----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This update was compiled by member Chuck Young and reviewed EM Brandy Polanowski. We are still catching up on a backlog of older articles (starting with item #6 are the items from the end of June that are still relevant). We should be caught up by the end of the month, finally.
1. List of gun-friendly restaurants continues to grow
2. New "study" shows cost of "gun violence," but ignores more important aspects to gun ownership
3. Virginia Gun Owners Coalition is shutting down
4. Excellent news: Langley Federal Credit Union is removing "no guns" signs
5. Moms Demand Action - their "actions" continue to show their real agenda
6. Item on VCDL "doing it right" to get gun laws changed
7. Good ruling on a self-defense case in Richmond
8. Obama: You shouldn't be able to 'just walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic'[VIDEO]
9. 160 members of Congress sign letter calling for stricter gun control laws
10. Dems running from Giffords
11. What is going on at CNN lately? Reports on guns are surprisingly fair as of late [VIDEO]
12. CNN: the real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA [VIDEO]
13. Mass shootings: its time to go back to institutionalizing the severely mentally ill
14. Gun-hater talks about committing murder using the police as a weapon [VIDEO]
15. How to be prepared to defend your home and family [VIDEO]
16. Google to block firearm, ammunition, gun accessory ads
17. Succinct stand your ground article
18. A creative 'lock up your guns' advertisement [VIDEO]
19. [IN] Man attacks woman with baseball bat, gunfight ensues
20. [MO] Missouri trains teachers to carry concealed firearms in class [VIDEO]
21. [SC] Man that left gun was a felon
22. [NC] Family of man shot while robbing Waffle House calls for stricter gun laws [VIDEO]
**************************************************
1. List of gun-friendly restaurants continues to grow
**************************************************
With over 11 MILLION CHP holders nationwide, it's a good idea to welcome gun owners into businesses. A Virginia restaurant, Cajun Experience in Leesburg, is front-and-center in the video that goes with the story.
Thanks to member William Goodman for the link:
From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/njokzek
**************************************************
2. New "study" shows cost of "gun violence," but ignores more important aspects to gun ownership
**************************************************
A study claims the cost of "gun violence" to be about 500 million dollars per year nationally. But how high would that total be if the law-abiding weren't able to defend themselves with a gun 2.5 million times a year?
Thanks to member Gary Donaldson for the link:
http://wtkr.com/2014/09/02/gun-violence-costs-taxpayers-500-million/
**************************************************
3. Virginia Gun Owners Coalition is shutting down
**************************************************
President and founder of the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition (VGOC), Mike McHugh, has decided to shut down the organization so he can spend more time on his family. Mike has his priorities right and is doing the right thing for his family and his marriage and we all wish him godspeed.
-
In case any of you are concerned that VCDL could close its doors similarly, VCDL is in a very different position than VGOC because of how we are organized. VGOC, leadership-wise, was a one-man show. VCDL has a seven-member Board of Directors and over 60 Executive members. If I were to get hit by a bus (what was that mom said about looking both ways before crossing a street, again?), VCDL and its mission would carry on.
**************************************************
4. Excellent news: Langley Federal Credit Union is removing "no guns" signs
**************************************************
I am told from a credible source that the "No Guns" signs are coming down from the doors of the Langley Federal Credit Union.
**************************************************
5. Moms Demand Action - their "actions" continue to show their real agenda
**************************************************
Moms Demand Action is about to spend big bucks.
Are they using the money to do something about the massive number of shootings in Chicago? Well, no. That's never been on their radar.
Are they using the money to try to lower the violent crime rate in DC? Hmmm. No. They don't seem concerned about that.
Are they using the money to get violent criminals off the streets? No, not really a priority.
How about some TV spots discussing how suicide is not the answer? Not even close.
How about educating people on how to handle guns in a safe manner to avoid accidents. Oh, hell no.
So what are they going to spend SIX FIGURES of money to do, then?
Why to keep law abiding gun owners like you and me from carrying in Kroger stores, silly!
I kid you not, that is their mission! Forget robbers, thieves, and rapists. Forget suicides and avoidable accidents. You and I, who have never committed a crime in our lives, are to be kept out of a grocery store AT ALL COSTS!
Well, you know what they say about a fool and his money...
MDA's "gun sense" is nothing more than finding ways to take guns away from the law abiding, while lying with a straight face about that mission.
VCDL applauds Kroger for their long standing policy of simply letting state and local laws decide if guns can be carried into their stores. A perfect solution.
Thanks to Stephen P. Wanger for the link:
From forbes.com: http://tinyurl.com/lw26ppr
Bloomberg Gun Safety Group Spends Six Figures On Kroger Ad Blitz
Michael Bloomberg-backed gun control group Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched its first ever large-scale corporate campaign on Thursday with an advertising spend of six figures aimed at pressuring Kroger KR +1.08%, the country's biggest grocery chain, to change its firearms policies.
Moms Demand Action's blitz includes a billboard near Kroger's corporate headquarters in Cincinnati as well as print and digital full page ads and wraps in both the local Ohio press and national titles like USA Today.
The ads come after the group, backed by a $50 million investment by billionaire Bloomberg , failed to convince Kroger to ask shoppers to leave their guns at home with a petition and social media pressure. The campaign can be seen in full here.
"These images bring into stark contrast Kroger policies that prohibit skateboards, food and a lack of appropriate attire in stores, but allow the open carry of loaded guns," said Shannon Watts, who founded Moms Demand Action — now part of Bloomberg's Everytown umbrella organization — the day after the Sandy Hook school massacre. [PVC: This from a woman who doesn't know which end of a gun the bullets comes out from. She also thinks that guns have NEVER been used by a citizen to defend themselves.]
