Wednesday, December 4, 2013

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 12/4/13

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

1. Anti-gun group lies about victory at Staples and gets caught
2. Supper meeting in Christiansburg on Monday, December 16
3. Reminder: VCDL to have tables at Salem gun show on Dec. 21 and 22 and Roanoke Gun show Jan. 4 and 5
4. VCDL membership meeting in Lynchburg on Tuesday, January 7
5. Bedford Co Supervisor: Let teachers carry concealed weapons in school
6. Bedford Co proposal to arm school staff draws fire from school board leaders
7. Councilman urges use of gun-friendly venues for meetings
8. Trigger happy cops: Smearing law enforcement's image nationwide
9. State rankings for concealed carry by Guns and Ammo
10. Tragedy's Playbook
11. [AZ] Phoenix shooting leaves family, dogs, gunman dead
12. [TX] Two arrested at Texas Capitol gun-rights rally
13. [TX] Texas police assault legal gun owners [VIDEO]
14. [OR] Oregon School Board Vote: Allow Staff to Pack Heat at School
15. [CA] Another anti-gun group takes the Goldilocks approach to 'gun control'
16. Tales of the Gun - Bullets and Ammo [VIDEO]
17. Television coverage of mental health forum, including statement by VCDL President

1. Anti-gun group lies about victory at Staples and gets caught

Moms Demand Action (MDA) posted this on their Facebook page about getting a Staples store in Arlington to ban guns:


For those without a Facebook account, it shows a photo of some members of MDA standing in a Staples with this title, "IT'S WORKING: Last week, members of Moms Demand Action made the case for gun sense at a Staples in Arlington, Virginia, and the manager agreed: He will put up signs saying no guns are allowed in his store! Be part of the campaign, bring gun sense to a Staples near you:"

Trouble is when some of our members checked with the store in question, the manager was furious. He apparently had agreed to no such thing!

Soooo typical of the antis.

Oh, and there is a report in North Carolina of an anti putting "No Guns" signs on the doors of businesses without the business knowing. One store found out who the culprit was by reviewing security video. They have since banned that customer from their store. They should have prosecuted her for vandalism. We would certainly encourage such a charge here in Virginia for that kind of behavior.

2. Supper meeting in Christiansburg on Monday, December 16

SW Virginia's will have a VCDL SUPPER MEETING on MONDAY, 16 December 2103 at:


Fellowship starts at 6:30 PM and buffet meal will be served at 7 PM. Cost will be $12.00 per person, to include drinks and tips. Speaker to be announced. We will draw a winner for our Glock 19 raffle at this event!

PLEASE RSVP with numbers attending to: so proper seating and food will be prepared.

The meeting is open to the public, so bring someone with you! There will be door prizes, too!

A short talk and discussion on VCDL plans in SW Virginia for 2014 will be made.

3. Reminder: VCDL to have tables at Salem gun show on Dec. 21 and 22 and Roanoke Gun show Jan. 4 and 5

A reminder that VCDL will have tables at the SALEM GUN SHOW on December 21 and 22. Anyone wishing to assist at this event please reply to

Helpers get FREE admission to the gun show for some last minute shopping! We will have a limit of FOUR helpers per shift at this show.


The ROANOKE GUN SHOW will be on January 4 and 5 at the Roanoke Civic Center.

IF you are planning on assisting at this show, please advise by sending an email to:

We will have a limit of THREE helpers per shift at this show. Helpers get FREE admission to the show and get some shopping done for those items that you did NOT get for Christmas. ;-)

4. VCDL membership meeting in Lynchburg on Tuesday, January 7

VCDL will have a membership meeting in Lynchburg on Tuesday, January 7, at 7 PM. The meeting will be held at:

Lynchburg Public Library
2315 Memorial Avenue
Lynchburg, VA 24501

Like all VCDL membership meetings, this one is open to the public, so bring friends, family, and co-workers. We will be discussing Lobby Day and the legislation that is going to be considered in the General Assembly in 2014.

Thanks to member Kevin Novak for making the arrangements!

5. Bedford Co Supervisor: Let teachers carry concealed weapons in school

Member John Sharp sent me this:



Bedford Co Supervisor: Let teachers carry concealed weapons in school
By Tim Ciesco
October 29, 2013

Should teachers and other school staff members be allowed to carry concealed weapons in school? It's a conversation one Bedford County Supervisor says state lawmakers need to have.

Monday night, the Bedford County Board of Supervisors voted 6-1 in favor of a request by Supervisor John Sharp to include this issue on their annual list of "legislative priorities" -- a group of policy directives they call on state lawmakers to act upon during their upcoming session.

Sharp says it stems from a conversation he and other board members had with Sheriff Mike Brown in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. Brown asked the board for additional school resource officers -- but supervisors turned him down, pointing to the high costs of his request. Sharp says it got him thinking, though, about alternative ways they could help protect schools.

