Wednesday, October 1, 2014

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 10/1/14

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

1. Help needed at Virginia Beach gun show next weekend!
2. Chesterfield hearing on Tannerite use
3. Virginia Beach meeting on proposal to make it a crime for not reporting a stolen gun fast enough
4. RECALL NOTICE: Remington Model 700 and Model Seven
5. Good news! CHP holder and mother of 2 not to be prosecuted in New Jersey
6. [OK] Business owner stops beheading by shooting the bad guy
7. Virginia can do more to stop domestic violence gun deaths
8. Deputy mistakes daughter for intruder
9. ODU touts new safety initiative
10. The smart-gun maker who told Holder off
11. A gang member extols the virtues of concealed carry
12. Bloomberg group doesn't have plan for disarming criminals
13. Giffords and Kelly pushing temporary gun confiscation
14. American Bar Association is anti-gun
15. Blind people can own guns, too
16. Gun collections pose special estate problems
17. [MD] The most common rifle in America not protected by the second amendment
18. [IL] Online gun exchange not liable for murder victim's death, Appeals Court says
19. [MO] Guards with AR15s save businesses from looters [PICTURES]
20. [PA] Man shot, killed outside concert
21. [GA] Teenage mother uses shotgun to defend her home, baby
22. [OR] Victims advocate strikes back at Bloomberg ad
23. [CA] Quadruple stabbing

1. Help needed at Virginia Beach gun show next weekend!

We need volunteers at the VCDL booth in Virginia Beach next weekend! There are 4 shifts. If you can help, pick one or more shifts and let Gary know.

VIRGINIA BEACH -- October 11 - 12 -- VB Convention Center

Saturday, October 4: 9:00am - 1:00pm; 1:00pm - 5:00pm
Sunday, October 5: 10:00am - 1:00pm; 1:00pm - 4:00pm

Please contact Gary F. Moeller at to help in Virginia Beach.

2. Chesterfield hearing on Tannerite use

Member Carl Kersey sent me this:

Important meeting coming up in the Motoaca District! This all stems from this past spring at a BBQ and Tannerite Cookout, mostly consisting of members of the Virginia Gun Traders Forum and friends thereof. Seems like Chesterfield County residents didn't appreciate the exercising of the 2nd Amendment that day. We need to show in numbers to preserve our rights, and not lose them like our neighboring county, Hanover.

Dorothy Jaeckle, Bermuda District Supervisor
Steve Elswick, Motoaca District Supervisor

Recreational Use of Explosive Targets Update
Meet Richmond Metropolitan Transportation
Authority )RMTA) Representatives and Discuss
Regional Transportation Issues

Monday, October 6, 6 - 8 p.m.
Motoaca High School
17700 Longhouse Lane
Chesterfield, VA 23838

Steve Elswick is my Board of Supervisor member and I plan on being at this meeting. Note that the meeting is on school grounds, so guns will have to be left in your vehicle stored according to state law.

3. Virginia Beach meeting on proposal to make it a crime for not reporting a stolen gun fast enough

The Tidewater Libertarian Party is having a discussion of a proposal by the Virginia Beach City Council that would turn gun owners into criminals if they don't report a stolen gun quickly enough.

City Councilman Jim Wood will be at the meeting discussing his rationale for the proposal.

The meeting is being held at:

Providence Square Grill
941 Providence Square Shopping Center (Providence at Kempsville)
Virginia Beach, VA 2346

Breakfast begins at 8:15 AM, followed by the meeting at 9 AM.

The meeting is open to the public.

4. RECALL NOTICE: Remington Model 700 and Model Seven

Popular rifle recalled before hunting season
Laura Geller
Posted: 09/23/2014 5:49 PM

RICHMOND, VA (WWBT) - A massive recall is underway right now for rifles you'll likely use for the upcoming hunting season. Certain models from gun manufacturer Remington could unintentionally discharge.

The rifles affected are Remington Model 700 and Model Seven with X-Mark Pro triggers, manufactured from May 1, 2006 to April 9, 2014. Remington says under certain circumstances, these rifles could fire without you doing anything.

This is a recall you cannot ignore.

"Well, it could end up in somebody being killed, said David Hancock with Bob Moates Sport Shop. "If a gun misfires and it's not aimed into the proper direction or handled in a safe manner, anything could happen."