"This inconsistency is particularly shocking given that the laws in a majority of states do not require a background check, permitting or even training to open carry a firearm. In all states, but especially those where gun laws are lax, businesses have an obligation to protect their employees and patrons."
Kroger has issued one statement on their firearms policy to date, saying:
The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important company values. Millions of customers are present in our busy grocery stores every day and we don't want to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.
Retailers that have so far asked customers to leave guns outside their establishments following lobbying by Moms Demand Action include Target, Starbucks and Chipotle.
**************************************************
6. Item on VCDL "doing it right" to get gun laws changed
**************************************************
Member David Custer emailed me this:
--
Mostly in a good light. Don't really like being included with some of the others but does make VCDL look really good by comparison.
From gunnuts.net: http://tinyurl.com/msfaao5
The Open Carry Experience Part 7: Why OC?
by Caleb
June 19, 2014
As I've been open carrying for these articles, I've been forced to ask the question over and over again. Why Open Carry at all? I touched on this in part 5 a little bit, but I want to flesh it out today and really talk about it. In answering my own question, why OC, here's what I've come up with as reasons people open carry.
1. Because it's more comfortable to carry a full size pistol that way than to conceal it
2. Because concealed carry may not be an available option for various legal/physical reasons
3. To bring attention to a bad law, such as Florida Open Carry or the VCDL
4. To be dumbass attention whores, such as CJ Grisham and Open Carry Texas.
5. Because f*** you, it's legal.
Now, we're not talking about occasional OC here either, but OC as a primary method of carry. When you you look at that list, obviously you want to fall into #4. So if you're going on Open Carry walks with your AR and video camera, just hoping the cops show up, you're #4, you suck at life, and you should go back to your mom's basement and cry yourself to sleep on your CrapCo'd AR15 or bastardized Mosin.
Looking at the other options on the list, number 1 makes the least sense to me – it goes back to the concept of "lazy" carry. You can carry a full size pistol pretty easily, you just have to dress thoughtfully for the gun. I'm not a big guy, and I can successfully conceal a full size 1911 in shorts and a polo shirt. I feel like if #1 is your reason for choosing OC, you're just not trying hard enough. Or, perhaps you don't really need a full size gun! I know, that's blasphemy, you know what I carry most of the time? An M&P Shield or a J-frame. If I get into a running gunfight in DTSF and need more than whatever those guns carry, I'm probably hosed anyway.
#2 makes sense to me. There are a few scenarios where a person could be 100% legal to own and carry firearms, but various factors (time, geography, finances) prevent them from getting a permit. It's hard to beef with that, because I believe that every law-abiding citizen has the same rights to armed self-defense.
#3 is where things can go off the rails. I'm sure if you asked members of Clown Show Texas Open Carry Texas they'd tell you that they're doing number 3, because they want to get OC of handguns passed in the state. The problem is that they're doing it wrong, objectively. I'll use VCDL (again) as an example, because they did it right. In Virginia, it used to be illegal to carry concealed into restaurants that served alcohol, regardless of whether or not your were drinking or sitting in the bar. So you couldn't go to Chili's and legally conceal you gun. VCDL held events where groups of organized people would dine in at these restaurants while Open Carrying. They would also get in touch with local PDs in advance of their events to let them know what was up, and would also talk to the managers of the restaurants. Then, once the events were held, they'd also meet with their state representatives and actually lobby to get the law changed. They were successful.
Approach 3 only works if you actually have a plan of action. It breaks down and becomes #4 if your plan goes like "Open carry, get attention…then laws get changed!" Because that's not how things work.
Finally, we have #5. I'm totally fine with number 5. I've had people tell me essentially that "I open carry because it's legal and I can." Not trying to make a political statement, just folk going about their business. Works for me.
As I get close to wrapping up my open carry experience, I'm not convinced that Open Carry is the right choice for anyone – and I'm nearly certain it's the wrong choice for me. I prefer the options that concealed carry allows, in terms of dress, in terms of places I can go, and other discretionary things. It makes life a lot simpler for me to just conceal my gun.
Oh, and here's a quick protip for telling if you're #3 or #4: if your "OC events" have actually caused private business or government entities to ban guns, you're #4 and you're doing it wrong. See the OC in California, and Open Carry Texas for more examples.
**************************************************
7. Good ruling on a self-defense case in Richmond
**************************************************
A good example of self-defense law being upheld. Remember that if you are "part of the problem" (such as getting into a verbal argument that suddenly becomes violent), you need to retreat as far as you can, indicate you don't wish to fight, and then, if cornered, you can defend yourself with deadly force if you are in imminent danger of death or grievous bodily injury.
This case had all of that and the lawful gun owner's charges were dropped.
Roy Scherer emailed me this:
--
From timesdispatch.com: http://tinyurl.com/o2fz69w
Judge dismisses charges in Richmond elevator shooting death case
by Joe Macenka
June 26, 2014
A judge dismissed charges Thursday against a man arrested in a shooting in a downtown Richmond apartment building that left one man dead and another injured.
After a lengthy hearing in Manchester General District Court, Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland ruled that Quinn E. Hazelwood was acting in self-defense when he shot the two men just after midnight May 10 on the seventh floor of the American Heritage Apartments at 1001 E. Main St.
Phillip O. "Pip" Nikolenko, 26, was declared dead at the scene. Georgiy A. Gapanovitch, Nikolenko's friend, was hospitalized for an extended period at VCU Medical Center.
Nikolenko and Gapanovitch had gotten in an earlier argument with Hazelwood about valet parking at Vanquish, a restaurant and cigar lounge at 1005 E. Main St., and testimony indicated the two Russian friends followed Hazelwood back to his apartment building.
Defense attorney David P. Baugh said his client, who is 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighs 150 pounds, was victimized by "two extremely intoxicated martial artists."