"We recognized the reason the sheriff is asking for that is because the state has made our schools gun-free zones," said Sharp. "They have decided to disarm our teachers."

He believes teachers and staff members who choose to get concealed carry permits and who go through the proper training should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in schools. State law currently prohibits that -- which is why he now wants state lawmakers to put that decision in the hands of local governments.

"I'm not asking to arm teachers," said Sharp. "I'm not trying to put a lot of guns in the classroom. I'm not even sure how exactly it would look. I'm just asking for that decision to be made at the local level."

He says he's well aware this is a controversial issue and admits it will be tough for his idea to gain much traction in Richmond. But he says for now, the end result isn't as important as starting the conversation.

"I would like to at least have Richmond put it on their radar and discuss it," said Sharp. "I think it's worthy of discussion."

It appears he's already been successful in getting people to discuss the issue. As of 7:45pm, nearly 300 people commented on the WSLS 10 facebook page.

"Absolutely not" wrote Barbara Riley. "No guns anywhere near children. What if a child gets mad and grabs the gun from the teacher's side, or desk, or anywhere else they have a concealed weapon? That person can do a lot of damage. There is a time and a place for everything and school is not the place."

"It is a great idea!" wrote Greg Calhoun. "Creating a "protected " environment for the children instead of a gun free zone where predators are allowed free run with a gun. Proper training and psychological background checks would be a MUST. Do not rush into this but make it happen. The children would also learn respect and knowledge about firearms because of this. They are part of what makes this country great and should be taught as such."

6. Bedford Co proposal to arm school staff draws fire from school board leaders

The truth is that the school board leaders don't want the responsibility of actually having to do something to protect the children and teachers (other than just relying on the police to show up quickly after children start getting harmed).

The end result is that schools remain soft targets for terrorists, criminals, and the insane.


Bedford County proposal to arm school staff draws fire from school board leaders
By Justin Faulconer
November 1, 2013

A suggestion that teachers carry guns to class has members of the Bedford County School Board firing off their disapproval.

The county's Board of Supervisors this week signed off on a list of legislative priorities for the General Assembly that includes asking the state to consider a law to give school districts the option of allowing staff to carry concealed firearms on campus.

Supervisor John Sharp, the Forest area member who pushed for asking the state to consider the proposal, said the move could make campuses safer without a heavy cost to taxpayers.

He would like the state to move away from making schools "gun-free zones" by no longer restricting those who want to carry, he said.

The measure passed on a 6-1 vote, with Supervisor Annie Pollard against it.

School Board Chairman Gary Hostutler said Thursday that school officials have not discussed the request and he is very much against the idea. He and Vice Chairwoman Julie Bennington each said they were not aware of any school workers who have asked to carry guns to their workplace.

"I don't know of any employer that allows weapons in their office buildings or factories," Hostutler said. "Why should schools be the exception to that?"

Sharp pointed out Monday the intent is not to override the school board, which would have final say in the matter, but to give more local control to jurisdictions. Noted that the school board is the public body with the most at stake if the request is approved, Hostutler said board members were not consulted that the priority was being considered.

"It would be nice to have gotten a courtesy call," he said.

Approving gun use among the staff at schools sounds like a "very complicated" measure that presents many unknowns, he said.

"You might solve one problem but you are going to create a whole host of others," said Hostutler. "It's hard to visualize kindergarten teachers packing."

Bennington said she feels teachers are in school to educate children to prepare for college and the workforce and should not be burdened with any more state requirements.

"They already have enough mandates placed on them as it is," Bennington said.

She said she believes the best way to protect children in schools is to have a stronger presence of resource officers.

Bedford County Sheriff Mike Brown, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting tragedy in December, pushed for the Board of Supervisors to approve adding officers in all county schools. The board, citing the costs, turned down the request and also did not support Brown seeking grant funding for a few officers.

Bedford County's three high schools and three middle schools have resource officers, but elementary schools do not.

Brown said if the General Assembly were to pass a law allowing teachers to carry guns, he would only support it if they are as properly trained as his deputies.

They should first pass a psychological evaluation, take extensive "active shooting" training on firing ranges, have bulletproof vests and wear some identifying clothing to not be confused as a shooter in the event of an emergency, Brown said. He pointed out he is a member of the National Rifle Association and supports Second Amendment rights to carry guns, but feels all parents would want school staff who are responsible for children to have thorough training if they were cleared to carry.

"Quite frankly, I don't think it will ever happen," he said of the request moving forward.

Supervisors stressed this week that only those staff who want to carry should be allowed to and that the proper training be required.

Kelly Harmony, a Bedford County School Board member, said as the wife of a county sheriff's deputy, she is fully aware of the extensive training needed for firearm handling.

"I do not think teachers should be put in that situation," Harmony said.

She said she appreciates supervisors trying to come up with a solution to ensure school safety and save taxpayer money, but feels this particular idea could do more harm than good.

Del. Kathy Byron, R - Bedford County, said legislators will likely meet in December with members of the Board of Supervisors to listen to their legislative needs and concerns.

