Hispanic community is overwhelming (71% among blacks and 78% of Hispanics, according to a recent Pew poll). That is a marked contrast with national polls on new gun laws. Those polls show 46% of Americans of all races backing the right to own guns versus 50% who agree to the need for more limits on gun owners. Apparently, the heart of opposition to new gun regulations is in the white community. Yet white people face far less daily violence with guns.

The debate over gun control too often seems a matter of abstractions about the meaning of the Constitution and the permissible capacities of ammunition magazines. Why is so little time spent on a question of more immediate concern—namely, why are so many young black people using guns to kill their neighbors?

President Obama, a hero in black America as the first black president, has been remarkably quiet on this issue until recently. It was only in December, after the mass killing of mostly white school children in Newtown, Conn., by a white man, that the president took the political risk of backing new gun-control legislation.

Young blacks' violent deaths from handguns hadn't moved him to such action. The president spoke publicly about that matter only after the recent gun murder of a 15-year-old girl from his hometown of Chicago who had performed at his second inaugural. "Last year there were 443 murders with firearms in this city and 65 were people under 18," Mr. Obama said. "That's the equivalent of a Newtown every four months. This is not just a gun issue. It is also an issue of the communities that we are building."

In speaking about social breakdown in those minority communities, the president put the gun issue in the context of high rates of out-of-wedlock births that lead to high rates of childhood poverty. "I wish I had a father who was around and involved," the president said, in words that echoed loudly through black and Latino neighborhoods nationally because he revealed a pain so common, yet so rarely confessed, among young people of color.

The shame and silence is enforced by civil-rights leaders who speak in support of gun control but never about a dysfunctional gangster-rap culture that glorifies promiscuity, drug dealers and the power of the gun.

"Loving, supporting parents . . . [are] the single most important thing," the president told his audience of young, mostly minority children at Hyde Park Academy High School in Chicago. He made the case for parents as the key to giving children a sense of self-esteem beyond the barrel of a gun.

Almost 50 years ago, when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, the national out-of-wedlock birthrate was 7%. Today it is over 40%. According to the CDC, the out-of-wedlock birthrate for white children was just 2% in the 1960s. Today it is 30%. Among black children, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has skyrocketed from 20% in the 1960s to a heartbreaking 72% today. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock rate, which has been measured for a much shorter period, was below 40% in 1990 and stands at more than 50% as of the 2010 census.

When President Obama tried to speak to this crippling dynamic in 2008, he was basically told to shut up by Rev. Jesse Jackson. The Chicago-based activist said: "Barack was talking down to black people," then he added a vulgar threat about what he wanted to do in response. The moment revealed the high cost of speaking honestly about social breakdown in black America.

I support gun control. But speaking honestly about the combustible mix of race and guns may be more important to stopping the slaughter in minority communities than any new gun-control laws.

27. Marcus Hook's mayor arrested, charged with reckless endangerment

Two more mayors who are members of Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns are arrested. THESE are the people who don't want YOU to have a gun?

However, I can understand their attraction to Bloomberg - birds of a feather kind of thing.

EM Matt Gottshalk sent me this:



Marcus Hook's Mayor Arrested, Charged With Reckless Endangerment
March 21, 2013

MARCUS HOOK, Pa. - The Delaware County DA's office has announced that James Schiliro, the mayor of Marcus Hook, has been arrested.

He is facing multiple criminal charges, including reckless endangerment. Schiliro surrendered to police early Thursday morning.

Earlier this week, the Delco Times reported that the borough council and the Republican Party asked Schiliro to resign following a drunken encounter with a 20-year-old man, which resulted in the discharge of a firearm.

According to court documents, the mayor is accused of having a police officer pick up a 20-year-old friend in a police cruiser and bring him to his home. Inside, the mayor allegedly served the minor alcohol and asked for sexual favors.

When the man refused, the mayor allegedly told him he was a hostage and fired his gun inside of the home, court documents said.

District Attorney Jack Whelan says the case will likely be transferred to another court for a preliminary hearing because of a conflict of interest.

A neighbor of Schiliro tells FOX 29's Stephanie Esposito the accusations are hard to believe. The neighbor says the mayor was known for buying ice cream for all of the neighborhood kids.

28. Principal dead in grenade attack in Pakistan

Yet another example of the evil people that surrounds us in this world.

Board Member Dennis O'Connor sent me this:


The attackers would have been loving, angelic, compassionate paragons of virtue if only it weren't for easy access to assault grenades and assault bombs.

Surely someone cares enough to organize a grenade-control movement.


Principal dead in grenade attack in Pakistan
by Adil Jawad, from Associated Press
March 30, 2013

KARACHI, Pakistan (AP) — A man armed with a gun and grenades attacked a school in southern Pakistan during a prize distribution ceremony on Saturday, killing its principal and wounding six children before fleeing.

Police officer Nasir Mehmood said the attacker struck as dozens of children were gathered outside at their private school in Karachi to receive the results of their annual exam.

TV showed panicked relatives of the wounded children, who were between the ages of 8 and 10, crying outside the school in the port city's Ittehad Town neighborhood.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility.

Another police officer, Asif Ijaz Sheikh, said the slain principal was a local leader of the Awami National Party (ANP). He said police were still investigating the identity of the attacker, who threw two grenades and then opened fire on Khan and children who were standing near him.

Karachi has been the scene of scores of bomb and gun attacks in recent years. Gangs controlled by various groups, including the city's two main political parties the Muttahida Quami Movement and the ANP, have also been blamed for targeted killings of their rivals.

The MQM primarily represents the Urdu-speaking descendants of those who came to Karachi from India soon after the birth of Pakistan.

The group's main rival, the ANP, represents ethnic Pashtuns from Pakistan's northwest.

The ANP also has a tense relationship with the Pakistani Taliban, and the militants in recent years have targeted several party leaders, including one senior politician, Bashir Bilour, who died in a suicide attack in December 2012.

Also Saturday, a suicide bomber blew himself up near a police patrol in a bazaar in the northwestern town of Mardan, killing an officer and wounding two policemen and two passers-by, senior police officer Jafar Khan said.

He said other police spotted an associate and killed him after a short chase.

No one claimed responsibility, but the Pakistani Taliban often target police and security forces in the region and elsewhere in the country.

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