Nikolenko and Gapanovitch had received martial arts training. Nikolenko was 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 203 pounds, and Gapanovitch said he is 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighs 200.
Testimony at the hearing indicated Nikolenko and Gapanovitch had been celebrating Victory Day, a Russian holiday that marks the capitulation of Nazi Germany to the Soviet Union in 1945.
Nikolenko's autopsy showed he had a blood-alcohol level of nearly 0.26 percent. Gapanovitch's level was measured at 0.29 percent at the hospital. The level at which someone is considered too intoxicated to drive in Virginia is 0.08.
Baugh said Hazelwood, 27, who was charged with manslaughter and malicious wounding, had a bruised lip, a bruised thumb, shoulder abrasions and scratches on his fingers.
"He has every reason to defend himself," Baugh said. "And he did."
Testimony indicated the argument began May 9 about 11:30 p.m. when the two Russians pulled their car into the valet parking area at Vanquish. The two men, apparently unaware that the valet service was no longer being staffed, waited for an attendant, and Hazelwood, who was behind them in his truck, grew impatient, and they exchanged words.
After they both parked, they ran into each other in the line that had formed to get into the club, and the words continued, with Nikolenko at one point slapping Hazelwood on the back of the head with an open hand. When Hazelwood left the club, the Russians followed.
Gapanovitch testified that he and Nikolenko watched Hazelwood get into one of the three elevators in the lobby of the apartment building and watched the indicator lights show that the elevator went to the seventh floor. Gapanovitch said he and Nikolenko then got on another elevator and went to the seventh floor. When the elevator doors swung open, Hazelwood was waiting for them and began shooting, Gapanovitch said.
Hazelwood did not testify Thursday, but Richmond police Detective Anthony Coates testified that the defendant offered a different version of events, saying the two Russians got onto the elevator with him and began beating him up on the ride to the seventh floor of the 10-story building. Hazelwood told Coates he pulled a revolver from his waistband and began firing, striking Gapanovitch twice inside the elevator and then shooting Nikolenko as the struggle spilled out of the elevator and continued in the seventh-floor hallway.
Gapanovitch was found just outside the elevator. He had a graze wound to one ear, and a second bullet entered his upper left torso and traveled down into his left leg.
Gapanovitch said he remembered nothing after being struck by the second bullet in the torso and falling to the floor.
Nikolenko was found about 30 feet from the elevator. He had been shot once in the carotid artery, and a second bullet entered through his face and lodged in his brain.
Before issuing his ruling, the judge noted that Nikolenko was prone to violence, as evidenced by an assault conviction this year for an incident in Dinwiddie County in 2013.
Thorne-Begland also said he also found it noteworthy that Hazelwood went to his apartment building and pushed the button to go to his seventh-floor apartment, providing what the judge called evidence of attempting to retreat from a confrontation.
"Mr. Hazelwood was ultimately entitled to defend himself," Thorne-Begland said. "I don't see a manslaughter and I don't see a malicious wounding at this point. Both cases are dismissed."
Learned D. Barry, the deputy commonwealth's attorney who oversees Richmond's homicide cases, said prosecutors concurred with Thorne-Begland's ruling and, unless new evidence emerges, had no plans to pursue the case.
**************************************************
8. Obama: You shouldn't be able to 'just walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic'[VIDEO]
**************************************************
All I can do is roll my eyes at this little gem from Obama.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/kxx7e36
Obama: You Shouldn't Be Able To 'Just Walk Into A Store And Buy A Semi-Automatic'
by AWR Hawkins
June 27, 2014
On June 26 President Obama held a Minnesota town hall in which he outlined his continued push for "basic, common sense" gun control which includes "background checks so you can't just walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic."
WhiteHouse.gov posted a video of the town hall in which Obama responded to a question about "[reducing] gun violence in this nation."
Here is part of his response:
This is the only advanced country that tolerates something like this. We have, what's basically a mass shooting, it seems like happening once every couple of weeks: kids on college campuses, kids at home. And we're not going to be able to eliminate all of that violence, and there's a strong tradition of gun ownership, wonderful folks who are sportsmen and hunters, and I respect all that. But we should be able to take some basic, common sense steps that are, by the way, supported by most responsible gun owners. Like having background checks so you can't just walk into a store and buy a semi-automatic.
There was a small applause when Obama mentioned the need for background checks to keep people from just walking into a store to buy a semi-automatic. The problem with this statement is we have had background checks to keep people from just walking into a store to buy a semi-automatic since 1993.
Semi-automatic or not, you have to go through a background check for every retail firearm purchase.
**************************************************
9. 160 members of Congress sign letter calling for stricter gun control laws
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From gunssavelives.net: http://tinyurl.com/kcgdc8y
160+ Members of Congress Sign Letter Calling for Stricter Gun Control Laws
by Dan Cannon
June 27, 2014
Over 160 members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter asking Speaker of the House John Boehner to allow a vote on gun control legislation. All of the signers were members of the Democratic party. The letter reads, as follows,
Dr Mr. Speaker:
We agree with you that we must honor the victims of the recent shootings in Portland, Las Vegas, Seattle and Santa Barbara. But momemnts of silence on the floor of the House are not enough. The last thing these victims and their families need is further silence from this Congress. They deserve a vote.
Our nation has suffered at least 74 school shootings since the Sandy Hook massacre. The factors allowing these rampages are no mystery: loopholes in background check laws, straw purchases, restrictions on law enforcement and gaps in our mental health system. Dozens of legislative proposals that address these factors have been introduced and await consideration. But despite wake-up call after wake-up call, a shameful tradition of Congressional inaction continues.
Gun violence has affected constituents in every Congressional district, and as their representatives, Members of Congress deserve the opportunity to vote on bills that would address the epidemic.
Congressional silence is not a sign of respect, but rather an institutional indictment. We must right this wrong. You must allow a vote on substantive legislation to address gun violence.
