Saturday, April 20, 2013

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 4/20/13

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

1. Reminder: VCDL meeting in Charlottesville THIS Tuesday, April 23rd
2. VCDL President on gun-control panel at Radford University on Thursday, April 25
3. Reminder: VCDL meeting in Annandale on Thursday, April 25th
4. 13 month old child shot in the face by two teens in robbery attempt
5. Police consider whether to charge neighbor in fatal shooting of Loudoun teen
6. Who needs a gun in a gun-free zone?
7. Robert Steed - Epic gun control testimony [Video]
8. Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced
9. Now 340 sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control
10. In Colorado, gun restrictions bring political peril
11. Universal Background Checks - This is the plan
12. 37 gun rights groups form 'Coalition Against Universal Background Checks'
13. New York State offering $500 to people who snitch on gun owners
14. Feinstein to Reid: "A major betrayal of trust" [Video]
15. Sandy Hook gunman reportedly compiled massive spreadsheet on previous killings
16. Rangel: 'Millions of kids' being shot down by assault rifles
17. Killings involving assault-style rifles rare in Virginia
18. Dramatic 911 call captures OK man shooting home intruder after police couldn't arrive fast enough
19. Permit holder saves a woman being beaten
20. The many names of gun-control organizations, Part II
21. NRA-driven gun provisions pass along with spending bill
22. Sarah Brady's admission
23. And the MAIG hits just keep rolling....
24. Gun owners separate friends from foes
25. Roanoke Valley gun show draws protestors [Video]
26. An amusing police contact
27. Women defying gun owner stereotype [Video]
28. This Chick is Packin - Women for the 2nd Amendment decals

1. Reminder: VCDL meeting in Charlottesville THIS Tuesday, April 23rd

There will be a VCDL meeting at Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club on Tuesday, April 23. We will begin with a pot-luck dinner at 6:30 p.m. The main course and beverages will be supplied. Those who are able please bring a side dish to share. If you are able to join us for the dinner but can't bring a dish, please don't worry, there is always plenty.

The meeting part will begin at 7:30 and we are usually done by 9:00. There is much to talk about with the recent events and the General Assembly winding down their 2013 session. You don't need to be a VCDL member or an RRPC member to attend the meeting. In fact, we encourage you to bring your friends and neighbors.

If you are attending the DINNER please be so kind as to RSVP by email to Include in the subject line the number of people who will be eating; example: 4 for dinner 4/23 VCDL meeting. This will help us gage how much of the main course to bring. There is no need to reply if you are only attending the meeting.

Directions to the meeting can be found on the RRPC web site at If you have never visited the club, this is a great opportunity to check out the facilities. We again extend our gratitude to RRPC for their continued hospitality!


Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club
1570 Old Lynchburg Road
Charlottesville, VA 22906

April 23, 2013
Dinner 6:30 - 7:30
Meeting 7:30 - 9:00
RSVP for dinner:

2. VCDL President on gun-control panel at Radford University on Thursday, April 25

I will be participating in a panel on gun control at Radford University on Thursday, April 25, at 7 PM. The event is being held in Heth 014.

Others on the panel include, Dr. Hendrix. Dr. Hochstein, Justin Blankenship, Peyton Youngblood

The debate is open to the public.

3. Reminder: VCDL meeting in Annandale on Thursday, April 25th

There is a VCDL membership meeting in Annandale at the Mason Government Center this Thursday, April 25, at 8 pm. Fellowship starts at 7:30 PM.

The meeting is open to the pubic, so bring friends, family, and co-workers.


4. 13 month old child shot in the face by two teens in robbery attempt

An important story for mothers who don't carry a gun for self-defense. Pure evil will murder a baby in cold blood and not think twice about it.

Walter Jackson emailed me this:


From AP:

By Russ Bynum
March 23, 2013

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) -- The mother of a baby shot dead in his stroller took one look at a teenage suspect's jailhouse mugshot Saturday and said he was definitely the killer. Yet an aunt of the teen said he was eating breakfast with her when the slaying took place.

Despite the conflicting stories, police have charged 17-year-old De'Marquise Elkins with murder, along with a 14-year-old suspect whose name has been withheld because he's a juvenile.

Brunswick police spokesman Todd Rhodes said even though Elkins' aunt provided an alibi, authorities have good reason to bring the charges.

"That's what she's saying, but the evidence we're looking at says something else," Rhodes said, though he would not elaborate.

Also Saturday, police in this coastal port city released 911 recordings from neighbors who sobbed and pleaded for help right after 13-month-old Antonio Santiago was shot in the head a few blocks from his mother's apartment.

Sherry West said she was pushing her baby in his stroller as she walked home from the post office Thursday morning. She said a teenager, with a younger boy behind him, approached and asked her for money. West said when she told him she had no money, the teen drew a gun and said: "Do you want me to kill your baby?"

The gunman opened fire and West was shot in the leg, while another bullet grazed her left ear, she said. She watched helplessly as the gunman shot her son in the face, she said.

Two teddy bears, a vase of flowers and a decorative cross had been left Saturday against a wooden fence near the shooting scene.

Katrina Freeman said Saturday the shooter can't be her nephew, Elkins, because he showed up at her house Thursday at 8:15 a.m. - roughly an hour before the killing. She said she cooked eggs, grits and sausage for breakfast and that Elkins accompanied her and her children to run errands when they left at about 11:30 a.m.

"He was with us the whole time," said Freeman, adding that she gave police the same account of her nephew's whereabouts. "There is no doubt in my mind that he is innocent."

The slain boy's mother said she picked the gunman out of a photo lineup of 24 mugshots police brought to her Friday. When a reporter showed her the photo of Elkins taken when he was booked into the Glynn County jail Friday, she wept and nodded.

"He killed my baby, and he shot me, too," she said.

At her apartment Saturday, West had filled several bags with her son's clothes and diapers to donate to charity. She said she hopes prosecutors pursue the death penalty in the case.

"My baby will never be back again," West said, sobbing. "He took an innocent life. I want his life, too."

In 2008, West's 18-year-old son was stabbed to death in an altercation in New Jersey. Prosecutors said the stabbing was self-defense and did not file charges.

In Georgia, police said they are still searching for the gun. No eyewitnesses have come forward.

In the 911 recordings, two callers said they heard gunshots and then saw West take her son out of his stroller, lay him on the ground and try to revive him using CPR.

"Yes, I heard the shots. Somebody shot this child," said one sobbing caller, who told the operator there were three shots fired. "She's got him on the ground. Please, we need everything we can get."

The 911 operators asked the callers if the boy was breathing. Finally, a man in a grave voice, answers: "No, the baby's not breathing." He says the child was shot "right between the eyes."

A woman can be heard screaming in the background just before police arrive. Sirens drowned out her cries.

Elkins' relatives said Saturday they don't know if he has an attorney. His older sister, Sabrina Elkins, said police arrested him as he came to her home Friday.

"The police came pointing a Taser at him, telling him to get on the ground," she said. "He said, `What are you getting me for? Can you tell me what I did?'"

The suspect's sister said he returned to Brunswick a couple of months ago after living in Atlanta for a while. While he wasn't enrolled in high school, she said, he had been taking classes to earn his GED.

"He couldn't have done that to a little baby," Sabrina Elkins said. "My brother has a good heart."

5. Police consider whether to charge neighbor in fatal shooting of Loudoun teen

More on the shooting in Sterling back in March.

Mark Shinn emailed me this:


From The Washington Post:

By Caitlin Gibson
March 19, 2013

Loudoun County sheriff's officials are reviewing 911 calls and interviewing friends of the teenager who was shot to death after he accidentally entered a neighbor's home over the weekend.

Sheriff Mike Chapman said his office is working with the commonwealth's attorney's office in deciding whether to pursue charges or close the investigation. James Plowman, Loudoun's chief prosecutor, declined to comment.
Friends of Gordley tweeted about the 16-year-old boy who was fatally shot after entering a neighbor's home.

Caleb would have went home with this friend, even though he knew I would have been furious, if that window was locked.