"The issue is in the trigger internally," Hancock said. "Some of the bonding agent was causing a lockup, possibly slip by."

So how do you know if your gun is subject to the recall? You need to look for the gun's serial number. For a right-handed rifle, that's on the left side of the gun. For a left-handed rifle, it'll be on the right side of the gun.

You can also figure out if your gun is affected by looking at the trigger. If it is ribbed, you're fine, but, if it is smooth, it is subject to the recall.

There are going to be a lot of these guns affected in our area.

"Remington is one of the oldest manufacturers around," Hancock said. "The gun's been out forever."

Gun experts advise you to stop using your rifle and do not use it again until Remington has fixed it.

"Definitely, if they have not had it sent back for recall, need to do so for their own safety," Hancock said.

You'll be able to tell if your rifle has been repaired. Remington will send it back to you with a small punch-mark next to the trigger confirming it has been fixed, inspected and cleaned.

If you want to check on your rifle, you can call 1-800-243-9700. Or visit this website and enter your serial number:

5. Good news! CHP holder and mother of 2 not to be prosecuted in New Jersey

It took a lot of arm twisting by gun owners, but the New Jersey prosecutor who was determined to prosecute a young mother who had done nothing wrong other than drive into New Jersey, is not going to prosecute her. Instead he is going to let her have a pretrial diversion.

From [VIDEO]

6. [OK] Business owner stops beheading by shooting the bad guy

Another example why employees with CHPs should be allowed to carry at work. Period.


7. Virginia can do more to stop domestic violence gun deaths

Moms Demand Action Virginia rep gets an opinion piece published. I will now proceed to demolish it. My comments are enclosed in square brackets as usual:


Reeder: Virginia Can Do More to Stop Domestic Violence Gun Deaths
by GenaReeder
August 10, 2014

On Aug. 3, a family of five was found fatally shot in their Culpeper home. The facts were clear almost immediately — the husband shot his wife, Shauna Washington, and their three children, before taking his own life, too. [PVC: Bad example. The father owned the gun legally and had no prior allegations or convictions for domestic violence.]

Tragically, the Washingtons' story is not an anomaly. Too often, guns in the wrong hands result in the deaths of women and children in their own homes — the very place where they should feel safest.

More than half of mass shootings committed in the United States are incidents of domestic violence. Every month, 48 American women are shot and killed by current or former intimate partners. A recent report from Everytown for Gun Safety found that American women are 11 times more likely to be killed by guns than women in any other developed nation. [PVC: Now THERE'S a reputable organization to get gun statistics from!] Armed stalkers also put women at risk: Nine out of 10 attempted murders of women involved at least one incident of stalking in the year before the murder attempt, according to a study in 10 major U.S. cities. [PVC: An armed victim would tend to make stalking much less popular.]

Despite these startling facts, many states, including Virginia, do not have strong laws in place to prevent domestic abusers from easily getting their hands on a gun. In February, Virginia's General Assembly rejected legislation that would have prevented anyone convicted of stalking, sexual battery or physical assault of a family member from having a gun for a period of five years. When legislators get back to work, they should put politics and special interests aside and pass this much-needed legislation. [PVC: Uh, Gena, your group IS a special interest group. So you just told legislators not to listen to you. ;-) This is part of the push to disarm people for MISDEMEANORS. No, thanks. Misdemeanors are not supposed to take away a person's civil rights.]

In my 42 years living and raising my children in Virginia, I have always felt at home in this state, but I feel less certain about our future in a state that does so little to protect women and children from perpetrators of domestic violence.

Just a week ago in Emporia, Va., Lamont George shot and killed his ex-girlfriend, Michelle Roper, while her teenage son watched. According to reports, a restraining order had been issued in the past, yet George had no problem obtaining the gun he used to kill Roper. [PVC: Yet another bad example. Lamont was a FELON and couldn't legally have a gun in the first place. Sheesh.]

This is the type of incident that the February legislation could have prevented. [PVC: Not with your proposals, Gena.] This is exactly why Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will be fighting this fall to get the legislature to protect all Virginia families. [PVC: I'm glad she will be fighting in the fall (not sure what is happening then). VCDL will be fighting for our rights in the winter when the General Assembly is in session.]