First off, stricter background check laws would not have stopped any of the recent shootings. Second, the "74 school shootings" statistic has been debunked by both CNN and Politifact as being deceptive and mostly incorrect.
***(Signatures included these Virginia Congressman: Jim Moran, Gerry Connolly, and Bobby Scott.)***
**************************************************
10. Dems running from Giffords
**************************************************
And the smart ones are also staying far away from Michael Bloomberg.
From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/oyxu32m
Kiss off: Democrats from pro-gun states tell ex-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to stay away
Hope to keep 2nd Amendment out of key races
by S.A. Miller
June 22, 2014
Everybody loves Gabby Giffords — just not necessarily on the campaign trail.
When the gun control advocacy group led by the former congresswoman from Arizona threw its support behind several endangered Senate Democrats in Western and Southern states, the candidates carefully moved to distance themselves from the affable Ms. Giffords and boasted about their strident defense of Second Amendment rights.
The message was clear: Thanks, but no thanks.
The candidates — Sen. Mark Udall in Colorado, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu in Louisiana, Sen. Kay R. Hagan in North Carolina and Rep. Bruce L. Braley, vying for Iowa's open Senate seat — have tried to avoid the gun debate in key races that will determine whether their party keeps its majority in the U.S. Senate.
Ms. Giffords, who survived a gunshot to the head by a deranged assailant three years ago at an event in her congressional district in Tucson, remains a sympathetic figure. But as a leading advocate for gun control measures, her support could do more harm than good for Democrats in firearm country.
Political strategists warn that the gun issue posses too much of a risk for Democrats already struggling in those red and purple states. It threatens to stir up opposition among Second Amendment advocates who could swing a close election to the Republican candidate.
The gun issue is particularly vexing for Mr. Udall in Colorado, where two Democratic state senators were booted from office in recall elections last year after backing tough gun control measures passed by the Democrat-run legislature.
"Democrats are doing everything they can to stay away from it," said Denver-based pollster and political analyst Floyd Ciruli. "To the extent that any advertising from the gun control forces got out there, I think Udall would be very nervous that there's more downside risk than upside."
An activist in Ms. Giffords' Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC said the group is "fully aware" of the potential to hurt Democrats they try to help.
"It's something we think about a lot," said the activist, who spoke privately about the internal deliberations at ARS. He said the group's research shows that publicizing gun issues motivates gun control supporters and persuades people to join the cause, especially among female voters.
Some Democratic strategists viewed Ms. Giffords as an asset for Mr. Udall and the party's other vulnerable candidates in pro-gun states.
"She's a Westerner. She's a gun owner. She understands Western issues," said Jill Hanauer, president of Project New America, a Democratic political consulting firm that got its start focusing on Western states.
"America is having a long-awaited conversation about gun safety," she said.
Al Gore's support of gun control has been blamed for his narrow loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential election. Ever since, Democrats have been retooling their message on firearms and gun violence with varying degrees of success.
A rash of deadly shooting sprees and President Obama's push for tougher gun laws have rekindled the firearms debate. A Rasmussen Reports poll last week placed gun control among the top 10 issues for voters.
"Some of these races look like they could be so close that just about anything could matter," said Christopher Mann, a political science professor at Louisiana State University who specializes in campaigns and voting behavior.
"If the debate becomes about gun control, that is not where Mary Landrieu wants the debate to be about. Mary Landrieu wants a very different debate," he said. "If she is trying to win a Senate race talking about gun control, she's losing."
He stressed that ARS could minimize backlash from gun rights voters by avoiding TV ads and targeting direct mail and robocalls at households identified as sympathetic to its message.
Ms. Landrieu's campaign did not respond to questions about gun policy and support from ARS.
While pushing away from Ms. Giffords, these Democrats also will have to fend off attacks from gun rights groups.
"We are going to be butting heads [with Giffords' group] in all those races," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "It will energize our people, I'll tell you that."
The National Rifle Association's political arm has begun rallying opposition to Ms. Hagan and Ms. Landrieu, saying first lady Michelle Obama endorsed them as "critical" to enacting Mr. Obama's gun control agenda.
When asked about the gun issue, the Udall campaign pointed to the senator's vote against legislation that would have reinstated a ban on military-style rifles or assault weapons.
"Mark has long supported Colorado's hunters, sportsmen, and gun owners," he said. "Responsible gun ownership is part of our Western heritage, and Mark has always supported this through his work to expand public shooting ranges and his successful efforts to stop overbroad bans on common hunting rifles."
All of the candidates backed by the Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC voted for a Senate bill last year that would have expanded background checks for firearm purchases. The bill's defeat ended Mr. Obama's push for more gun laws in response to the elementary school shooting spree in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children and six adults dead.
**************************************************
11. What is going on at CNN lately? Reports on guns are surprisingly fair as of late [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From gunssavelives.net: http://tinyurl.com/q9fgep9
What is Going on at CNN Lately? Reports on Guns Are Surprisingly Fair As of Late
by Dan Cannon
June 25, 2014
Did CNN get bought out and no one knows about it? I'm not sure what has happened at CNN in the last few weeks, but the network referred to by many conservative Americans as the "Communist News Network" has taken a very sharp turn on their coverage of all things guns recently.
First off, the network announced that it as canceling Piers Morgan's long running evening talk show. The British host regularly railed against guns, the NRA and gun owners. His sinking ratings, likely cause by his stance on guns (a fact Morgan himself acknowledged) was cited as one of the main reasons the show was canceled.
Then we've had a series of articles recently that seemed to show the network taking a somewhat fair approach in their coverage on gun rights.