Her opponent in next week's election, Democratic candidate Katie Webb Cyphert, said other states that have allowed teachers to carry guns in the aftermath of Sandy Hook have seen an increase in insurance premiums, or non-renewals of policies, and that factor should be considered.

As a teacher in Lynchburg City Schools, she said her main concern is educating.

"That's a tough call," she said of teachers reacting to situations involving a firearm.

Brown said he still plans to advocate for increased school resource officer staffing and would bring that request back to the county in future budget deliberations.

"We need them," he said.

7. Councilman urges use of gun-friendly venues for meetings

All kinds of good stuff coming out of Bedford and Lynchburg lately!

EM Mike Stollenwerk emailed me this:


From The News & Advance,

Councilman urges use of gun-friendly venues for meetings
By Alicia Petska
October 31, 2013

City Councilman Jeff Helgeson is urging Lynchburg to use only gun-friendly venues for its public meetings or, in lieu of that, to provide security at meetings.

Helgeson, who's been vocal about gun rights recently, said law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves at city meetings by bearing arms.

Holding a meeting in gun-free zones, such as public schools, deprives people of that right, he said. In those instances, the city should either provide security or rethink the venue, he said.

Helgeson raised his concerns this month shortly after a joint meeting of council and school board was held at Sandusky Elementary School.

By state law, no one except law enforcement officers can bring a gun onto school property. Guns are permitted in City Hall and many other local government facilities.

Helgeson did not attend the joint meeting, and said afterward it was because he was uncomfortable with the lack of security.

"All you've got to do is do a Google search and look at how many shootings happen in gun-free zones," he said. "... Calling something gun-free is just advertising for bad people."

Most recently, a fatal school shooting occurred in Sparks, Nev., on Oct. 21.

Lynchburg does not have a history of violence at government events. But a police officer is posted at some council meetings.

Several city officials said they don't recall an officer ever having to intervene in a matter during a meeting. But they felt the officer's presence had a calming influence on potentially heated public exchanges.

On occasion, a disruptive person might be warned that they could be removed from the room by police, officials said. But no one recalled an instance where the warning had to be acted on.

These security measures do not extend to all public meetings, and no officer or other security guard was posted at the joint meeting on Oct. 1.

Helgeson was the only member of council who did not attend the meeting. The school board had full attendance.

Helgeson has been increasingly vocal about gun rights in recent months, and advocated reducing the local fee for concealed handgun permits.

By state law, citizens who can legally carry guns are allowed to on most local government property, City Attorney Walter Erwin said. This includes City Hall, public parks and other sites.

But limited exceptions have been carved out banning guns from schools, courthouses, detention centers and other specified facilities. There are federal laws prohibiting guns in post offices and other federal buildings.

These are laws made above the local level, Erwin said, and the city generally has no discretion in the matter.

"I usually get several calls a year from people who are upset and say they didn't feel comfortable using a park or a library because someone was carrying a gun," he said. "I have to tell them that it is perfectly legal, and City Council doesn't have any authority to adopt ordinances or regulations prohibiting it."

On Monday, citing concerns about school safety, the Bedford County Board of Supervisors voted to lobby the General Assembly for permission to give properly trained teachers the option of carrying guns in schools.

Current state law doesn't give localities the freedom to make those types of decisions now.

In Lynchburg City Hall, guns are an infrequent but not unprecedented sight. During council's last meeting Oct. 22, two people who came to speak at an unrelated public hearing were openly carrying firearms in holsters.

The guns did not cause a stir at the meeting, and no one on council remarked on them.

Helgeson publicly voiced concerns about security and meeting venues during a council meeting on Oct. 8. He asked the city to either arrange for security to be provided, perhaps on a volunteer basis, or to refrain from holding meetings in gun-free zones.

"I think we need to be little more mindful of where we host meetings," he said at the time.

Council rarely meets in school buildings, but many other city-organized community meetings occur in schools. In March, both of the city's public forums on the budget were held in a school.

No other council members reacted to Helgeson's comments at the time, and no council directive was given on the issue.

In interviews, Mayor Michael Gillette and Councilman Turner Perrow said they were satisfied with current procedures.

"I've always felt we made appropriate arrangements," Gillette said. "If other council members feel differently, it's certainly something we can take up, but I haven't heard any similar comments from anybody else yet."

Perrow said he appreciated the need to be mindful of security and the desire of some citizens to carry guns for protection, but added he has never been concerned for his personal safety at a meeting.

The city attorney highlighted one notable exception to the laws governing guns on public property. Private organizations leasing a public facility for an event are allowed to bar guns from their events if they chose, he said.

Earlier this year, the Lynchburg Hillcats adopted a new policy banning guns from City Stadium during games. The stadium is owned by the city but leased out to the minor league baseball team.

General Manager Paul Sunwall said the prohibition was adopted after the organization received a few inquires from people wondering if concealed carry was allowed in the stadium.