And even the National Rifle Association (NRA) knows that there's more to do here. When a similar piece of legislation was up for consideration in Washington state, the NRA slowly backed away from its prior opposition to it, allowing the bill to pass unanimously with wide voter support.

Similar pieces of legislation have also passed or advanced in Louisiana, Wisconsin and Minnesota, where the NRA has agreed to sit quietly by and allow meaningful gun reform to turn into law.

If the NRA can see the sense in keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers with a restraining order against them, why can't Virginia lawmakers? [PVC: Because VCDL is watching them and won't back down.]

Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, which opposed the domestic violence legislation in February, suggested that women who are at risk of domestic violence should "either get away from him or buy her own gun."

We know that neither of those suggestions is a practical — or responsible — solution. When a woman gets a restraining order against a former intimate partner, she is clearly making every effort to "get away from him." [PVC: By holding a piece of paper in her hand? We know how well that works.] When a woman buys her own gun for protection against a possible domestic violence attack, her chances of dying by a gun go up drastically. [PVC: More "statistics" from Everytown for Gun Safety?] Women involved in domestic disputes are almost 10 times more likely to have a gun used against them than to use a gun in self-defense. [PVC: Citation?]

Virginia does not need more gun extremists telling women what to do. [PVC: That's rich coming from a gun-grabbing extremist who is trying to tell women what to do!] Virginia needs legislators to enact stronger laws that do more to keep guns away from abusers and act in the interest of children and families in this state.

No one should have to fear sleeping in her own bed or dying at the hands of an armed abuser. [PVC: However, if the abuser is 250 pounds of pure muscle, but "unarmed," that would be OK?] I hope legislators take heed and think of the safety of Virginia families when they return in January. [PVC: So do I.]

8. Deputy mistakes daughter for intruder

Be sure you have clearly identified your target before firing your gun. Keep your finger off the trigger until the identification is completed.


Police: Va. Deputy accidentally shot daughter, crashed car taking her to hospital
by the Associated Press
August 15, 2014

WINCHESTER — A Virginia deputy sheriff shot his 16-year-old daughter after mistaking her for an intruder, then crashed his car as he rushed her to the hospital, authorities said.

The teenager was in stable condition at a Winchester hospital, according to media reports.

Capt. Donnie Lang of the Frederick County Sheriff's Office said a security alarm sounded at about 3:30 a.m. Tuesday at the Winchester home of Easton McDonald, a sergeant with the Loudoun County Sheriff's Office. He said McDonald, responding to the alarm, saw the dark shape of a person advancing through the garage door and fired.

"He figured someone had broken into the garage, and his family was upstairs asleep," Lang said.

Armed with his privately owned gun — not his service weapon — McDonald fired, Lang said.

"Then he hears her voice and recognizes that it's his daughter," he said.

According to investigators, McDonald grabbed his daughter, who had been returning home after apparently sneaking out, and called 911 to report that he was taking her to the hospital. En route, McDonald lost control of his car and hit a barricade, damaging the front of the vehicle but causing no additional injuries to his daughter or to himself, Lang said.

Emergency responders went to the scene of the crash and took McDonald's daughter to the hospital.

A call to the McDonald home Friday went to a recording, which said the number had been temporarily disconnected.

Kraig Troxell, spokesman for the Loudoun sheriff's office, confirmed that McDonald was involved in the shooting but declined further comment.

McDonald, a 13-year veteran of the sheriff's office, was placed on administrative leave pending an internal investigation.

9. ODU touts new safety initiative

"Stop right there! I have a mobile app on my cell phone! Uh, wait. The app says you are a sociopath and I'm about to die. Darn. I wonder if I have an app that will turn my phone into a gun?"

For ODU, safety never includes being armed. It does make you wonder why ODU's police are armed in that case.

Member Alan Rose emailed me this:



ODU touts new safety initiative
by Carl Leimer
August 15, 2014

NORFOLK -- Officials at Old Dominion University have new safety enhancements in place for the start of the fall semester.

It's good news for students after a perception last year that crime was on the rise. Students were victims of at least eight violent crimes on and around the ODU campus during the 2013-2014 school year. There were shootings near campus, multiple armed robberies on and near campus and a deadly assault across the street from the campus that killed 20-year-old Paul Johnson.

One of the key elements of the safety initiative is a mobile app called LiveSafe. Developed by a survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech tragedy, it allows students to contact police and get information.