We then saw CNN question a statistic about school shootings put out by Bloomberg's newest gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety. The stat alleged that there have been 74 school shootings since the Sandy Hook incident, but CNN found that only 15 of those fit the profile of real school shootings (our research showed that only one of those incidents could be classified as a "mass shooting"). CNN did use the stat the night before verifying it though, so there is an issue there. CNN also failed to correct an audience member who used the stat at a town hall interview with Hillary Clinton, but it's possible the moderator was unaware that the stat was false.
Then CNN had a professor on with Jake Tapper whose statistics showed that over the course of the last 40 years mass shootings are not on the rise, but that the numbers have actually remained fairly flat when looked at over time. This isn't the type of guest you would normally think of CNN as having on the air in the past (well, unless Piers Morgan was yelling at him).
Then just yesterday, CNN published a prominent editorial from Mel Robbins entitled "The real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA", complete with a well produced accompanying video (shown above).
The news network even dedicated one of their featured article spots on their homepage to a profile of Joe Wilcox, the concealed carrier who was killed while trying to stop the cop killers in Vegas earlier this month (we're still try to raise money for his family by the way, click here to donate).
Remember, this is the same network that seemingly wanted an AR-15 to be the gun used at the Navy Yard shooting incident. When it came out that is was actually a shotgun, CNN even went as far as to call the weapon an "AR-15 Shotgun" (see graphic below). Note: The reason we have blacked out the face of the suspect in this case is because we are taking part in the "Do Not Glorify" project. We will no longer show the faces or publish the names of spree killers.
Do I think CNN is "pro-gun" now? Of course not. As pointed out above, CNN still has some issues with their coverage of gun related news, but it does seem that someone at the network is at least attempting to get some real facts out there, which is somewhat commendable.
**************************************************
12. CNN: the real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA [VIDEO]
**************************************************
EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
From cnn.com: http://tinyurl.com/q4jpmuk
The real gun problem is mental health, not the NRA
by Mel Robbins
June 25, 2014
(CNN) -- Next time there's a mass shooting, don't jump to blame the National Rifle Association and lax gun laws. Look first at the shooter and the mental health services he did or didn't get, and the commitment laws in the state where the shooting took place.
Strengthening gun control won't stop the next mass shooter, but changing our attitudes, the treatment options we offer and the laws for holding the mentally unstable and mentally ill for treatment just might.
Take the case of the recent mass shooting incident in Isla Vista, California. Police say Elliot Rodger went on a killing spree near the University of California campus in Santa Barbara, shooting and stabbing victims, killing six and wounding 13 before he killed himself.
He had legally purchased three guns, passed a federal background check and met several other requirements in one of the most liberal states with the toughest gun control laws in the country. California was one of eight states that passed major gun reforms in the wake of 2012's Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, in which a lone gunman killed 20 children and six adults.
In fact California's gun control laws received an "A-" grade from both The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Los Angeles Times reported.
In this climate, how did Rodger succeed in his lethal plan? It wasn't the gun laws, it was the lack of common sense mental commitment laws.
A 2014 report by the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit aimed at removing the stigma of mental illness and barriers to treatment, analyzed the state of mental commitment laws state by state, looking at both the "quality of involuntary treatment (civil commitment) laws which facilitate emergency hospitalization during a psychiatric emergency and the availability of court orders mandating continued treatment as a condition of living in a community."
On virtually all counts, California received an "F" (it got a "C" on emergency evaluation). In Rodger's case, a friend concerned about alarming videos he'd posted on YouTube had alerted a county mental health staff member, and police had conferred with his mother, but this was not enough to get him committed.
Under California's Welfare and Institutions Code Section 5150, a person must be a danger to himself or others before he can be held for 72 hours for evaluation, and the standard is even higher to mandate treatment. Police visiting Rodger found him to be "polite and courteous" and not an apparent danger, so they had no authority to detain him or search his home for weapons to seize. The reason had nothing to do with gun laws. It had to do with the commitment laws in California.
We need to adopt a nationwide standard for involuntary civil commitment, and that standard should be "need for treatment." If a family member, law enforcement officer or mental health professional is concerned about the well-being of an individual, they should be able to have that individual held for a mental health evaluation.
Indeed, the Treatment Advocacy Center's report describes the exact situation police found themselves in when they conducted that "well-being" check on Rodger:
"But what if the person is neither threatening violence against anyone nor at any apparent imminent risk of injuring himself? What if the concern spurring the family member to seek help is simply that the person is suffering, tormented by terrifying delusions, yet somehow unaware that he is ill? Do we as a society have reason to intervene? To answer 'yes,' we must believe there is a compelling societal imperative beyond preventing imminent injury or death -- an imperative to liberate a person from a hellish existence he would never -- in his 'right mind' -- choose."
The truth is that commitment laws shouldn't be a stopgap to prevent imminent harm, but rather seen as an essential tool to help a loved one needing treatment before things reach the imminent harm stage.
Next, we've got to connect the dots between mental health records and National Instant Background Check. In 2014, Mayors Against Illegal Guns released a report calling for states to close this gap. It found that 11 states and the District of Columbia have no reporting laws, and another 12 states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the national background check system.
But connecting the dots won't help unless every gun sale is subject to an instant background check imposed on all licensed gun retailers.
And finally, the police need tools as well. They need training and the discretion to ask about and remove guns from any household where there is a domestic dispute, a call for a "well-being check," or a person who exhibits violent or unstable behavior. They also need a mental health professional on call for such checks.
Connecticut, Indiana and, yes, even Texas have firearms seizure statutes aimed at dangerous persons. Laws like these enable the police to temporarily remove guns from someone who is exhibiting dangerous behavior until a judge can make a final determination on fitness for gun ownership based on evidence presented at a hearing.