"We really didn't have a policy at the time, but that more or less spurred us to make a decision," Sunwall said.

"We decided, after consultation with the city attorney, that we had the right not to allow it, so we put that in motion. We've just got too many families out here. This is family entertainment, and we felt it wasn't the right place to have weapons."

The Hillcats now have signs posted at the stadium entrance stating no weapons are allowed. Sunwall said the new policy has not caused problems since it was enacted this past season.

8. Trigger happy cops: Smearing law enforcement's image nationwide

The militarization of our police is unnecessarily endangering citizens.

Member Jim Dinger emailed me this:


Some people might reason that a gun pointed in their face means imminent death and react accordingly in their last ditch efforts to remain alive, especially if they believe in their God given right to self defense and life. This is absolutely appalling.

From The Free Patriot,

Trigger happy cops: Smearing law enforcement's image nationwide
By Michelle Wright
October 29, 2013

During Last week's officer involved shooting incident in Roseville, Ca. that left 4 officers wounded after their hours long gun battle with a man identified as 32 year old Samuel Nathan Duran, police forces setup armed check points in which they were pointing guns at passing motorists. During the gunfight between U.S. Immigration and Customs enforcement, armored vehicles and helicopters swarmed the area. Officials state they were attempting to apprehend Duran, a wanted gang member, when he opened fire on them.

Duran eventually surrendered after being cornered, but citizens in the area are feeling uneasy about the measures taken against the general public. Officer over-reaction is nothing new, during the Boston bombing witnesses in the search area reported that the officer sweeps of the neighborhoods were far more terrifying than the actual bombing itself. Police and other law enforcement agencies seem to be all too anxious to break out the overkill of armories they've amassed on taxpayer dollars.

The widespread militarization of police nationwide has been noted and reported on by multiple news outlets. Similarly during the widespread manhunt for cop-killer Christopher Dornan, trigger happy officers fired more than 100 bullets at Margie Carranza and her mother before opening fire on David Perdue 2 blocks away traveling in his black Honda Ridgeline. Officers fired on Perdue before ever ordering him out of the vehicle and then detained him afterwards.

Rambo loving officers are trashing the image of law-enforcement nationwide with their tactics of shoot first, ask questions later.

9. State rankings for concealed carry by Guns and Ammo

Member Jim Kiser emailed me the latest Guns and Ammo ranking of states for concealed carry. Commonly, states are grouped according to how they issue concealed carry permits to their residents. The four categories (best to worst) are Permitless, Shall-Issue, May-Issue, and No-Issue. Guns and Ammo Online Editors went beyond that basic breakdown to include other critical factors, from the Application Fee and Training Time to that state's position on castle doctrine. Each factor received a point value and the total number of points determined the overall ranking. Follow the link below for the details and rankings.


The best concealed carry states in 2013
By G&A Online Editors
October 24, 2013

10. Tragedy's Playbook

Member Sheila Rigney emailed me this:


From America's 1st Freedom,

Tragedy's Playbook
By Dave Kopel
November 2, 2013

"Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging" is the public relations guide for anti-gun lobbyists and advocates. The more accurate title would have been, "Anti-Gun Hate Speech for Beginners."

Secretly produced in 2012 for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) lobby and its allies, it was recently discovered by gun rights supporters. The gun-ban talking points manual is filled with malicious lies about guns and gun owners, along with instructions for how the manual's readers should disseminate those lies to the public.

After the mass murders at an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, Bloomberg vowed that it would never happen again-by which he apparently meant that his organization would never again lack a coordinated plan for the immediate exploitation of a horrible crime, regardless of the facts. His successful exploitation of the murders in Newtown, Conn., five months later showed his new plan in action. Since that tragedy last December, much of the rhetoric of the gun prohibitionists has come straight from the pages of Bloomberg's "Preventing Gun Violence" P.R. guide-often verbatim.

That rhetoric has been carefully tested on focus groups in many different demographics. And all the rhetoric was rolled out within minutes of the Newtown murders last December.

Anti-gun consultants have found, "The notion that today's weapons are different from what was available in the past is an especially powerful idea and helps make the case for new levels of concern and scrutiny around access to weapons." Thus the "Preventing Gun Violence" guide instructs readers to explain, "this isn't a conversation about your grandfather's hunting rifle."

It's a powerful idea, but it's a lie. Semi-automatic rifles and handguns date back to the late 19th century. Detachable box magazines are also a very old idea. The AR-15 was invented in the late 1950s. In New York early this year, Bloomberg helped pushed through a ban on all magazines loaded with more than seven rounds. In California, the efforts he is supporting to ban all centerfire rifles that accept detachable box magazines may well succeed.

So what the "Preventing Gun Violence" P.R. guide really does is deceive its readers, most of whom are extremely uneducated about guns. Activists are urged to use "intimidating pictures of military-style weapons." It's true that to people who know little about firearms, an AR-15 made from black synthetics looks very different from a Remington 750 Woodsmaster, with its brown walnut stock and forend. But what readers of "Preventing Gun Violence" are never told is that they are being duped into the service of a lobby that is trying to ban both guns-since each of them is a centerfire semi-automatic that uses a detachable magazine.