ODU Police Chief Rhonda Harris unveiled the app Friday morning.

Other safety enhancements include the installation of more than 1,060 security cameras at residence halls, parking lots and other public spaces; free home safety evaluations for students who live off campus and increased patrols by Norfolk Police in residential and commercial areas near the campus.

ODU President John R. Broderick is confident that the new measures will make the campus a safer place.

"Never before in our 85-year history have we begun a school year with so many assets in place to bolster our students' success and quality of life while simultaneously providing a cache of essential tools and enforcement strategies to keep them safe," said Broderick. "Old Dominion takes its safety precautions seriously and I commend our staff for their achievement in advancing these efforts over the summer."

On the WVEC13 Facebook page, people say they're glad to hear about the effort.
Donna C. wrote "Donna Cresswell Chugg It would also help if they would stop prohibiting Students, who have paid for parking passes, from parking in the parking garage by the TED when there is an event! often times my Daughter must park elsewhere and walk across campus to get to her classes. but I appreciate ANY effort that is made to increase campus safety."

Kelly H said, "I think this is great! I live near the campus and walk through there regularly. I wish they would make the ODU alerts available to those of us who live near by but aren't students."

Nicole B. added, "I think it should help. Hey, ya gotta start somewhere."

10. The smart-gun maker who told Holder off


The smart-gun maker who told Holder off
by Frank Miniter
August 11, 2014

The setting was a behind-closed-doors meeting at the National Institute of Justice, the research, development, and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice. The place was Washington, D.C. The time was April 2013. It was months after the Sandy Hook massacre, and Attorney General Eric Holder was quietly meeting with some gun manufacturers.

"I then had the biggest development in smart-gun technology coming together at my facility in Utah — the Intelligun" says W. P. Gentry, president of Kodiak Arms. The Intelligun uses scanners on a pistol's grips. If a person's biometrics — essentially, the patterns of his fingerprints — have been added to the gun's software, the pistol will activate within one second of being touched.

"This interested Eric Holder," Gentry says. "He wondered how we might be able to control who was or wasn't authorized. I stopped him right there. I looked right across a table at Eric Holder — yeah, the attorney general of the United States — and told him, 'If you try to mandate my smart-gun technology, I'll burn it down.' The Intelligun is designed to save lives, not restrict freedom."

That ended the meeting, but not the fight for freedom. Anti-gun groups are now spreading the narrative that gun-rights advocates are preventing the development of these guns. The Washington Post's Michael S. Rosenwald wrote that American gun owners see the German gun designer Ernst Mauch — formally with Heckler & Koch — as a "traitor" for joining a German company called Armatix and developing a .22-caliber smart gun called the iP1. Rosenwald also wrote: "The National Rifle Association and other gun groups fiercely oppose smart guns."

The truth is the NRA hasn't presented an official position on smart guns in general, and that's not unusual. The NRA typically lets the market determine the viability of gun technology. The group has, however, officially opposed "requiring guns to be made with electronic equipment that would allow the guns to be deactivated remotely, or with other features that gun owners do not want." Similarly, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for firearms manufacturers, is opposed only to making such technology mandatory. The NSSF's president, Larry Keane, recognizes that "most firearms manufacturers have been reluctant to invest R&D dollars in smart-gun technology because gun-control advocates want to make the technology mandatory. If that happens, new guns will become prohibitively expensive, which is part of what these groups want."

The idea that the federal or a state government could make this technology mandatory is what has a lot of gun owners — however unfairly — voicing opposition to companies like Armatix and the stores that sell smart guns. They're concerned for good reason. A 2002 New Jersey law states that when there is a proven smart-gun on the U.S. market — the New Jersey attorney general must decide when this is the case — then within three years, all new handguns sold in New Jersey must incorporate this (likely patented) technology. Meanwhile, many anti-gun groups are publicly salivating over what such restrictions could do to the gun market.

The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, for example, sees an opportunity here to ban many guns, to make those available prohibitively expensive, and perhaps even to put a bureaucrat's sticky fingers inside the firing mechanism of every gun sold. Interestingly, though, not all anti-gun groups have been in favor of this technology. In a long list of criticisms of smart guns, the Violence Policy Center worried that "packaged with a strong sales pitch, [smart-gun] technology could penetrate new markets for a gun industry." So this group is actually opposed to smart guns because they're worried that smart guns might make gun ownership more commonplace.