I know what you're thinking. "This will only penalize gun owners. Most gun owners are law-abiding citizens." You're right. And most gun owners believe in responsible ownership and agree that these mental health measures make sense
You may also be thinking: "But most people suffering from serious mental illness are nonviolent." You're right about that, too. Indeed, mentally ill people only account for a small fraction of the gun deaths in America every year and the vast majority of those are suicide, not homicide. Violence by the mentally ill is usually a symptom of the untreated mental illness -- that's why access to treatment, not gun control, is the answer.
Overhauling mental health laws would give family members and professionals more responsibility and authority in care decisions. And in some cases, medications and therapies should not be optional.
We've got a major problem on our hands. And since guns aren't going anywhere, the discussion about solutions needs to place the focus somewhere else.
Even the NRA agrees that the seriously mentally ill should never own a gun. So let's finally do something about it.
**************************************************
13. Mass shootings: its time to go back to institutionalizing the severely mentally ill
**************************************************
Member Wales Watkins emailed me this:
--
From christianpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/phvw7s6
Mass Shootings: It's Time to Go Back to Institutionalizing the Severely Mentally Ill
by Rachel Alexander
June 23, 2014
The left consistently blames guns for school shootings, while mostly ignoring the big elephant in the room: mental illness. Up until the 1960s, the severely mentally ill were locked up in psychiatric hospitals, for their own good and for the protection of society. The ACLU and the left changed that, by successfully suing to get them released out onto the streets. So now, they make up much of our homeless population. From there, many have predictably ended up in our prison system. The rate of mental illness in U.S. prisons is five times greater than in the regular population, and people with serious mental illness are three to four times more likely to be violent than others.
While access to guns has decreased, there is one common denominator that most, if not all, mass shooters reflects, which is mental illness. While some liberals are finally gingerly mentioning mental illness now, most liberals dare to state the obvious - the mass shooters should have been locked up when there were telltale signs. In 2005, Virginia Special Justice Paul Barnett wrote in an order that future Virginia Tech mass shooter Seung-Hui Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," but instead of committing him to an institution - which would have also removed his ability to buy firearms for his future mass shooting - he only recommended outpatient treatment. The mother of Adam Lanza, the Sandy Creek Elementary School shooter, who was also one of the victims fatally shot by him, had been making plans to have him institutionalized. The mother of Elliot Rodger, the 22-year old who went on a shooting and knifing spree in Isla Vista, Calif., last month, called the police on her son prior to the shooting incident. While in college, he tried to push a girl off a ledge.
The father of Jared Loughner - who seriously injured Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and fatally shot others in Tucson - used to disable his son's car every night in order to stop him from leaving the house, confiscated his shotgun, and urged him to get help for his erratic and drug-addicted behavior. Lanza was heavily addicted to violent video games, and apparently refused to talk to anyone, including his dad and brother. He would communicate with his mother, whom he lived with, only over email. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, who shot fellow students at Columbine High School in 1999, were both addicted to violent video games and discussed building explosives on their blog.
Many of these mass killers were no longer children. While many parents are conflicted about locking up their minor children; once those children become adults at around age 18 or so, parents need to take the tough love steps to have them committed if they believe they are a danger to society.
Loughner was 23 when he shot Congresswoman Giffords and others in Tucson. Adam Lanza was 20 when he shot students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. Seung-Hui Cho was 23 when he killed 32 people and wounded 17 others at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Elliot Rodger was 22 when he went on his killing spree in California last month.
Sadly, society has swung back so far from committing the mentally ill, that parents are given mixed signals about what to do with disturbed children. No one wants to offend parents, or mistakenly commit children who may have less severe problems - a legitimate concern - so the medical community errs on the side of not committing the seriously crazy to mental institutions.
A generic prohibition on blocking all "mentally ill" - a very broad term which could be used to hurt the innocent - from buying firearms will not fix the problem. Statistics from Colorado reveal that doing this in recent years has had only a negligible effect on violent crime. "Adding the mental health records [to the background check system] only prevented an estimated 14 violent crimes a year, or less than one half of one percent of the state's overall violent crime."
In order to fix this, aren't there common denominators we all can agree upon when someone should be institutionalized? Who would not agree, looking back at the revealing early signs from most of these mass killers, is that most, if not all of these egregious examples, should have been institutionalized?
Criminals, so increasing the number, ignore gun laws and severity of gun laws won't solve the problem either. Many of the killers obtained their weapons illegally. Harris and Klebold had an 18-year-old friend purchase firearms for them. Lanza stole his mother's firearms. Many of the guns used by the mass shooters were pistols or shotguns - yet the gun control crowd always clamors to restrict AR-15s or "assault weapons," not pistols. Rodger used a knife to stab his three roommates to death.
Mass shootings today come down to a gradual deterioration in societal values, bullying innocent kids, lazy parenting, mainly due to the incredible demands today. Children are bombarded with increasing violence in video games, movies and TV shows glorifying gun violence. Their brains are at a developmental stage that is at a highly influenceable stage as teenagers. Unless parents take responsibility and limit exposure to this violent media, there is a risk that the least unstable children among us will be wrongly influenced by this garbage.
Once parents start seeing signs that they have children who are extremely mentally unstable, they need to take steps to fix the problem. And the system should support them, not negatively influence them. This isn't going to be popular to say, but the laws must be changed to make it easier to lock people up - even against their will.
**************************************************
14. Gun-hater talks about committing murder using the police as a weapon [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Mike Malloy discussed how he would commit cold-blooded murder using the police as a weapon, because he doesn't like open carry.
Member Gil Sanderson emailed me this:
--
From ijreview.com: http://tinyurl.com/m7p4t5m
Liberal Radio Host Redefines Insanity With What He Plans to Do When He Sees an Open Carry Gun Owner
by Mike Miller
June 14, 2014
Far-left radio talk-show host Mike Malloy has a plan for the next time he sees a law-abiding open carry gun owner in public: Start screaming "Guns, guns, hit the deck!" Call 911 and say "Shots fired." What he hopes happens next is even more appalling.