Here is what "Preventing Gun Violence" says about guns like the AR-15 or the Remington 750: "They are useful for one and only one purpose-to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time." Supposedly, "There is no conceivable sporting or other civilian purpose to these weapons."

So if you own an AR-15, or any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, you have "only one purpose-to kill as many people as possible in the shortest period of time." That is hate speech at its worst.

It is a deliberate lie, intended to incite hatred of a large class of innocent people-the millions of Americans who own semi-auto rifles, including the AR-15, for the legitimate purposes of self-defense, hunting, target shooting and collecting.

But let's suppose that your grandfather's hunting rifle is a bolt or lever action, not a semi-automatic. "Preventing Gun Violence" tricks readers into going after those, too. A Bloomberg-backed bill in the Senate, S. 649, seeks to criminalize not just purchases, but gifts, loans, and other temporary transfers of firearms that occur amongst law-abiding firearm owners every day, unless the recipient of the firearm goes through a background check or unless the transfer falls into one of the bill's intricate and narrowly defined "exceptions."

So the "Preventing Gun Violence" claim that "[a]ll we are asking for is for all gun purchasers to be required to pass background checks," is another lie. The federal and state Bloomberg bills regarding "background checks" apply not only to gun sales, but also to gun transfers. That is, to temporarily loan a firearm to a family member or friend. For example, the Bloomberg-Schumer "background check" bill, S. 649, would make it a federal felony to loan your handgun to your spouse for more than seven days. (Details are in my April 5 article "Turning Gun Owners into Felons," National Review Online.)

"Preventing Gun Violence" also absolutely hates laws that allow citizens to carry firearms for lawful self-defense in public. So the guide informs readers, "Concealed carry permit holders have killed over 460 people-including 14 law enforcement officers-since 2007." Their authority for this claim is the Violence Policy Center, the most overtly extreme of the traditional anti-gun groups. This factoid has already been debunked by Professor Clayton Cramer's study entitled "Violence Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers: Less than it Appears," (available at As Cramer details, the VPC created the bogus figure by counting as "concealed carry killers" people who did not have a concealed carry permit, people who did not kill anyone, people who were found to have acted in lawful self-defense, people who committed suicide and people who did not use a concealed firearm.

When a proponent of licensed carry says, "We're trying to protect public safety and reduce crime," "Preventing Gun Violence" instructs readers to answer: "That's just crazy. Public spaces should be places where families can go freely and safely and not be overrun by unknown people carrying hidden, loaded guns."

Notice the complete absence of logic. The first response is to describe licensed carry as "crazy." That's not an argument; it's just an expression of prejudice.

Second, the response ignores the fact that the millions of Americans with carry permits are highly law-abiding. In fact, their crime rate is far below that of the general public.

If you go to public places, it's likely there will be "unknown people" there. Except to xenophobes, that's not a problem. The people there who have carry permits are not "unknown" to law enforcement; they are people whom law enforcement has personally investigated and determined to be law-abiding and responsible.

Regarding the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) "Fast and Furious" gun-running operation for the Mexican drug cartels, "Preventing Gun Violence" is particularly brazen, teaching readers how to ignore the facts of this deadly scandal. Readers are told to acknowledge that "Fast and Furious" was simply a "botched operation."

That's nonsense. There was actually nothing about "Fast and Furious" that was "botched." Everything that happened was according to how the program was supposed to work: BATFE would coerce licensed firearm dealers to sell guns to obvious straw purchasers. BATFE would tell the dealers that the guns were being followed at every step, but they were not. The BATFE knowingly and intentionally let the guns be trafficked into Mexico, where they would later be found at homicide scenes. And then the results would be used to bolster the case for gun bans in the United States.

"Preventing Gun Violence" readers are instructed to say, "I'll tell you what's really fast and furious here. The way the NRA and its allies play fast and loose with the facts-and how furious the American people should be that the NRA's constant attacks on the BATFE help gun-runners get away with murder."

As an example of the NRA supposedly helping gunrunners, readers are told there are "severe restrictions that are currently placed on the BATFE's ability to trace weapons." That is completely untrue. There are no legal restrictions on the BATFE's ability to trace weapons. Any time a crime gun is found by a law enforcement agent, a BATFE trace can be requested, and BATFE has full legal power to conduct the trace.

When someone brings up BATFE scandals such as "Fast and Furious," "Preventing Gun Violence" advises its readers to provide this response: "An NRA that constantly harasses U.S. law enforcement is the best protection the drug cartels could ever hope for." This is a particularly atrocious lie. Check out to see how the NRA is carrying out its long-standing mission of providing firearm training for law enforcement. And learn about the NRA Life of Duty program (, created to honor and support the law enforcement officers and military personnel who put themselves in harm's way to protect all Americans.