Meanwhile, about a year after meeting with Kodiak Arms and other gun makers, Holder said, while testifying before a U.S. House of Representatives appropriations: "Vice President Biden and I had a meeting with a group of technology people and talked about how guns can be made more safe by making them either though fingerprint identification, the gun talks to a bracelet that you might wear, how guns can be used only by the person who is lawfully in possession of the weapon." Though his statement was a bit garbled, Holder seemed to be saying he wants to explore "commonsense" gun reforms that might include forcing licensed gun owners to use smart guns.

Now, people who know little about firearms might ask: Why not put a new safety measure on every gun sold? The answer is: Because it's not possible. Guns are precise mechanical instruments, and there are thousands of different makes and models being sold today in many different sizes and configurations. No technology is going to fit all of those old and new designs. Such a mandate would be like the government saying only electric cars can be legally sold. It would effectively ban almost all the products now on the market.

All these political threats aside, the more immediate objections many gun owners have to this emerging technology is more practical. Many note that batteries go dead, temperature or moisture can harm electronics, and most smart-gun designs — such as Armatix's iP1 — require that a person wear a bracelet or other device. Gun owners are understandably critical of guns that might go click when they really need to go bang. Why would your average gun owner want to take a very proficient instrument, one that might save his or her life, and add a battery-powered layer of uncertainty to it?

There are other reasons why this technology has been slow in coming. While researching my book The Future of the Gun, I gained entry to a lot of America's gun manufactures' R&D departments. Some of them have spent money on smart-gun concepts, but I was told over and over that they're hesitant because smart guns have been made controversial by anti-gun groups; because there are liability worries (if a gun maker has the technology only on more expensive models, could they then be sued if one of their less expensive models is used by an unauthorized person?); because there is a lack of interest from gun owners; and because digital technology isn't what they do. Gun makers cut steel and polymer into intricate shapes and fit them together into newer and better firearms. Fitting electronics into these mechanisms isn't something they have expertise in.

To make the Intelligun, Kodiak Arms hired outside help. With contractors who have experience with biometric scanners, Gentry says, "We developed state-of-the-art technology that exceeds U.S. Department of Defense requirements. Our biometric scanners can see right through sweat and even blood. The first model of the Intelligun is a conversion kit that is easy to install on a 1911 pistol. It's as simple as changing out the grips and the mainspring. Within the next year we'll have Intelligun conversion kits available for other popular handguns."

Gentry says he thought about whether he should develop a smart gun and decided: "Government be damned, we need this potentially life-saving technology." The Intelligun doesn't read a person's fingerprints. It actually takes a series of photos of a person's fingertips and overlaps them. It then looks for enough points that match an algorithm. Engineers working on smart guns have previously tried things like radio-frequency identification, fingerprint-recognition systems, and magnetic rings. The Intelligun is the first design to make this gun-safety technology practical.

If he can keep the government out of the way, Gentry says, he sees a lot of possibilities for the technology. Theoretically, a villain couldn't take a gun from a police officer or armed citizen and then use that gun — as the Navy Yard killer did. Also, a parent would have another safety mechanism to help prevent a child from firing a self-defense gun.

The Intelligun has an official failure rate of one in ten thousand. If the battery goes dead on a civilian model, the gun locks, but on models being marketed to police departments, a dead battery unlocks the pistol completely. When you pick up the gun, your fingers naturally touch its biometric scanners. A pressure sensor keeps the gun turned on. If you put it down, the gun locks within a second. The consumer model has a manual override — a key a person can use to unlock a firearm that has a dead battery.

Gentry says, "We've already sold some to schools. A few of the schools have installed gun safes in various parts of their school buildings. They're hidden in the walls. They have biometric scanners. If an authorized person touches the scanner, the box opens, giving them access to an Intelligun. If they're also authorized to use the gun, they can respond to a school shooting in seconds, not minutes." When the Intelligun safe is opened, it sends a text message to other teachers and school administrators, and it calls 911 to let the police know a gun has been accessed and that a teacher is now armed on the premises. That's a part of a safer future he sees.

Meanwhile, the Intelligun doesn't send or receive signals. It can't be turned on or off by anyone in some government office. It puts the power in the hands of the individual. Gentry says, "This technology can create a safer country . . . if the government will just stay out of our way."