Can we not debate Second Amendment rights without resorting to lunacy?
**************************************************
15. How to be prepared to defend your home and family [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Member Ruslan Ketenchiev emailed me this:
--
From youtube.com: http://tinyurl.com/kned3hg
**************************************************
16. Google to block firearm, ammunition, gun accessory ads
**************************************************
Google acting stupid.
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/m49cpoz
Google to Block Firearm, Ammunition, Gun Accessory Ads
by AWR Hawkins
June 27, 2014
Beginning in September, Google plans to block firearm, ammunition, and gun accessory ads.
According to Google Support's "Dangerous Products or Services" page, the company "[wants] to keep people safe both online and offline, so [they] won't allow the promotion of some products or services that cause damage, harm, or injury."
Included in the dangerous products for which ads will be blocked are "Guns & Parts." This covers "functional devices that appear to discharge a projectile at high velocity, whether for sport, self-defense, or combat."
Also included is a ban on ads for "any part or component that's necessary to the function of a gun or intended for attachment to a gun." This covers "gun scopes, ammunition, ammunition clips or belts."
The ban will also halt ads for "dangerous knives... throwing stars, brass knuckles, [and] crossbows," among other things.
Google Support says the ads that will be banned "are subject to change."
**************************************************
17. Succinct stand your ground article
**************************************************
EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
From washingtonpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/lbcnjq2
What 'stand your ground' laws actually mean
by Eugene Volokh
June 27, 2014
Two commenters on the McCullen v. Coakley threads have posted:
If I ask someone to stop impeding me and stop shouting at me, and that person continues to move toward me loudly and aggressively … it seems to me that people have been shot for less in "stand your ground" states.
and
I wonder what will happen when the first young woman feels fearful for her life and shoots a protester in a SYG state?
Seems to me that there's either a lot of misinformation about what "stand your ground" means, or attempts to sow misinformation.
Here's the deal:
1. In all states, shooting someone who is simply impeding you, shouting at you, and moving towards you loudly and aggressively (absent more), is a crime. The crime is called, assuming you shoot and kill the person, "murder." (It could also be attempted murder if you miss, or aggravated assault if you hit and injure the person.) Yup, same crime as if the person wasn't impeding you, shouting at you, or moving towards you loudly and aggressively (though in some states, it's conceivable that if the person is shouting insults at you and that is viewed as "adequate provocation" — unlikely, but conceivable — you'd get lucky and get off with a voluntary manslaughter charge).
This is because "stand your ground" simply means that, if you reasonably believe that you face imminent death, serious bodily injury, rape, kidnapping, or (in most states) robbery, you can use deadly force against the assailant, even if you have a perfectly safe avenue of retreat. In non-stand-your-ground states, when you face such threats outside your home (and, in some states, your business), you can only use deadly force against the assailant if you lack a perfectly safe avenue of retreat. In no states are you allowed to shoot someone who is simply shouting at you or moving towards you loudly and aggressively, unless you reasonably believe that you're in danger of death, serious bodily injury, or the other harms I listed. (When the person is coming into your home, in many states you can indeed shoot, but that doesn't apply to confrontations on the public street.)
2. What if you just feel fearful for your life, but it's not reasonable for you to feel such fear (again, of death, serious bodily injury, etc.), and you shoot and kill the person you fear? In some states, that would still be murder; in others, it will still be a crime, but a lesser one, usually called involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide. But of course if your fear is unreasonable, a jury might conclude that it was insincere, too (even given that the prosecution must disprove your defense beyond a reasonable doubt, in all states but Ohio).
3. The stand-your-ground vs. duty-to-retreat distinction comes up in the relatively unusual case in which you are faced with a threat of death, serious bodily injury, etc., but you can escape with perfect safety. If you're facing an assailant with a gun, it generally doesn't matter what state you're in, because you generally can't escape a gun with perfect safety. So if you're in the fortunately very rare scenario in which you reasonably believe that the person outside the clinic will imminently shoot you, you can shoot him in any state (if you've got a gun, that is). And if you're in the much more common scenario in which you just think the person might slap you or block your entrance or insult you, you can't shoot him in any state. Only in the very rare scenario in which you think the person might kill or seriously injure you, but with a deadly weapon that you can flee with perfect safety would it matter whether you're in a stand-your-ground state or a duty-to-retreat state.
4. In Florida, the "stand your ground" principle is also used to refer to certain statutory procedural protections that are provided to people who claim reasonable self-defense; the cases against them can be dismissed at an early pretrial stage, if the judge concludes that they were likely innocent. That's an important procedural protection, but it doesn't affect the substantive rules I describe here.
**************************************************
18. A creative 'lock up your guns' advertisement [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Member Tyler Schwend emailed me this:
--
From youtube.com: http://tinyurl.com/oxw94ve
**************************************************
19. [IN] Man attacks woman with baseball bat, gunfight ensues
**************************************************
Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:
--
From easybakegunclub.com: http://tinyurl.com/lum4s63
Man attacks woman with baseball bat, gunfight ensues (Indiana)
by Jason
June 17, 2014
Wendell Vanbuskirk, an Indianapolis man, got drunk and was fighting with his fiancee at a family cookout for Fathers Day. He was asked to leave and agreed.
Just after midnight (June 16th) he came back to the house with a vengeance. Vanbuskirk pulled up to the house with two friends in his truck and a baseball bat in his hand. He approached his fiancee's mother and began beating her with the bat.
Her husband, Quincy Franklin, saw the attack, drew his gun, and shot Vanbuskirk.
That's when the two men in the van shot back at Franklin.
When the gunfire stopped, Vanbuskirk was dead and two others were wounded.