For decades, the older anti-gun groups-such as the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Violence Policy Center-have engaged in relentless vilification of the NRA. Among the mainstream American population, that campaign has been a failure. The "Preventing Gun Violence" playbook warns that making anti-NRA arguments to broader audiences, "is, at best, ineffective, and, at worst, counter-productive."

So the guide advises anti-gun advocates to criticize the NRA only when talking to "the base." For broader audiences, the advice is to attack the NRA leadership, and to claim that it is out of touch with NRA members. That, of course, is a rather illogical argument. The NRA has some 5 million members-about a million who joined in response to the most recent Bloomberg-Obama assault on the Second Amendment, which was launched last December.

"Preventing Gun Violence" informs readers that the NRA "is morally bankrupt and doesn't have anything to do with protecting freedom"; that NRA wants "any gun to be available to anyone, no questions asked," and "The NRA's dream is to have weaker laws-easy access to guns for those who should never have one." The truth is that the NRA has always been in the lead for strong law enforcement against gun possession by people who should not have them, such as convicted violent felons.

Much of "Preventing Gun Violence" consists of short responses that readers are supposed to give in response to pro-Second Amendment arguments. For example, after a mass murder, a pro-Second Amendment person might say, "If an honest citizen with a gun were present, this might not have happened." "Preventing Gun Violence" instructs readers to answer, "There's not a shred of credible evidence that more guns and more shooting save people's lives. More guns and more shooting mean more tragedy."

That's another lie. As I detailed in a Jan. 15 article in the Los Angeles Times ("Arming the right people can save lives"), there are numerous cases where armed citizens have stopped mass shootings: Pearl High School in Mississippi; Sullivan Central High School in Tennessee; Appalachian School of Law in Virginia; a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pa.; Players Bar and Grill in Nevada; a Shoney's restaurant in Alabama; Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City; New Life Church in Colorado; Clackamas Mall in Oregon (three days before Sandy Hook); and the Mayan Palace Theater in San Antonio (three days after Sandy Hook).

And, "more guns" does not mean "more tragedy." Since 1982, the number of guns in American hands has increased by over 80 million, while the homicide rate has fallen by over half.

If the pro-rights person says, "We're defending our Constitution, which protects our right to bear arms," the anti-gun person is instructed to respond, "Maybe they missed the Declaration of Independence, which defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

This is quite a non sequiter. What the "Preventing Gun Violence" people apparently missed is that the way the signers of the Declaration of Independence protected "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was by using guns to fight a government that was trying to confiscate their guns. (Details are in my article "The American Revolution against British Gun Control," available at

"Preventing Gun Violence" even has specific instructions for how to exploit mass murders. "That means emphasizing emotion over policy prescriptions," it instructs. After all, if you start talking about specific "policy prescriptions," then you have to make a credible argument that the policy might have prevented the murders. And that's usually an impossible argument to make. So, according to the playbook, it's better to emphasize emotion, and hope that the emotional aggression will pave the way for the enactment of anti-gun laws regardless of whether or not they would have done any good.

The National Rifle Association has a long-standing policy of not making immediate comments after a shooting. It is respectful to everyone involved to at least wait for the funerals, and the facts, before beginning a political debate. But "Preventing Gun Violence" actually teaches how to attempt to twist the NRA's decency into a supposed sign of depravity. Anti-gun advocates should say, "They know their reckless agenda is indefensible, especially in the face of this kind of tragedy. That's why they've gone into hiding."

Three public relations strategy firms produced the "Preventing Gun Violence" guide. One, the OMP firm, has other clients that include Oxfam, an organization which was originally created for famine relief, but which is now at the forefront of the international campaign to ban firearms. Another, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, has provided political consulting services for presidential campaigns of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and for anti-gun advocacy groups such as the Joyce Foundation, Center for American Progress, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Third Way and Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The third, KNP Communications, offers debate and media training for Democratic candidates.

Public relations firms are generally not in the business of fact-checking their clients' claims. Even so, these firms should be ashamed that their blind acceptance of whatever the Bloomberg lobby told them has made them complicit in the publication of a manual full of hate speech and baseless accusations.

"Preventing Gun Violence" demonstrates that Bloomberg and his lobby are masters of deceit. The manual purports to be a guide to effective communication, but what it really does is fill the heads of naive readers with lies, which the readers then spread in public.

Ultimately, those readers are also victims of Bloomberg's machine. That means that we should treat Bloomberg's victims as victims, and not jump to the conclusion that they are bad people. Many are simply gullible. And when they spout language straight out of "Preventing Gun Violence," it's okay to point out that they are directly copying (or copying someone else who copied) language written by public relations firms for Michael Bloomberg.

11. [AZ] Phoenix shooting leaves family, dogs, gunman dead

Who needs a gun at home?