Firearms like these are part of the future of the gun — and of our freedom. But to win this battle for freedom, we need the truth to undo the spin coming from mainstream news outlets. The rest of the true story you need to hear is in my book, The Future of the Gun.

11. A gang member extols the virtues of concealed carry

Member Charles Losik emailed me this:



The conversation with a former gang member that changed the worldview of this pro-gun author
by Benjamin Weingarten
August 14, 2014

New York Times bestselling author Frank Miniter's new book, "The Future of the Gun," stresses that there are two gun cultures in America: one of law abiding, liberty-loving citizens who cherish their firearms for self-defense and hunting, and another of violent criminals who take advantage of the stringent gun regulations that disarm those who are most vulnerable.

During an interview with TheBlaze Books, we touched on the notion made concrete by John Lott of "More Guns, Less Crime," and asked Miniter whether this link between guns and crime was a matter of correlation or causation. His response was that looking through the eyes of those who come from violent urban areas — something he did in researching "The Future of the Gun" — was not only insightful but even changed his worldview on this question.

Miniter proceeded to tell us about a trip to the streets of New York with former gang members, who told him their stories. One such conversation was particularly eye-opening. Standing with Miniter on a street corner, a former gang member said:

Let me show you what's going on here: Over there you see some stores that are open — there are shop owners there. They should be the pillars of this society. They should be the leaders…everyone should look up to them. But they don't. They've been neutered, their guns have been taken away. They have to call 911, and hope [someone comes to rescue them] if something happens. So they're victims waiting to happen.


Now look around more: There's a cop. Unfortunately, too often the youth…they don't look up to police officers, and there's all sorts of deep reasons for that…Now look around more, what else do you see? What you see are…gang leaders.

The end result in this former gang member's view is that for the young kid:

he looks around the neighborhood, and he looks for the power…He looks to the gang member who has a gun tucked away in his shorts. He's the power in that neighborhood. Whereas the average person who has been disarmed, the average store owner who has been disarmed are neutered, they don't.

How does he think you can reverse this paradigm?

The only way I can see to change this is to empower the individual…to carry concealed. And then your mother or that store owner or whomever is on par — is equal to that gang member and so on who is carrying that gun illegally. And you've just then brought mature people who know how to responsibly handle guns…into that society to be good examples of gun owners…and you've changed the whole social dynamic then of that idea of the gun in those bad neighborhoods.

During the interview, which coincidentally came in the wake of just-passed more stringent gun laws in Massachusetts, we had the chance to cover a number of other issues, including:

-The evolution of guns in America, and the link between civilian and military gun development
-How "assault weapon" is an invented term developed by gun control proponents to use as a cudgel against pro-gun activists
-The strongest statistic that indicates more guns really do mean less crime
-The implications of the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases
-The most asinine gun law in the country
-The effect of recent regulations on gun manufacturers and the gun economy
-Intriguing new gun technologies, including the Intelligun, which is being used in some schools, and 3D printing
-Sheriff Clark's triumph in Wisconsin
-How Miniter suggests one can try to move anti-gun rights folks to the pro-Second Amendment position

12. Bloomberg group doesn't have plan for disarming criminals


Moms demand action on gun sense in America have no plan to take guns away from criminals
by Fred DeRuvo
August 12, 2014

In a asinine twist of reality, Shannon Watts - founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an anti-gun, anti-2A group - love to make the Second Amendment (2A) appear to be the problem in America. Their unbridled hatred of guns and the 2A seems to know no bounds and it is an understatement to say that it obviously clouds their thinking on the matter.

First of all, the name of the group is a bit misleading. Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America makes it appear as though they only want more so-called common sense laws created to reduce gun crime. Unfortunately, aside from the fact that there are already plenty of common sense gun laws in effect, some of their members or at least those who side with them tell us a difference story.

They won't stop until the 2A is gone and with it the law-abiding citizen's right to carry. No word on how they will eliminate guns from the hands of the criminals.

Or this one in which the individual clearly wants the 2A eliminated.