Caleb Gordley, 16, sneaked out of his home in Sterling after he was grounded for not cleaning his room. He went to a party with some friends, where he drank alcohol. About 2 a.m. Sunday, his friends dropped him off after the party, but Caleb wrongly entered the house two doors from his by climbing through a window. The homeowner, Donald West Wilder II, heard his burglar alarm go off and confronted Caleb. He fired a warning shot and told the teenager to leave. When he didn't, Wilder shot again, fatally striking Caleb, law enforcement officials said.

Officials said the Wilders and Gordleys did not know one another.
Virginia law is largely silent on when a homeowner can shoot an intruder. But years of legal precedent give wide latitude to people who fear for their safety when someone enters their home.

Chapman declined to discuss the shooter or the details of the shooting at a news conference Tuesday, saying only that the investigation into the circumstances of Caleb's death is ongoing.

"We are consulting daily with the commonwealth attorney's office," Chapman said.
Wilder has not answered the door or responded to efforts to contact him.
Caleb appeared to have entered the wrong home by mistake, Chapman said.
Chapman said there was no indication that the teenager had entered his neighbor's home with any intent to commit a crime.

"It appears at this point .?.?. that he had entered the incorrect house," Chapman said.

Chapman said he met Tuesday with Caleb's family at their home. The shooting, he said, was a "tragic circumstance all the way around."
"My heart really goes out to the parents of Caleb," he said. "I really feel bad for everyone involved in this."

Caleb was a junior at Park View High School in Sterling, and played basketball, football and baseball.

He was well liked and had never been in trouble, his family said.

6. Who needs a gun in a gun-free zone?

Jack Doyle emailed me this:


Though it happened in the parking lot, Schooners itself (a mile from my house) is a gun free zone.


March 18, 2013

Roanoke County, Va. - Three men were shot over the weekend in Roanoke County.

Police say it happened around 1:30 a.m. Saturday in the parking lot of Schooners, a restaurant located in the 7200 block of Williamson Road.

Officers say a fight broke out in the parking lot when the shooting happened.

The victims were identified as George Eward Bryan, Antonio Banks, and Brian Taylor. All three are from Roanoke, and police say all of the injuries are not life threatening. No arrests have been made.

Anyone with information is asked to call Roanoke County Police at 540-562-3265.

7. Robert Steed - Epic gun control testimony [Video]

John Wilburn emailed me this:


From Youtube:

Robert Steed, a resident of Vernon, Conn. who took three days straight off work to attend several gun control hearings in Connecticut. On March 14, Steed was more "aggravated" than usual with lawmakers and he let them know it in his fiery testimony, telling them that they were "coloring outside the lines of constitutional parameters."

8. Colorado sheriff says new state gun laws won't be enforced

Paul Mattson sent me this:


From Fox News:

March 17, 2013

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke won't enforce new state gun measures expected to be signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, arguing the proposed firearms restrictions give a "false sense of security."

Lawmakers in Colorado on Friday approved a landmark expansion of background checks on firearm purchases. Earlier in the week, Colorado lawmakers approved a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines.

Both measures are awaiting the expected approval of the governor.

Cooke told that Democrats in the state legislature are uninformed and scrambling in response to the Aurora movie theater shooting and other recent tragedies.

"They're feel-good, knee-jerk reactions that are unenforceable," he told the news outlet.

The bill passed Friday expands cases when a $10 criminal background check would be required to legally transfer a gun. Republicans have opposed the bill, calling it an undue burden on law-abiding gun owners.

Cooke said the proposed firearms transfer requirement would not keep guns out of the hands of criminals, according to the report.

The sheriff told the news outlet that he and other county sheriffs "won't bother enforcing" the laws because it won't be possible to keep track of how gun owners are complying with the new requirements.

Cooke is joined in his opposition to the proposals by El Paso County Sheriff Terry Maketa, who told an angry packed crowd at a meeting on Thursday in Colorado Springs he would stand firm against the bills.

"I can't tell you when those were sold, bought and purchased. As far as I∆m concerned, they were all pre-July 1 if the governor does sign this bill," he said.

Maketa said the proposed laws were hastily crafted and at least one would be unenforceable. A number of Colorado sheriffs are concerned the laws could lead to registration of gun owners, he said.

Maketa said his office keeps records of every concealed carry permit holder in the county as required by law, but he would never share it.

He said he would destroy the database if anyone tried to get their hands on it and would intervene if government agents started arresting county residents for exercising their constitutional rights.

The vice president praised passage of the bill on Friday.

"Congrats to Colorado House and Senate for passing universal background checks," read a tweet sent by the office of Vice President Joe Biden from his official (at)VP account.

It was followed by another tweet referring to the theater shooting that read, "The families of Aurora deserved a vote and got one. Now U.S. Congress must act too."

Congress is also considering a number of new firearm restrictions.

Colorado is the first state outside the East Coast to significantly ratchet back gun rights after the theater and school shootings. Colorado's gun debate was being watched closely because it's considered a swing state with both a gun-loving frontier past and an unfortunate history of mass shootings, including the 1999 Columbine High School attack.

Expanded checks have been a top priority for Hickenlooper, who called for the proposal during his State of the State address in January.

Both chambers previously approved the expanded checks in slightly different forms. However, both had to agree on an identical bill before passing it to the governor, so a second round of voting was required.

Democrats seemed relieved that Colorado's protracted gun-control debate was nearing an end.

The GOP unsuccessfully tried some last-minute legislative maneuvers on Friday to sink the background-check measure before it was passed 19-14 by the Senate.

Democrats grew frustrated at GOP attempts to imagine scenarios that would trigger background-checks. From 4-H members learning gun safety but needing to borrow a shotgun, to neighbors on weeklong elk-hunting trips, Republicans argued the bill would ensnare harmless gun users.

Democrats insisted that existing exemptions in the bill would cover most scenarios the GOP imagined. The bill's sponsor, Senate Democratic Leader Morgan Carroll, told Republicans that Democrats had enough votes to pass the measure but extended debate to make small changes requested by Republicans.

9. Now 340 sheriffs refuse to enforce gun control

Fred Cooper sent me this:



By Garth Kant
March 18, 2013

A Colorado sheriff has joined the list of at least 340 sheriffs who have vowed to uphold the Constitution against gun-control measures that violate Americans' Second Amendment rights.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said he and many other county sheriffs "won't bother enforcing" laws poised to go into effect in Colorado because it would be impossible to keep track of whether gun owners are meeting the new requirements.
He says the 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.

As WND reported, similar sentiments have been expressed by Maricopa County Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and sheriffs in Missouri, California, Kansas, Montana and in dozens of counties in several states across the country. 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.
The Colorado Legislature passed a bill expanding requirements for background checks and another putting a 15-round limit on ammunition magazines. Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper is expected to sign both bills into law.
Sheriff Cooke said requiring a $10 background check to legally transfer a gun won't stop gun violence.

"Criminals are still going to get their guns," he said.
Cooke pointed out the other law would technically ban all magazines due to a provision outlawing magazines that can be altered. He noted that any magazine can be altered to hold more ammunition.
As WND reported just four days ago, Cooke said he is getting political pressure to support the laws.

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 intention.
"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.
And, in fact, Vice-President Joe Biden called undecided Democrats and pushed for passage of the bills.
"He's watching us, and if we had a chance to move these bills forward, what an important signal it would send to the rest of the country if a Western conservative state passes such legislation," said Democratic state Rep. Tony Exum Sr. of Colorado Springs.
The bills are in response to the shootings last year at Aurora, Colo., and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
While some see these 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 than 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.
The House in Kansas approved a bill prohibiting the federal government from enforcing gun laws or bans on firearms and accessories manufactured, sold or kept in the state.
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.
As WND recently reported, Sheriff Joe Arpaio recently said he would refuse to enforce federal government orders if it expected him to confiscate guns from private citizens.

"I took [multiple] oaths of office, and they all say I will defend the Constitution of the United States," Arpaio told Mike Broomhead of KFYI Radio in Phoenix, Ariz. "Now if they're going to tell the sheriff that he's going to go around picking up guns from everybody, they're going to have a problem. I may not enforce that federal law."
Broomhead pushed the man sometimes called "America's toughest sheriff" even further, asking Arpaio if the feds passed a law banning ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, would his deputies confiscate such magazines?
"No," Arpaio said. "My deputies, I said before, I'm going to arm all my deputies - a month ago I said before this - with automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. We're going to be able to fight back. ... I don't care what they say from Washington."