Member Bill Hine emailed me this:


From Associated Press via

Phoenix shooting leaves family, dogs, gunman dead
By Courtney Bonnell
October 28, 2013

PHOENIX (AP) -- Authorities released details Sunday from a weekend shooting attack that left four family members and two dogs dead at a central Phoenix townhouse before the gunman turned the weapon on himself.

Michael Guzzo, 56, killed his next door neighbors in a deadly confrontation Saturday that may have been touched off by loud barking, police said.

Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson said there is "some indication that perhaps that was a problem." But he added that because of the deaths, a motive may never be known.

The victims have been identified as Bruce Moore, 66; his daughter, Renee Moore, 36; her husband, who took his wife's name, Michael Moore, 42; and Renee's son, Shannon Moore, 17.

After the killings, Guzzo shot at another townhouse before returning to his unit and killing himself, police said.

Police said they found a pump shotgun, apparently the weapon used in the killings, next to his body. Thompson said there was no indication he had a violent past.

A neighbor said Guzzo usually kept to himself.

"I've seen him every morning -- come in quiet every morning," Donald McKenzie told Phoenix television station KSAZ-TV ( ). "Never would expect him to be the guy who did this at all."

Another neighbor, Barry Hatchett, told Phoenix station KNXV-TV ( ) that he was friends with Renee Moore. Hatchett said he had planned to take his dog to the Moore's home for a grooming appointment later Saturday.

After shooting the Moores and the dogs, Guzzo then walked across the large complex and shot at the door and second floor of another townhouse, police said.

KNXV-TV reports the second home belongs to Libni DeLeon, who said bullet holes are now scattered around his house.

DeLeon told the station he heard a knock Saturday morning before the gunman shot through his front door.

"I ran upstairs and when I got there I got a glance at him, and I yelled at him, and he turned around and shot two more rounds upstairs," DeLeon said.

No one was injured at the home.

12. [TX] Two arrested at Texas Capitol gun-rights rally

Best approach would have been to call the Texas Department of Public Safety (State Troopers) ahead of time and advise them of the open carry event and the laws. That way their officers could have been made aware of the law and avoided a false arrest. At least that worked well in the early days of VCDL protests in Virginia when we were breaking new ground.

Member Matt Wolking sent me this:



Two arrested at Texas Capitol gun-rights rally
By Paul J. Weber
October 26, 2013

AUSTIN - State troopers arrested two men said to be carrying antique pistols outside the Texas Capitol on Saturday during a demonstration by a gun-rights group that also helped spearhead a rally of openly armed supporters last week at the Alamo.

The two men were arrested for criminal trespass and have refused to identify themselves to authorities, Department of Public Safety spokesman Tom Vinger said.

"The men were openly carrying suspected deadly weapons and were given the opportunity to leave the area, but refused," Vinger wrote in an email. He said no other information about the arrest was available.

Leaders of the gun-rights group Open Carry Texas said their members did not provoke troopers and were within their legal rights to carry the pistols. Victoria Montgomery, a spokeswoman for the group, described the weapons as black-powder revolvers made before 1899.

Montgomery said the group doesn't go looking for trouble but instead wants to educate the public that the kind of antique weapons carried by the men arrested Saturday can legally be open carried. Long guns can also be openly carried, though Texas law prohibits open carrying of handguns.

"We're proud of us educating the public. We thought it was an admirable endeavor," Montgomery said. "But DPS obviously has an issue with that."

C.J. Grisham, the president of Open Carry Texas who said he originally wanted to bring an assault rifle to the rally, scoffed at authorities' description of the pistols as a deadly weapon.

"We had flagpoles that we could've beat people with too," Grisham said.

The gathering at the Capitol included about a dozen gun-rights supporters. They were surrounded by a visible trooper presence on hand for the Texas Book Festival, which spreads dozens of events inside and around the Capitol and attracts hundreds of people.

Members of the group could be seen pressing troopers about why the demonstrators were handcuffed. The gathering outside the front Capitol steps dispersed about an hour later.

Last week's "Come and Take It San Antonio!" rally at the Alamo was intended to draw attention to a right Texans already have - to carry long arms publicly so long as they don't do it in a menacing manner. Organizers thought it necessary to offer a reminder after several open carry advocates were threatened with arrest at a Starbucks in the city two months ago.

Rally organizers had said just holding their demonstration in front of San Antonio police without incident was a victory.

13. [TX] Texas police assault legal gun owners [VIDEO]

Member Jim Dinger emailed me this. The alleged assaults occur a few seconds before and after the 2:00 minute mark.



Texas police assault legal gun owners
Posted by TheAlexJonesChannel
October 26, 2013

Black powder carriers were arrested at the Texas capitol as tourists looked on.

14. [OR] Oregon School Board Vote: Allow Staff to Pack Heat at School

This trend is going to continue across the country and here in Virginia, I hope!

EM Kennith Modica emailed me this:


From abc News:

Oregon School Board Votes to Allow Staff to Pack Heat at School
By Alexis Shaw
October 26, 2013

A school board in St. Helens, Ore., voted to allow teachers and staff to pack heat on school grounds, an official said.