In addition to being beaten by Vanbuskirk, Lisa Farley was shot in the head. She was transported to Eskenazi Health center in critical condition.
One of the people in the van, identified by police as 34-year-old Aridith Curbeaux, was also hit in the head and shoulder areas and was taken to IU-Health Methodist in critical condition.
The second man in the van is identified as Joshua Curbeaux. Police believe the two accomplices are Vanbuskirk's nephews.
No arrests have been made and the investigation is ongoing. Police do not suspect Franklin of any crime because he was acting in defense of his wife and himself. One or both of the Curbeaux's could face criminal charges once the investigation is completed.
**************************************************
20. [MO] Missouri trains teachers to carry concealed firearms in class [VIDEO]
**************************************************
Training and arming teachers will help make schools safer. I wonder when the Virginia Legislature is finally going to wake up and provide some real safety to our children.
Member Bill Hine emailed me this:
--
From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/pmcgm6b
Missouri trains teachers to carry concealed firearms in class
by Jessica Chasmar
June 23, 2014
School districts in Missouri have started sending staffers to firearms training so they can become an effective first line of defense in the case of a school shooting.
For a fee of $17,500, a district gets 40 hours of training for two staffers at Shield Solutions training school in West Plains, the Kansas City Star reported.
Ten Missouri school districts have taken the training so far and three more have signed contracts.
Warsaw School District officials said they felt pressured to take action after Adam Lanza, 20, killed 26 people, including 20 young children, at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012.
"That was the catalyst for us," said Tim Thomas, the district's director of instruction and facilities. "We knew we had to do something."
The company's founder, Greg Martin, told The Star that only school district administrators and local law enforcement will know who is carrying a weapon on campus.
**************************************************
21. [SC] Man that left gun was a felon
**************************************************
Moms Demand Action gets it wrong again. A felon leaves a loaded gun in a Target store in the kids section - perhaps hoping for a tragedy?
EM Ed Levine emailed me this:
--
From buzzpo.com: http://tinyurl.com/oo3tuqa
Man Who Left Loaded Gun in Target's Toy Aisle Identified
by Eric Reed
June 24, 2014
You may remember back on May 30th that a loaded gun, a Hi-Point 9MM, was found in a Myrtle Beach, SC Target stores toy aisle.
The person who initially discovered the handgun was one of Target's loss prevention officers. He stated that the weapon was just laying inside a Marvel Superhero Playskool toy box, and was in plain view. He initially thought it was a toy until he inspected it further, and realized that it was indeed real, and "fully loaded."
The police report said, earlier there was a suspicious black male walking around the toy section several times, and at one point was in the aisle where the gun was found. He appeared "nervous and fidgety."
The police took possession of the firearm and eight rounds of 9MM ammunition, and booked it into evidence.
When I wrote the original article on this story, I initially reported on the "finger pointing" that was being done by "Moms Demand Action (MDA)" towards "Open Carry Texas (OCT)." MDA began publicly insinuating that OCT may have been behind this sick act. Of course that was ludicrous, not to mention that Open Carry Texas, is actually in Texas! Not 1100 miles away in Myrtle Beach, SC.
As luck would have it though, the Myrtle Beach Police have positively identified their suspect as David Dennis. Dennis is now being sought for unlawfully carrying of a handgun in connection with this incident, as he's already a convicted felon.
David Dennis above, who's already a convicted violent criminal, is currently being sought for leaving a loaded handgun in Target's toy aisle.
Dennis isn't even legally able to own a handgun, let alone carry one. According to State Law Enforcement Division records, Dennis was previously charged with an armed robbery in October 2013. The robbery charge was dismissed in March, but he pleaded guilty to assault and battery in the second degree, according to the Horry County Public Index. Dennis was sentenced to four months in prison, but received credit for time served.
This is yet another instance where Moms Demand Action once again began screaming for more gun control, and as it turns out, the man responsible for this crime is already a convicted criminal, and can't even have a gun! Funny how the criminals still find ways to stay armed, isn't it!
**************************************************
22. [NC] Family of man shot while robbing Waffle House calls for stricter gun laws [VIDEO]
**************************************************
I guess the family wants its members to be able to murder, rape, and rob without getting hurt by a victim.
Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:
--
From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/qhf6sj3
Family of man shot while robbing a Waffle House calls for stricter gun laws
by Adelle Nazarian
June 26, 2014
The family of a North Carolina man who was shot and killed while committing an armed robbery is calling for stricter gun laws.
Dante Williams, 19, and his accomplice Jawan Craig walked into the Waffle House restaurant and "terrorized" the customers in 2012 intent on robbing it at gun point. Upon being approached by Williams, gun in hand, one of the patrons, Justin Harrison – who also had a concealed weapon on him but had an actual permit for it – shot Williams in self-defense, killing him "almost instantly," according to a Fox News affiliate in North Carolina. Fox only recently acquired the video footage from the 2012 incident.
Craig tried wrestling the gun away from Harrison but couldn't and fled the scene. He was later apprehended and sentenced to 30 years in prison for participating in the robbery.
Williams's cousin Tamika McSwain is saying that although what he did was wrong, he shouldn't have died and is calling for stricter gun laws. In the video, she specifically cites Harrison in her argument, asserting that tougher regulations for the acquirement of concealed weapon permits may have prevented her cousin's death.
McSwain said her cousin obtained the gun through the crowd the teen hung out with – "the wrong crowd," she said, while noting that she believes more training is needed for CWP carriers, specifically Harrison.
Harrison, however, says he did what he had to do. David Blanton, who was Harrison's CWP instructor, reviewed the video and said Harrison followed his training and was justified in firing, notes Fox.
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: It is our intention to honor all "remove" requests promptly.
To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you
receive messages, please go to:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303 [https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303]
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
No comments:
Post a Comment