Arpaio expressed a certain camaraderie with many other sheriffs around the country who have similarly warned they will not enforce what they believe to be infringements on the citizens' 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
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.

10. In Colorado, gun restrictions bring political peril

James Durso emailed me this:


From ABC News:

By Nicholas Riccardi & Ivan Moreno
March 19, 2013

After a no-holds-barred White House push for sweeping gun control legislation across the country, Democrats have racked up only one victory outside the ideologically friendly confines of the northeast.

It is a big one: Colorado's moderate Democratic governor Wednesday will sign landmark bills to require universal background checks and limit magazine capacity in this bellwether swing state. But the White House's package is running into trouble in Congress and, even in liberal Washington state, gun control couldn't get out of the statehouse. Gun control advocates are hoping for more victories to add to Colorado, but the clock is ticking as state legislatures start to wrap up business.

Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, acknowledged in an interview Tuesday that his side has only won in a couple of states so far. He said that was because gun rights groups have strong presences at most statehouses. "You don't turn that around in three months," he said, adding that he is trying to reassure lawmakers they can pass gun restrictions without trampling on the Second Amendment. "But we will turn it around, and Colorado is exhibit A."

After 20 children and six adults were killed in the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Barack Obama called for more gun control measures, and gun control activists across the country pushed to expand laws regulating firearms, hoping to capitalize on the national revulsion to the attack in Newtown, Conn.

But it remains unclear whether the centerpiece of Obama's federal package universal background checks on anyone who buys guns will pass the Democrat-controlled Senate, let alone the Republican-controlled House. Though a bipartisan deal on background checks still could emerge in the Senate, Democrats there on Tuesday dropped a proposed assault weapons ban from their gun legislation, a sign it was destined to fail.

Earlier this month, Washington state's Democrat-controlled House failed to advance a universal background check bill there. Democrats are struggling to advance background check bills in Minnesota and Oregon, too. A bill to require background checks at gun shows died in the Democrat-controlled New Mexico legislature this month.

Richard Feldman of the Independent Firearms Owners Association said he's not surprised that politicians are balking, despite polls showing overwhelming support for tougher gun restrictions like universal background checks or limits on the capacity of magazines. "The people say, 'Oh yeah, ban it -- my ox isn't getting gored,'" Feldman said. "But the people who are affected or feel affected -- those are the ones you have to worry about. They will vote for you or against you based on this."

Colorado will be the test case of that political theory. An estimated one-third of households in this state have a firearm but the state has trended sharply Democratic in recent years, powered by coastal transplants, moderate suburban women voters and a growing Hispanic population. Democrats won back the statehouse in November. They approved universal background checks and a bill preventing gun magazines from holding more than 15 bullets over strenuous Republican opposition.

About 1,000 protesters swarmed the state capitol at the peak of the debate, which featured testimony by gun control advocate Mark Kelly, husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, who was shot by a mentally ill gunman in 2011. Vice President Joe Biden called Colorado Democrats and urged them to approve the package, saying it would have potent symbolism in a western swing state.

Gov. John Hickenlooper, a moderate who once questioned whether increased gun control would have stopped July's Aurora movie theater massacre, infuriated Republicans when he said he would sign the legislation. Republicans have consistently accused Democrats of being driven by gun control advocate and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and other coastal liberals.

"He's more interested in appeasing Bloomberg and East Coast Democrats than he is Colorado," Republican State Sen. Greg Brophy said of Hickenlooper, whom he may challenge in next year's election.

Laura Chapin, a Democratic strategist working for a local gun control coalition, disagrees. "The same demographic that determines elections here, that elected Barack Obama, that elected John Hickenlooper, are what's driving this debate," she said. "The voices that are the loudest (in protest) are not the ones that determine elections here."

Colorado became the second state to adopt major gun law changes after New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in January signed what was touted as the nation's toughest gun law, broadening the definition of banned assault weapons and increasing regulations on gun permit holders. Lawmakers in New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois and Connecticut are also pushing gun control legislation. California's Democratic legislature is likely to send new regulations to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown in the coming months. Two months or more remain in several legislative sessions.

Brian Malte, of the Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, said that even in places where gun control has stalled, just getting legislative committees to vote on bills is a victory after years of stasis. "It's not always that bills get passed, it's that they move in places you don't expect," Malte said. "It's a marathon, not a sprint."

In Minnesota, Democrats have already dropped plans to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and are struggling to get universal background checks out of the state legislature. Biden last week called lawmakers there to encourage action and rally dispirited Democrats.

"I'm at a loss to understand what is objectionable about extending that to other gun sellers and actually putting them on the same playing field with licensed gun dealers who are required to do background checks," Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton said.

Democrats withdrew proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines in Oregon but are still considering legislation to ban firearms in the state capitol and schools that don't explicitly allow them, as well as to expand background checks. However, Democratic leaders there have said gun control is not a top priority.

In Colorado, Republicans say the battle is just starting. They are pushing recalls against one rural Democrat who voted for the gun bills, mulling a ballot measure to repeal them, considering lawsuits to challenge their constitutionality and vowing an all-out push to take back the legislature in 2014. "I'm telling you, they have overreached, and there are going to be electoral consequences," Brophy said.

Chapin argued that gun rights groups don't understand the realities of a world where gun massacres are intruding into the suburbs. "The geography of gun tragedy has changed," she said. "When you've got suburban moms who are scared to send their kids to schools or movie theaters, this is not just happening somewhere else anymore."

Associated Press reporters Jonathan Cooper in Salem, Ore.; Brian Bakst and Kyle Potter in St. Paul, Minn.; Barry Massey in Santa Fe, NM; and Kristen Wyatt in Denver; contributed to this report.

11. Universal Background Checks - This is the plan

We might see this rear its ugly head again and must remain ever vigilant.

EM Dale Welch sent me this:


From American Thinker:

By Rick Averill
March 22, 2013

Feinstein's assault rifle ban has been removed from the Senate gun-control bill. While that is good news, it was recognized from the beginning as a bridge too far. What has survived, and may well become law, all in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, will actually be far worse.

The goals of the left have always been shrouded in deception and misrepresentation. Hide your true agenda behind a deceitful argument and then, after grabbing power, do what you really meant to do all along. That is what Hitler, Lenin, Mao, Castro and Obama have all done. By controlling the terms of the discussion, the left controls the argument. Actual Assault Rifles are not sold to the general public. The left invented the term "assault-style rifles" and the next thing you know assault-style rifles become assault rifles.

Fully automatic firearms have been restricted since the 1930s but recently the left has started combining "automatic and semi-automatic" weapons as one type of weapon. Another one of the left's favorite misnomers is the term "gun-show loophole." Loopholes, of course, are a way of skirting the law. They must be bad. Any chance to demonize firearms, like connecting the term "gun shows" with questionably legal practices like loopholes, is a win/win for the liberal media. The real goal behind closing the gun show loophole is actually to confiscate your personal property.

First of all, there is no gun show loophole. People who sell firearms at gun shows are licensed Federal Firearms Licensed (FFL) dealers to begin with. Other people can set up a table at a gun show to sell tee shirts, laser sights, hand grips and other shooting accessories. Unless they are FFL dealers, they cannot sell guns. If you read articles by journalists who visited gun shows, read carefully what they write because you will discover they will mix buying a tee shirt with buying an AR-15 and state that is some cases, they didn't even need a background check. The LIV reads the article and goes away thinking, "Wow, he bought an assault rifle at a gun show without any background check." Actually he bought the tee shirt without the background check but combined multiple purchases to mislead the reader. People do sell guns at gun shows without a background check, but those people are you and me. I went to a gun show last summer and brought my Walther PPK with me. I brought it because I wanted to make a side-by-side comparison with a new gun that I thought I might find at the show. (And yes, I actually did find the gun and held it side by side with my Walther) When I checked in my firearm at the gate, there was a man stationed right next to the check-in table. He took one look at my PPK and asked, "Do you want to sell it?" No, I had no intention of selling my pistol, but he worked for one of the vendors and his job was to identify attendees who owned a firearm that they might be interested in selling. Like anybody else there, I could have sold my PPK to any of the FFL vendors (already cleared front, back, and sideways by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives [BATFE]) and I would not have phoned in a background check on the gun dealer. THAT is the actual "gun-show loophole".