St. Helens School Board chairman Marshall Porter told that the board lifted a ban that prevented school employees from carrying guns on campus with concealed weapons permits on Wednesday.

"The current law in Oregon allows for anybody to concealed carry on school grounds," he said. "To exclude our staff seems like they're being punished. They should have a right to protect themselves if they so choose."

The repeal affects the seven schools within the St. Helens School District, including two elementary schools, one middle school, one high school and three alternative schools, Porter said.

Porter said he voted to repeal the gun ban to allow adults to protect children if confronted with a school shooting crisis.

"If [staff members] were faced with a horrific choice, if they had to defend themselves against a kid -- which has been the thing -- I think it would be a hard decision for them, one that they would educate themselves on," he said. "I do believe we're talking about educators, people who have the interest of the children in mind."

Porter said he did not have an opinion on whether schools would be safer if teachers carried weapons in light of recent school shootings.

"I don't believe we're safe or less safe," he said. "We had a school without this policy. We were perfectly safe."

The school board voted 4-1 to allow teachers to carry weapons with a permit on campus, Porter said.

"I have my kids in there. If there was a chance that something was to happen, and there's a chance that a teacher might be able to protect them, I'm fine with that," school board member Kellie Smith told ABC News' Portland affiliate KATU-TV.

The board did not receive input from teachers in the district as to their feelings on the repeal, Porter said. While the teachers completed a survey, it was not presented to the board members.

Since the vote, only one parent has contacted Porter about their dissatisfaction with the result, he said.

"I've had more parents email me saying that they approve of our decision than not," Porter said.

The move to repeal the weapons ban was less controversial than the vote to bring back school sports at the district's middle school, which took place at the same time, Porter said.

St. Helens School District Superintendent Mark Davalos told the South County Spotlight that while he didn't "disagree with constitutional rights," "this is a school, and our interests are what's best for the kids."

15. [CA] Another anti-gun group takes the Goldilocks approach to 'gun control'

Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:



Another anti-gun group takes the Goldilocks approach to 'gun control'
By Kurt Hofmann
November 1, 2013

Recently, this column noted that the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a San Francisco-based (naturally) group of anti-gun lawyers, claims to have found Constitutional justification to confiscate guns. They argue, in fact, that such confiscations would not even require compensation.

Looking at the "Search Gun Laws by Policy" page on their website, it becomes clear that this is only one of a great many aspects of their seething hostility to the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms. Today, we will look at another of those aspects--this time, their refusal to recognize any firearm as being "just right" for private ownership.

So, for example, this is what they have to say about .50 caliber rifles:

"Considered among the most destructive weapons legally available to civilians in the United States, 50 caliber rifles are military firearms, used by armed forces across the globe, that combine long range, accuracy, and massive power.

Or, in other words, "This gun is too big."

Near the bottom of the page (not counting footnotes), they list some policies they favor, including retroactive (confiscatory, in other words) bans, or at least registering of "grandfathered" guns.

On the other hand, they are also concerned about private ownership of "ultracompact" handguns:

"'Ultra-compact' or 'ultra-concealable' firearms are a class of semiautomatic handguns characterized by their small size and high caliber [why "high caliber" is part of the definition of "ultracompact" is left unexplained]. Firearms manufacturers began to promote these handguns, sometimes known as 'pocket rockets,' in response to a growing number of state statutes that permit licensed persons to carry concealed handguns. The portability of ultra-compact handguns increases the risk of indiscriminate use by previously law-abiding citizens thrust into emotionally-charged situations."

Or, as Goldilocks would say, "This gun is too small."

The Goldilocks analogy kinda breaks down at this point, though, because as mentioned above, one would be hard pressed to find a gun that LCPGV would consider "just right" for private citizens to own--at least without even more restrictions than are inflicted on gun owners and prospective gun owners already.

As a case in point, we should note that the group favors vastly more oppressive regulation of BB guns--including regulating them to the same intolerable degree that firearms are regulated:

If the sale and possession of non-powder guns are permitted within the jurisdiction, the most comprehensive approach is to define all non-powder guns as firearms, so that restrictions on purchase and possession by minors, felons and other prohibited purchasers will apply

"This gun is too capable of firing without propellant powder," perhaps, Goldilocks?

These creatures will likely never come out and say that, "This gun is too useful for defending one's life," or, even worse, "This gun is too useful for killing a would-be tyrant's hired muscle," but have no doubt that their most strenuous objection to any gun is precisely that.

16. Tales of the Gun - Bullets and Ammo [VIDEO]

Excellent video!

Member Michael Chen emailed me this:


From The History Channel via

Tales of the Gun - Bullets and Ammo
By The History Channel in 2000

17. Television coverage of mental health forum, including statement by VCDL President

Richmond's ABC affiliate, WRIC (Channel 8) coverage:

From [VIDEO]

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