Finally, for those who doubt the true intentions of anti-gunners, here it is:

The problem of course is that not once have I read anywhere the plan from these anti-gunners to remove guns from criminals. There is no plan. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein noted that by limiting or eradicating certain guns from society, it would affect criminals, but it would take time (paraphrase). This isn't even true when we consider the fact that guns are routinely brought into this country illegally from Mexico and sold on the black market. This is fact, yet these anti-gunners obviously don't even take that into consideration at all. They don't even think that far.

They essentially want to create an America that is completely "gun free" (except in your homes), but criminals will no sooner note and obey that than they do today. Gun free is simply an invitation to all criminals to bring their guns because they are fairly certain they will meet with no resistance. This is what people involved in groups like Moms Demand Action will bring about in society if they have their way.

In response to @jashsf, another individual said the following.

There was no response that I could find from @jashsf. None. I also added my five cents to the convo and asked what the plan was to ensure that criminals no longer had access to guns. Again, there was no response from anyone.

The reality is very simple. Guns exist. Like drugs, people will obtain them and they will do so illegally if necessary. Beyond this, making a gun that fires a 12-ga shotgun shell is not difficult at all.

The street gangs in the 1950s in NYC had what are known as "zip guns" that fired .22 bullets one at a time. They were homemade then and are still homemade now. In fact, prison guards routinely find them in cells of prison inmates since it is fairly easy to make one that is extremely basic to something much more complex.

Yet, we have these "moms" who want to eliminate the 2A as if that will make criminals say, "Wow, I'd better stop carrying my concealed weapon illegally now." won't happen. They are already breaking the law because they're the only group of people who do not go through the trouble of obtaining concealed weapons permits, which involves providing a set of fingerprints and undergoing a criminal background check.

Criminals simply lay out cash on the street for the gun they want and then start carrying it. Moms Demand Action and groups like them have absolutely no plan to disarm criminals and if they were honest, they would know they can't. So what do they do instead? Go after law-abiding Americans who have jumped through the legal hoops to obtain a concealed weapons permit or to simply buy a gun and remain within the law as they own that gun.

We have all sorts of laws against illegal drugs, yet not one of those laws has ever helped reduce the drug culture. Drugs are still smuggled into this country big time and there is nothing that law enforcement can do to eradicate it.

IF the 2A was ever eradicated, criminals would still have guns. It is so simple that even a caveman can appreciate it. Apparently, that is too high for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America though.

When alcohol was outlawed, we entered a period known as Prohibition. Did the alcohol stop flowing? Nope. It continued to flow and it made the mob very wealthy. Eventually, Prohibition came to an end because it did the exact opposite of what it was intended to do.

Too many people believe that the 2A grants the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't. It simply recognizes the right that already exists, given to us by our Creator. This is why it says it "shall not be infringed."

It boggles my mind to read so-called arguments from people like @jashsf and others who truly believe that by eliminating the 2A, gun crime would be reduced to nothing. They would say that one life saved is worth it. The issue they refuse to deal with is found in their own propaganda that ignores the fact that guns actually save lives. Women have used guns to protect themselves from criminals. Others have used guns to save lives as well. These facts are clearly ignored by the left because it doesn't fit with their agenda. For them, guns have no good purpose at all.

Criminals commit crime and many do it with some type of weapon. Guns are easy to conceal and easy to obtain. Getting rid of the 2A would not reduce the fact that criminals obtain, conceal, and use guns every day. All it would do is create a society in which the innocent would not have access to guns as they face criminals who still would.

People like those involved with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America have no critical thinking skills. They wrongly believe that the 2A is the problem when in point of fact, it's the criminal who is the problem. His access to guns is not determined by the 2A. It's determined by the availability of guns on the black market and eliminating the 2A would create more of a need and expand the black market. Guns would not be eliminated from society. They would simply become thoroughly unregulated.

In essence, eliminating the 2A or further restricting guns would create the same situation that existed under Prohibition, but apparently, those against guns haven't thought this all through carefully enough. But then again, that seems to be a consistent motif of the left, not thinking things thoroughly through.

13. Giffords and Kelly pushing temporary gun confiscation

Confiscation rearing its ugly head again.

Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:


So when antis are caught lying, should they temporarily lose their First Amendment right to free speech until they can prove they are no longer a threat to society?


Report: Giffords, Kelly's gun control group now pushing temporary gun confiscation
by Awr Hawkins
August 15, 2014

Americans for Responsible Solutions--the group formed by gun control proponents former Arizona Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly--has issued a new report listing five ideas "to reduce gun violence." Four of the five revolve around temporary gun confiscation or gun bans.