The left is seeking to fix the "gun-show loophole" problem with what they call a universal background check. It is all part of what Obama collectively terms a "common sense" approach to reasonable and responsible gun laws. First of all, the law would restrict law abiding citizens and have NO EFFECT on criminals obtaining guns. Watch the TV show "Sons of Anarchy" to get clued in to what a big business selling guns illegally really is. The left knows this, but they have no interest in actually cutting back on crime. What they really want is to disarm all of us who obey the law. Passing a universal background check law is how they will make firearm ownership illegal, and thereby confiscate our guns.

The UBC will require any citizen selling their gun to go through their local FFL dealer. That means: you find someone who wants to purchase your firearm. Both of you go to a gun store and pay the gun store a processing fee to do the paperwork on the sale. You leave the firearm at the gun store and if everything turns out okay, the purchaser comes back 30 days later and picks up his gun. If everything does not turn out okay (e.g. if the purchaser has an unpaid parking ticket from 5 years ago) then the sale does NOT go through. You get your gun back. (Or does it get held by BATFE for "processing?") But that is only the tip of the iceberg.

The worst part of UBC will be the check on the seller (that's you and me). In the interest of getting illegal guns off the street, the left will want to throw in this little addition to the universal background check scheme: the seller must prove that they legally own the gun they are seeking to sell. I have a very modest gun collection (the number of guns just barely breaks into double digits). Half of the guns I have bought in the last several years, the other half go back to the 1970s and 80s. For example, I have a .22 my parents gave me for Christmas in 1980. My folks are long gone and I certainly don't have a bill of sale for the rifle. Half of my guns fit this mold. I have no proof that I own them. All the government needs to do is write the law so the seller must provide proof of ownership (original bill of sale, in your name) and we are all in trouble. By this UBC law, the .22 my parents gave me 32 years ago is now an ILLEGAL GUN. What about the Mauser your grandfather brought back from Germany after WWII? Without a bill of sale, in YOUR name, that is an illegal gun. Under this law, every firearm that goes through probate could be considered illegal. When you die, you cannot leave your firearms to your family -- they would be considered illegal and be confiscated. Not only that, if some widow unwittingly went to a gun store to sell her late husbands' shotgun because she doesn't need it, a background check on the seller will show that she does not own the gun in her name (legally) and she is now in possession of a stolen gun. The shotgun is confiscated and the woman may face criminal charges. The same thing goes for you. If you attempt to sell an old shotgun your father left you years ago, to your neighbor you have known for 10 years, both of you must go to the FFL dealer and fill out the paperwork. When it turns out you don't have a bill of sale for the shotgun IN YOUR NAME, you are now in possession of an illegal gun. The shotgun will be confiscated and the police will now have a reason to search your house for any other illegal weapons you might have in your possession. That means they will legally take every gun you have and you will have to go to court to try and get any of them back. Good luck with that now that you are already on record attempting to traffic an illegal shotgun.

The universal background check to close the "gun show loophole" is the Holy Grail to the left and is their "common sense" approach to gun confiscation without firing a shot. Of course, there is an alternative where we can keep our guns. We simply bring all our guns to the government and officially register our weapons to show that we own them. Universal gun registration would give us official title to our guns and the left would accept that choice just as eagerly.

We must defeat the universal background check.

12. 37 gun rights groups form 'Coalition Against Universal Background Checks'

Mike Stollenwerk sent me this via Facebook:


From The Examiner:

By Mike Stollenwerk
March 17, 2013


Last Monday a "divided Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday narrowly approved a Democratic bill expanding required federal background checks for nearly all gun [transfers and not just] purchases . . . by 10-8, supported by all Democrats and opposed by every Republican." But now a broad coalition of 37 gun rights groups from across the United States has stood up to stop the bill.

Calling themselves the Coalition Against Universal Background Checks, these groups, normally focused on state legislation and elections, are poised to enter the fray with all their "grass roots" blazing to stop what they view as a "prior restraint" which will: destroy gun shows, and cost gun owners over $1.04 billion per year (1). In a press release, posted below, John Pierce from one of the Coalition's national groups,, said that

13. New York State offering $500 to people who snitch on gun owners

Walter Jackson emailed me this:


From Liberty News Network:

By Pat Bailey
March 20, 2013

WRGB in Albany has a breaking news story posted to their Facebook page, claiming that the state of New York is offering up bribes for people to rat out those possessing illegal firearms - an interesting development considering the adoption of the new anti-Second Amendment SAFE Act legislation. In other words, a firearm that may have been obtained legally could become illegal under the SAFE Act, and anybody who knows you possess said firearm can report you and earn themselves a cool $500.

In addition to the Facebook page, Pat Bailey, a reporter from at CBS 6 in Albany, tweeted that he has a letter from the NYS Division of Criminal Justice Services explaining the reward program.

According to Bailey, the Governor's Office is claiming that the program is well over a year old. But the head of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association says that if that is accurate, "it was a well kept secret".

The Troy Record Facebook page also has this announcement:

NY State has established a toll-free tip line - 1-855-GUNSNYS (1-855- 486-7697) to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text - individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to CRIMES (274637). The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip then contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the "tipster" will be awarded $500.

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin also reports on the Snitch Line, calling it "neighbor vs. neighbor":

Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin (R,C,I-Melrose) today released a letter that was emailed from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) to the New York State Association of Chiefs of Police outlining a new initiative by Governor Cuomo and DCJS that would confiscate illegal firearms, including those that are not registered but were previously legal before the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (Safe Act) was rammed through the legislature in January. According to the letter, sent out on Tuesday, the state would provide a $500 reward, through tax dollars, to an individual who turns in his neighbor for possessing an illegal firearm. DCJS is planning a "comprehensive campaign" to announce this initiative which includes a toll-free tip line and details of how to text to submit a tip against their neighbor.

"In December, Governor Cuomo stated that 'confiscation could be an option,' and now it appears he is staying true to his word with this dangerous new initiative," said McLaughlin. "This initiative seeks to turn neighbor against neighbor and use their own tax dollars to pay for the $500 reward. Confiscating these once-legal firearms from law-abiding citizens and pitting neighbors against one another does nothing to address the root cause of violence with guns in our society: illegal handguns used by real criminals. While Albany confiscates firearms, evil will unfortunately still wander our streets."

Breitbart's Warner Todd Huston sends along a link which provides the text of a letter sent out in July from the Department of Criminal Justice Services to Police Agencies. The letter reads:

At a time when all of us are finding ourselves doing more with less, a reminder about a resource available from New York State that can assist you in your efforts to solve cases, prevent crime and better serve and protect your communities.

The state has established a toll-free tip line - 1-855-XXXXX to encourage residents to report illegal firearm possession. The tip line also allows for information to be submitted via text - individuals can text GUNTIP and their message to XXXXXX. While the state will provide the administrative support and fund the rewards, the investigation and validity of the tip will be up to each local department.

To spread the word about this free resource, New York State is planning a comprehensive campaign, including public service announcements that will air on television and radio stations across Upstate.

The tip line can provide your agencies with another avenue for receiving intelligence about crimes being committed in your jurisdictions. This initiative is designed for communities where no tip lines are in place and is not meant to replace existing gun tip lines.

Here's how the tip line operates:

The New York State Police staff the tip line 24 hours a day. Upon receiving a call, troopers will solicit as much information as possible regarding a firearm tip, while allowing the individual to remain anonymous. The caller will be informed that this program is not the traditional gun buyback program but rather is focused on identifying individuals who are carrying an illegal firearm.

The State Police will in turn contact the appropriate police agency with the lead to initiate an investigation. Staff from the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) will follow up with that agency to determine the validity of the lead. Once the investigation is completed, the police agency would convey to DCJS the outcome of the investigation.

If the information leads to an arrest for the illegal possession of a firearm, the "tipster" will be awarded $500. DCJS staff will handle all of the financial transactions.

State Police staff will explain the program in its entirety upon notifying an agency that a lead has been generated for their jurisdiction. If you have any questions in the interim, please contact DCJS Deputy Commissioner Tony Perez in the Office of Public Safety at 518-XXXX.

Janine Kava
Director of Public Information
New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services

We will post video of the CBS report as soon as possible. WRGB's site is under construction, but they have been updating via Facebook.

14. Feinstein to Reid: "A major betrayal of trust" [Video]

Paul Henick emailed me this:


From Real Clear Politics:

March 19, 2013

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN: Now, Senator Reid, Senator Feinstein, had said before that you deserved a vote. But its appearing now it's going to be an amendment, it could ultimately just be a symbolic vote. What's your response to this new --

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): No, no if it's an amendment, that is not a symbolic vote. I did the bill in 1994 on the floor as an amendment, it enacted a law. It went on to the House, it was enacted.

What Senator Reid told me is that I would have an opportunity for a vote. I take him at his word. I told him also that it would be my intention to separate out the prohibition on the future, manufacture, transfer, sales, possession of large ammunition-feeding devices of more than ten bullets. I asked him if this could be part of a package. He said no. And I took away from that meeting the belief that we would have a vote on the full bill, and a vote on ammunition-feeding devices of more than ten bullets.

This is very important to me and I'm not going to lay down and play dead. I think the American people have said in every single public poll that they support this kind of legislation. It's aimed to protect children, to protect schools and malls. It's aimed to dry up the supply of these over time. And it came out on a 10-8 vote of the Judiciary Committee. Not to give me a vote on this would be a major betrayal of trust.

15. Sandy Hook gunman reportedly compiled massive spreadsheet on previous killings

From Fox News: tp://

March 18, 2013

The gunman behind the shooting massacre at Connecticut's Sandy Hook Elementary School reportedly compiled extensive research about previous mass murders into a spreadsheet containing roughly 500 people.

The New York Daily News reports that an obsessive Adam Lanza produced a spreadsheet 7 feet long and 4 feet wide in tiny 9-point font that required a special printer on past mass killings and attempted murders.
"We were told [Lanza] had around 500 people on this sheet," a law enforcement veteran told the newspaper. "Names and the number of people killed and the weapons that were used, even the precise make and model of the weapons. It had to have taken years. It sounded like a doctoral thesis, that was the quality of the research."

Twenty children and six adults were killed at the school on Dec. 14 by Lanza, who also killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, before taking his own life as police responded to the school. It has previously been reported that law enforcement officials found research about previous mass murderers at the Newtown, Conn., Lanza shared with his mother, but the extent of that research was not explicitly clear.

A law enforcement veteran who attended the International Association of Police Chiefs and Colonels mid-year meeting in New Orleans last week - a conference where state police colonels share information - told columnist Mike Lupica that gunmen like Lanza should be referred to as "glory killers" instead of mass murderers.

"They don't believe this was just a spreadsheet. They believe it was a score sheet," the unidentified career cop told Lupica. "This was the work of a video gamer, and that it was his intent to put his own name at the very top of that list. They believe that he picked an elementary school because he felt it was a point of least resistance, where he could rack up the greatest number of kills. That's what (the Connecticut police) believe."

Investigators also believe Lanza was determined not to be killed by responding officers, according to the unidentified officer.
"They believe that [Lanza] believed that it was the way to pick up the easiest points," he continued. "It's why he didn't want to be killed by law enforcement. In the code of a gamer, even a deranged gamer like this little bastard, if somebody else kills you, they get your points. They believe that's why he killed himself.

"They have pictures from two years before, with the guy all strapped with weapons, posing with a pistol to his head," the officer continued. "That's the thing you have to understand: He had this laid out for years before."

16. Rangel: 'Millions of kids' being shot down by assault rifles

Nothing like a little exaggeration. Ok, it is a massive exaggeration. I can only imagine the howling by the press if Bush had said something like this.

Bill Hine emailed me this:


From The Washington Times:

By Jessica Chasmar
March 21, 2013

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel appeared on MSNBC this morning to opine about the assault weapons ban getting dropped from the Senate gun-control bill.

He made a few claims about politics as usual and the power money can have in this type of a case, but his most noteworthy comment was about his knowledge on crime statistics.

"I'm ashamed to admit it but its politics and its money, The NRA has taken this position, there is no reason, there is no foundation. There is no hunter that needs automatic military weapons to enjoy the culture of going hunting," the Democrat told MSNBC's Chris Jansing.

"We're talking about millions of kids dying being shot down by assault weapons," he continued. "Were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it's a moral issue..."

The FBI's 2011 data says only 323 people were killed by rifles, compared to 728 people who were killed by hands, fists, feet etc. Handguns are much more likely to be used in a homicide with 6,220 killed nationwide in 2011.

17. Killings involving assault-style rifles rare in Virginia

Roy Scherer emailed me this:


From Richmond Times-Dispatch:

By Mark Bowes
March 17, 2013

When Del. Joseph D. Morrissey raised a Chinese-made MAK-90 assault-style rifle on the floor of the House of Delegates this year, the outspoken legislator sought to illustrate the type of weapon he wants banned in Virginia.

The provocative display had shock value, garnering national attention.

"What I wanted to do is get the most horrific guns off the street," Morrissey, D-Henrico, said recently of his unsuccessful legislative efforts. "I wanted a consensus that there is no place other than a battlefield - certainly not in a public street - for these types of weapons. I wanted people across the board to agree with that."

But to what extent do so-called assault-style firearms pose a threat to public safety in Virginia?

In 2011, only a handful of assault-style rifles were used in the nearly 200 firearm-related homicides in Virginia. In an analysis of Virginia State Police data, the Richmond Times-Dispatch found only four and possibly five cases in 2011 - the last year for which complete state crime data are available - in which a semi-automatic version of an assault-style rifle was used in a killing.

There is little understanding or agreement on the definition of what constitutes an assault firearm, and not just among those on either side of the gun debate. The Code of Virginia lists one definition, while the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner - which performs autopsies on most of the state's gun violence victims - uses another.

There were no 2011 homicides reported involving an assault firearm when using the more strict definition, which is a fully automatic weapon with a detachable magazine of more than 20 rounds that automatically loads and fires continuously with a single pull of the trigger. Those are essentially machine guns, which have been banned since 1934 but can be obtained through special permission from the federal government.

The Medical Examiner's Office, which uses a scientific definition for an assault rifle, initially listed one such killing in 2011. But after further review, the office determined the weapon had been erroneously labeled an assault rifle by the police agency that investigated the crime.
"When we went back and reviewed all the data on it, we determined that it did not fit, said Chief Medical Examiner Leah Bush, whose office began tracking assault rifle killings in 2011. She said no such weapons were used in 2012, either.

*** Gun-rights advocates argue that characteristics of assault-style firearms that are largely cosmetic - and make them look menacing but not any more lethal - have been used in making a case for banning the class of weapons.

Vincent J.M. DiMaio, a world-renowned forensic pathologist and firearms expert who wrote a standard forensic textbook on firearm injuries - used by the Medical Examiner's Office in defining an assault rifle - said in his book that the term has been "corrupted by the media and some politicians" to include most self-loading weapons.

DiMaio said there is a group of firearms that might be considered assault rifles "if one eliminates the criteria of full-automatic capability." They would include such guns as the AKS-47, MAK 90 and Colt AR-15 Sporter and variants, which are semi-automatic versions of the AK-47 and M-16 assault rifles.
"One of the common fallacies about assault rifles is that the wounds they produce are more severe than those due to ordinary centerfire rifles," DiMaio wrote. "In fact, the wounds are less severe than those produced by virtually all hunting rifles."

But Morrissey and other gun-control advocates argue that semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines allow a gunman to create more carnage by firing many shots in a short time. The gun lobby says the same thing could be accomplished if the gunman had multiple magazines of just 10 or 15 rounds.
After Morrissey learned the Medical Examiner's Office had begun to track assault rifle killings in 2011, he wrote Bush to suggest that her office create an overall listing for "assault firearms" and use the more liberal definition cited in the state code, one that would include semi-automatic firearms.
But Bush declined, saying the statutory definition "is not in keeping with the standard scientific definition used by firearms experts and forensic pathologists across the country."

Authorities were able to positively identify the firearm in two of the four cases identified by The Times-Dispatch where assault-style weapons were used in 2011 killings.

One was a Daniel Defense M-4 Carbine V3 with two 30-round magazines that a Franklin County sheriff's deputy used to kill his wife and wound a police officer in a Memorial Day rampage in Roanoke and Montgomery County.
Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell said it was his understanding that deputy Jonathan Agee was trained as a SWAT officer, but it was unknown whether he had purchased the M-4 to supplement his law enforcement work.
In the second case, an AR-15 Bushmaster rifle was used by a deranged sniper in the Southwest Virginia mountains to kill two Buchanan County deputy sheriffs and wound two others in March 2011. The killer fired at least 50 rounds.

In two other homicide cases in Portsmouth and Henry County, where no weapons were recovered, police found 7.62-by-39 mm cartridge casings that authorities said likely were fired from SKS or AK-47-style semi-automatic rifles. A man arrested in the Henry killing told police he shot the victim with an SKS-style rifle. The Portsmouth case remains unsolved.

Those four deaths were among 305 homicides - 190 by firearms - counted by state police in 2011. Handguns were used in at least 95 of the killings, rifles in eight, shotguns in 12.
Local law enforcement agencies across the state reported 11 killings to state police that involved some type of "automatic firearm." But a case-by-case review of those killings revealed that the firearms in all 11 cases had been misidentified in the reporting process. None was an automatic weapon, and the majority were semi-automatic handguns.

Of the eight killings involving rifles, only four involved assault-style semi-automatic weapons.

*** Morrissey said he proposed his legislation because he believes "the empirical evidence is overwhelming" that assault-style weapons are a threat to public safety. He cited the mass shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado; Virginia Tech; Aurora, Colo.; and Newtown, Conn.
"All involved an assault weapon - an instrument that was capable of rapidly firing single shots from the barrel," he said. "Those people that argue that it's not the gun, it's the criminal, have it absolutely wrong. It is the gun when it comes to these assault-style weapons."
In the Virginia Tech massacre, the gunman used two semi-automatic pistols with 10- and 15-round magazines, which would have been legal under Morrissey's legislation.

Using the state code definition of assault firearms, Morrissey wants to ban any semi-automatic, centerfire weapons, including pistols, that are equipped with a magazine that can hold more than 20 rounds. Morrissey said he's not persuaded by arguments that gun owners should have high-capacity magazines simply because they enjoy shooting.
"So what?" he said. "I think some people would enjoy shooting ground-to-air missiles. I don't see the difference between a machine gun and an assault rifle that can fire - semi-automatic or an automatic - 30, 50 or 100 rounds. One of the main components of an assault weapon is a high-capacity magazine, and there's no reason for that."

Morrissey, a lawyer and former Richmond commonwealth's attorney, said he believes a 20-round magazine should be the limit, because then "nobody can say" they can't protect themselves or their family, or engage in "legitimate target practice" or "legitimate hunting."

Morrissey said the low number of killings using assault-style weapons in Virginia does not make his argument any less valid in seeking to ban them.
One must start somewhere in reigning in gun violence, Morrissey said, and had his legislation passed, lawmakers could "continue to build on it."
"You call it Christmas tree legislation for which we can hang ornaments later on," he said. "You start smaller, and you try to build a consensus, and then you can add to that legislation."

A recent analysis by the national gun control lobby Mayors Against Illegal Guns showed that assault-style weapons or high-capacity magazines were used in 13 of the 56 mass shootings between January 2009 and January 2013, or 23 percent. The group defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people were killed by a gun.

The group said mass shootings represented less than 1 percent of firearm-related homicides nationally in 2010. However, an average of eight people were killed in mass shootings during the study period, or 57 percent more than in incidents where an assault-style rifle or high capacity magazine was not identified as being used.

Andrew Goddard, president of the Virginia Center for Public Safety, departs from some of his gun control colleagues on the issue of banning assault-style weapons.
He favors restricting them through a registration process similar to that for machine guns, which requires prospective owners to submit photographs and fingerprints, among other things, for a registry maintained by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. "Then you have the ability to own one, it's not taken away," he said. "But you have to go through a couple of more hoops to get it."

And Goddard said he is more concerned about large-capacity magazines for handguns than for assault-style rifles. With handguns, "I don't think there's that much difference in the killing potential to an assault rifle."
Tim Orrock, a firearms expert who delivered a presentation on assault weapons at a recent Times-Dispatch Public Square forum on guns, said many politicians who have proposed banning certain firearms know virtually nothing about them and are attempting to legislate something they don't fully understand.

"People who are not into firearms have no idea what they're talking about with this," said Orrock, who noted the rifle that Morrissey held up would have been legal under the 1994 assault weapons ban. "And that's probably one of the most frustrating things - those people looking to ban have no understanding of the lawful, legal use of firearms - and don't care to."

For example, bans on AR-15-style rifles were advocated after their use in mass shootings in Newtown and Aurora. But among gun enthusiasts, the AR-15 has become the most popular rifle in America and variants of that firearm have been available in the civilian market since 1964, said Orrock, who is an assistant manager at Colonial Shooting Academy in Henrico County.
The rifles are very popular for target shooting and dominate some national competitions involving high-powered, long-range shooting matches. "People use them for every conceivable legal sporting (purpose), self-defense, what have you," Orrock said.

AR-15s would be banned, along with 156 other guns, under legislation proposed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. Her bill would outlaw any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds and had at least one "military" characteristic, such as a folding stock, barrel shroud or forward grip.

"It's all cosmetics," Orrock said, adding that features like a barrel shroud or a folding stock are functionally insignificant and add nothing to the gun's lethality. The former encircles the barrel and prevent users from burning themselves on a hot barrel, and the latter allows the user to adjust the stock so it's more comfortable.

Orrock said that despite a clash in views, he and other gun owners must recognize that the emotion involved in the gun debate can be very real to those frightened by firearms and the publicity surrounding the mass shootings.

"They don't like guns, they don't want guns and they don't want to be anywhere near a gun," he said. "It's a completely different mindset. And so when they get scared, they figure that if they ban inanimate objects it will make everybody safer - where the evidence is pointed directly to the opposite of that."
Contrary to Morrissey's view, Orrock believes the small percentage of Virginia killings involving assault-style rifles weakens the argument that they should be banned. "More people are killed by weapons other than firearms than those four or five cases where a semi-automatic rifle was used," he said.
Caldwell, the Roanoke commonwealth's attorney who prosecuted the Franklin deputy who used an assault-style rifle, said he's not convinced that banning those guns is the answer.

"When you have weapons that are legally purchased, subject to background checks and legally possessed - and they're used in some horrific crime after the owner is murdered and the guns are stolen - I don't know how you can ever stop that," Caldwell said. "I'm sympathetic to people who suffer under those circumstances, but the truth of it is, bad things happen to good people in this world and we can't guarantee that they won't."

"I do think as a country we need to be careful about giving up the rights we have under the Constitution."

18. Dramatic 911 call captures OK man shooting home intruder after police couldn't arrive fast enough

Paul Mattson sent me this via Facebook:


From The Blaze:

By Jason Howerton
March 22, 2013

A dramatic 911 call recorded a Oklahoma man's confrontation with an intruder who broke into his Ponca City home early Thursday morning. The homeowner ended up shooting the intruder several times when police didn't arrive in time.

The roughly five minute 911 call begins frantically enough: "You better get these (expletive) here or they will die," the man told a 911 dispatcher.
The homeowner stayed on the line with 911 as he waited for the police to arrive. However, the police didn't arrive before the intruder found his way into the house.

"They're beating on my front door right now," he said.

"Okay, we've got them on the way," the dispatcher replied.

"They better hurry up, because I will blow these (expletive) away."

A short time later, the home intruder managed to gain entry into the home. It was at this point that the homeowner fired several shots at the suspect.
"I just put three rounds in his ass," he informed the dispatcher.

Ponca City Police say the incident took place at around 4:30 a.m. Thursday. The intruder was transported to a nearby hospital by ambulance and then airlifted to another Tulsa hospital. His condition was unknown Friday and police have not identified the suspect.

"The case is under investigation. Ponca City Police say once they complete the investigation the case will be turned over to the DA," KOKH-TV reports.

19. Permit holder saves a woman being beaten

Ray Allen sent me this via Facebook:



By Myra Sanchick
March 20, 2013

WEST ALLIS (WITI) - An alert West Allis man heading home from work early in the morning last week had his concealed carry permit and weapon with him, when he was able to save a woman he observed being beaten near 102nd and Lincoln. Charlie Blackmore, a Marine Corps veteran was able to hold the suspect, Kenneth Harris until officials arrived. Now, West Allis police have released surveillance video taken early Tuesday morning, March 12th.

West Allis police rushed to the scene after a 911 call from Blackmore Tuesday morning.

Dispatcher: "911. What is your emergency?"

Blackmore: "There is a black male that just beat up a female in the street. He's walking away from me. I told him to stop. He's coming at me. I have a gun."
Dashcam video shows Blackmore holding the domestic violence suspect at bay. The suspect eventually put his hands up.

Blackmore: "Get down on the ground! I have a concealed carry permit and I have a pistol. I will shoot you."

Police moved in, and took the suspect to the ground. Meanwhile, an officer talked with Blackmore about his gun and permit - questioning him, much like the 911 dispatcher did moments before.

Dispatcher: "Did you say you have a firearm on you?"

Blackmore: "Yes, I have it on me. I have a concealed carry permit, and if he comes at me, I'm going to take him down."

The suspect was charged in connection with this beating. The victim told FOX6 News she is grateful to Blackmore - the hero who stopped the beating.

"Not all of us are crazy gun nuts. There are good people out there," Blackmore said.

Some anti-violence spokespeople have warned not all concealed carry confrontations end the way this one did.

The West Allis Police Department has an internal program for victims of domestic violence that provides counseling and resources.

Victims can call the West Allis Police Department to learn more: (414) 302-8000.

20. The many names of gun-control organizations, Part II

Jeff Bishop emailed me this in response to VCDL Mini-update 3/16/13, item #8 "The many names of gun control organizations".


Judean People's Front, anyone?

In fact, there never was a "National Council to Ban Handguns." There were two very similarly named gun control organizations, the National Coalition to Ban Handguns and the National Council to Control Handguns, both formed in 1974. As their names implied, one group wanted to ban handguns outright, while the latter positioned itself as a more moderate alternative seeking merely to "control" them. The National Coalition to Ban Handguns became the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in 1989, not so much to back off on their prohibition mentality as to expand it to include guns other than handguns ("assault" weapons, for the most part). The National Council to Control Handguns became Handgun Control, Inc. in 1980, and the Brady Campaign in 2001. In addition to absorbing the Million Mom March, I think the Brady Bunch may have also gobbled up the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, whose name basically screamed out "Please confuse me with the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence!"

Long and short of it: we all know the Bradys are lying when they say they only want to control handguns rather than ban them, but for whatever good it does, they have at least been consistent in that lie.

21. NRA-driven gun provisions pass along with spending bill

James Durso emailed me this:


From NPR:

By Tamara Keith
March 21, 2013

The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to approve a temporary measure to keep the government funded through the end of September. Government shutdown averted.

But it turns out the continuing resolution didn't just address spending. It contains six measures that limit how federal agencies deal with guns.

These are the first gun-related provisions members of Congress have passed since 20 first-graders were killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. And while all of the public discussion is about new gun controls, these so-called policy riders very quietly do the opposite.

"There was very little discussion," says Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky. Rogers is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, which produced the bill that contains these riders. One of them dates back to the mid-1990s; the others have been around for seven or eight years, regularly included in spending bills like this one, without any debate.

"These are not new. These are general provisions that we've carried for a long time," Rogers says.

What is new is that the continuing resolution makes four of these riders permanent.

The National Rifle Association didn't respond to a request for comment, but the group is the driving force behind these provisions.

One rider prevents the Department of Justice from requiring gun dealers to conduct an inventory to see if guns are lost or stolen. Another requires the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to make it clear that any data from criminal traces on guns can't be used to draw broad conclusions about firearms-related crime. A couple deal with curios and relics ˘ collectible guns.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., says the provisions "restrict inventorying, information gathering, other practices that combat gun violence."

Blumenthal is pushing for new gun controls and changes to make it easier to enforce current laws. He's no fan of these riders. But he voted for the continuing resolution anyway.

"We were told that there was really no practical hope of changing the law this time, but next time, we will certainly be more aggressive than we have been this time," he says.

On the House side, Democratic Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of New York has been fighting these provisions for years, but she, too, voted for the spending bill.

"What's tough on this particular vote is do we shut the government down?" she says.

Lawmakers like McCarthy who oppose these riders are up against a powerful lobby, as well as congressional inertia: The riders have functionally been the law of the land for years, and it would take an active effort to remove them.

And in the case of the continuing resolution, negotiators had agreed to the riders before the Newtown shooting more than three months ago.

22. Sarah Brady's admission

A brand new VCDL member, Sheila Rigney sent me this:



By Dan Roberts
March 19, 2013

Manasquan, NJ --( In a stunning admission during an interview on National Public Radio, Sarah Brady, Chairwoman and Co-Founder of the "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence" , or as I like to call them, " The Brady Bunch", publicly admitted that her group, and presumably by default all other Anti Gun Groups, aren't concerned with actually prosecuting those who engage in criminal conduct.

They are not interested in prosecuting criminals caught lying on a background check form, 4473, in an attempt to straw purchase a firearm, an act which is a felony.

From the interview, mark 2:34:

SIMON: But again, let me get you to address the reservation some people have, that we really have good common sense gun control laws on the books now and they're only sporadically successfully enforced.

BRADY: Well, in the first place, I don't think many people feel that way unless you're talking about, are people prosecuted? I have heard complaints from the gun lobby about that. Because if they're trying to purchase a gun and they were not able to, what the law does now - as far as it enforces it - is to not allow them to get a gun. And our main concern is not to prosecute these people as much as it is to have their complete background checked, so that anybody cannot buy a gun if they're not qualified. (emphasis added)

Yet a NY Times article from January 13th this year highlights the fact that nearly 80,000 people committed such a felony, yet only 44 were Prosecuted!

From NY Times:

47 percent of those 80,000 people were already convicted felons and 19 percent were wanted fugitives. That is a whopping 66 percent, or almost exactly two thirds of those attempts were committed by people who are already barred by Federal and or State Law from even touching a firearm, let alone trying to purchase one. A 2008 Justice Dept Study found that those who are denied because of a failed background check were significantly more likely to commit a violent crime, even after having been denied.

But are not we being told by "The Enlightened Ones" that we simply must have even more gun control laws on the books? And "this time we mean it!". " This time, if we just pass XYZ, all these horrible crimes will simply vanish, and of course "do it for the children".

Surprisingly for the rabidly Anti Gun NY Times, the article even goes on to accurately report what the NRA and the rest of us has been saying for years now.

Start enforcing the laws already on the books before you start ramming new ones down our throats!

23. And the MAIG hits just keep rolling....


By Dave Workman
March 22, 2013


Marcus Hook, Pa. Mayor James "Jay" Schiliro's name has disappeared from the roster of Mayors Against Illegal Guns after being charged in an incident that allegedly involved firing a handgun and false imprisonment.

Schiliro was one of 600 mayors to sign an open letter to the U.S. Senate earlier this year demanding tougher gun laws.

24. Gun owners separate friends from foes

Bill Watkins emailed me this:


From Richmond, Virginia!

From National Review:

By Frank Miniter
March 18, 2013

Chris Walsh didn't set out to punish businesses that don't allow him to carry his concealed handgun. He's just a software designer from Richmond, Va. He started the website Friend or Foe in 2009 to keep track of where he could shop and eat without running afoul of business policies and local regulations. But then gun owners started using his website. As word got out on gun-rights blogs, people began adding more business ratings to Friend or Foe, highlighting the establishments that ban firearms and those that don't. Before long, Walsh found he'd become an activist, and his fast-growing website was helping to fortify a civil-liberties movement. He's okay with that. He has big plans for how to separate friends of the Second Amendment from foes.

His latest deed was integrating Google-mapping software. Now anyone can easily log in and rate businesses. A red thumbtack signifies a business that's not friendly to gun owners. A green thumbtack represents a place that openly welcomes gun owners. A gray thumbtack is a business where folks have carried a concealed firearm without incident, but where the official policy is not known. There are now over 11,000 places rated, and users are adding more everyday.
Walsh's website is an Angie's List for Second Amendment advocates. Each rating can have a note attached; click on the thumbtack to see it. For Dr. Jagadish Potluri's office in Leesburg, Va., for example, a note says, "Signs on all entryways barring firearms." For Grioli's Italian Bistro in Bealeton, Va., a note reads: "I placed the first, that is NEGATIVE, rating. I have since received an apology from the CEO/President of the chain. He has done his homework and seen his manager was incorrect and taken steps to educate the staff that handguns ARE legal in the restaurant."

"I never meant for this site to be used to persuade businesses to change their policies," Walsh says. "But when a business finds they're losing customers, they often clarify or change their policy." Whereas the Journal News in White Plains, N.Y., posted the names and home addresses - also via a Google map - of some New York residents who have concealed-carry permits, Friend or Foe doesn't invade personal privacy. It helps gun owners follow laws and regulations and take their business that respect their freedom. "I'm a big believer in property rights," Walsh says. "I don't dispute a business's right to ban firearms on their property. I've just decided to take my business elsewhere. Some other gun owners are choosing to do the same."

As the website grows, Walsh is modifying its security and finding the best ways to make sure ratings are accurate. When a rating seems odd, website users flag it and Walsh or others check on the establishment and adjust the rating if necessary. He prefers establishments to have multiple ratings so users can see an average rather than a single opinion. He also wants to create an app that allows travelers to search for restaurants and hotels that don't bar them from carrying a gun.

Walsh doesn't require people to sign in or give any personal information. "Many gun owners are very private people," Walsh says. "They shouldn't have to give personal information before they can help others chose where to take their business."

Tom Gresham, host of Gun Talk (a nationally syndicated radio talk show about firearms, shooting, and gun rights), points out that Friend or Foe is only one example of citizens' becoming educated consumers. There is so much peaceful, grassroots Second Amendment activism afoot that Gresham compares today's gun-rights movement to the civil-rights movement of the 1960s. "Gun owners are standing up for a basic human right," says Gresham. "I want to support the companies that also support my constitutional freedoms. Technology is now making it easier for us to do this."

Gresham's stance on this issue solidified after he invited someone from Wounded Warrior Project, a charity that helps veterans, to come on his radio show on Veteran's Day. After sending the invite, Gresham received a statement from Leslie Coleman, the public-relations director for WWP, saying they were declining because Gun Talk is "related to firearms." This shocked Gresham, because many gun companies and hunting groups have done a lot to financially support WWP.

After Gresham talked about this hypocrisy on his show, many gun owners spoke out on blogs and elsewhere. To subdue the controversy, WWP's CEO, Steve Nardizzi, agreed to do an interview on Gun Talk. But Nardizzi only inflamed the tension during his appearance, distancing WWP from those who cherish the Second Amendment.

Gresham was torn. WWP does great work, but other organizations also help wounded warriors. He decided it was time to take a stand. He wrote, in an op-ed for the Shooting Wire:

There is a major push to demonize and marginalize gun owners, gun makers, and the shooting sports. It is in this light that I see the WWP policy of prohibiting gun and knife makers from using the WWP logo. What are they telling the world? ?Take the longer view. Ebay blocked firearms from being listed. Paypal blocks the use of its service for buying guns. Google blocks guns, dealers, and makers from searches in its shopping service. We have reports of banks closing the accounts of gun makers simply on the basis that they won't do business with the firearms industry. Each of these is a very public way of saying, "We don't do business with 'those people.'" Each is a way of saying that reasonable and responsible people should have nothing to do with the firearms business. We are being put into the same box as pornography. . . . No longer will we just shrug when faced with a distorted media report about guns. No longer will we just go about our business when a politician makes outrageous claims about gun owners. No longer will we continue to give money to, or do business with, any outfit that in any way labels us as "undesirables." To shrug and just go on is to not just accept the demonization, but it actually agrees with it and supports it. No longer.

Now, as the U.S. Senate deliberates another "assault weapons" ban and other measures that target the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms, the more than 100 million Americans who own guns are learning to separate their allies from their enemies. Friend or Foe is just one example.

When I asked Walsh if he has had to give up his favorite restaurants or stores, he said: "I had to give up going to Costco, as they have a corporate policy banning guns. Locally, I also had to stop going to Buffalo Wild Wings. As you educate yourself and try to give your hard-earned dollars only to those who stand with your freedom, you find there are sacrifices. For me, though, it's worth it. For the handful of places I've had to give up, I've easily found new places that support gun owners."

Meanwhile, the comments about local businesses from gun owners around the country keep filling in the map on Walsh's website; one person in Washington, Penn., gave Washington Ford a red thumbtack and wrote: "Was asked by one of the salesmen to cover up [my handgun] because it upsets people. Well, upset him out of the sale of a new Focus hatchback."

25. Roanoke Valley gun show draws protestors [Video]

John Wilburn emailed me this:



By Ken Heineck

ROANOKE, VA - There was some controversy this afternoon at one of the area's largest gun shows.

More than a dozen protestors showed up outside the Roanoke Valley Gun Show.

They want 6th district Congressman Bob Goodlatte to change his stance on universal background checks. Congressman Goodlatte says he'll vote against a measure that would require checks on all gun sales, including person to person.

"People that are dangerous and shouldn't have guns, they're not going to try to go to a licensed gun dealer, who is going to do a background check. They're going to go find a gun somewhere else," said Mary Croft, a protestor.

"Personally I oppose universal background checks because I feel that once the line is drawn, the line can be moved and will exclude everybody eventually," said John Wilburn.

Gun show organizers say they encourage person to person transfers and provide paperwork free of charge.

26. An amusing police contact

A VCDL member sent me this:


A friend sent something I found amusing, and had not seen before. I do not know whether it is original.

"Participating in a gun buyback program because you think criminals have too many guns is like having yourself castrated because you think your neighbor has too many kids"

The second matter I found comforting, and amusing, although a bit expensive.

A couple of weeks ago, I was driving down to West Virginia on I-64. I was having a computer problem with my car that resulted in my cruise control being inoperative, and I was as alert as I should have been. The result was that I found an unmarked Virginia State Police vehicle behind me requesting to have a talk with me.

When the Trooper (who appeared much older than other Troopers I have encountered on the road, at gun shows, or in other business contacts with the State Police) approached my window and requested to see my license and registration, I advised him that I held a CHP, and was armed.

He replied in a soft, Virginia drawl, "Well, as long as there is nothing in your hand but your license and registration when it comes up, we don't have any trouble." I laughed, provided him the requested documents, and he wrote me a (deserved) ticked as apparently I was doing 76 when I went through his radar, and 78 when he caught up with me.

After I signed the ticket, and our business was concluded, he asked what I was carrying (Glock 26) and we discussed the merits of various calibers, guns, and what he was carrying as a duty weapon. I finally suggested that maybe he should return to his car since traffic was whizzing by pretty fast, even though I had angled my car sharply to the right so the area beside my window was protected by the left, rear portion of my car.

I have never spoken with a Virginia Trooper who was not professional, polite, and a credit to the force. There may be some out there, but I haven't met them.

Maybe it is a good idea not to connect my name with this. I wouldn't want some State Police administrator trying to figure out which officer was wasting time beside the road talking guns with a motorist.

27. Women defying gun owner stereotype [Video]

James Durso emailed me this:



February 16, 2013

The majority of gun owners are male but NBC's Kristen Dahlgren introduces us to a number of women who own and enjoy firearms as well in NBC News' continuing series, Flashpoint: Guns in America.

28. This Chick is Packin - Women for the 2nd Amendment decals


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