The report was issued in conjunction with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
According to the Arizona Republic, Giffords and her husband found the "rational middle ground" in the new report.

The report begins with the fairly innocuous idea of to removing "loopholes" where they exist between states and the federal government regarding information on the mentally ill. But after that, the focus turns to confiscation:

Idea Two: "Authorize law enforcement to remove access to guns, with court oversight and plenty of protections to prevent abuse of this authority." The owner of the guns would "only" get them back once he or she was "no longer a danger to themselves or others."

Idea Three: "Require schools, including colleges and universities, to report violent or suicidal people to a court or administrating agency." These people would also have their firearms confiscated, but "could regain their firearms access...after a certain period of time."

14. American Bar Association is anti-gun

Member Bob Greene emailed me this:



American Bar Assoc ups ante on "Preventing Gun Violence"
by Amy Miller
August 12, 2014

At this year's American Bar Association annual meeting in Boston, ABA President James R. Silkenat took the opportunity to tout the ABA's Standing Committee on Gun Violence. The Standing Committee is one of the ABA's advocacy wings, and is affiliated closely with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

"Part of our mission as an association is to defend liberty and deliver justice," Silkenat said at the program, "Combatting Gun Violence: A Role for Lawyers and the Bar." Someone "who cannot go to the laundromat, the movie theater or school, without fear for their safety, is not truly free—even if he or she can vote or have the right to legal counsel," he said.

Other gun control advocates went on to trot out the recent death of James Brady as a boon to their argument for stricter background checks and waiting periods:

Opponents of gun regulations cite the inconvenience to potential gun buyers of waiting periods associated with background checks, said Jonathan Lowy, director of the legal advocacy project of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He noted that James Brady once said, from his wheelchair, "I guess I'm paying for their convenience."

Lowy cited a well-known argument from the head of the National Rifle Association, that "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." He noted that victims of the assassination attempt were protected with the guns of the Secret Service.

James Brady was the victim of a terrible act of political violence. He spent over three decades in a wheelchair because of his injuries, and lawyers and policymakers owe it to people like Brady to take care in their examination of the law.

There is a difference, however, between advocating for strong, constitutionally-sound policy, and using worst case scenarios to swindle the public into believing that the mere presence of a gun bodes ill for the safety of the American people:

Thomas Tape of the American College of Physicians discussed the public-health perspective of gun violence. He cited statistics that having a gun in the home substantially increases the risk of suicide and homicide in the home, discrediting the argument that a firearm can protect individuals and families from violence.

Totally discredited.

Utter nonsense, really.

The gun control advocates who presented at the ABA's meeting are perfectly aware that what they're doing has nothing to do with the Constitution. They're playing a very tricky—and shameless—political game with our Constitutional rights, and are depending upon the knee jerk reactions of politicians and the media to give their arguments credibility.

[Harvard Law professor Laurence] Tribe noted that even though "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," the court decisions do allow for certain gun regulations and that the real challenge for proponents of gun regulations is a political one—to get laws enacted.

"It's not the Second Amendment that stands in the way" of reform," said David Clark, chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Gun Violence.

People like Tribe and Clark understand that the real end game for progressives isn't necessarily less guns—it's the ability to control with absolute certainty the culture surrounding personal responsibility, self-defense, and dependence on government. If "gun control" were really about guns, we wouldn't see news stories about children being suspended for possession of a plastic Nerf gun; students wouldn't end up suspended over the threat posed by a chewed-up Pop Tart; and we certainly wouldn't see lawmakers encouraging young women to rely on delusive "safe zones" to avoid becoming victims of violent crime.

The ability of gun control advocates to push the envelope with regards to regulation has been well-matched by freedom-minded advocacy groups and lobbyists who understand that more gun control does not necessarily lead to less violent crime; but conservatives need to recognize that the ABA is helping the Brady Campaign and other organizations build a brain trust that they plan on using to change the game and dismantle not only the practical arguments for gun ownership, but the philosophical arguments against excessive government regulation.

Never underestimate the power of enthusiastic lawyers in large groups. They may just be our undoing.

15. Blind people can own guns, too

Member Bill Huckleberry emailed me this:



Guide dogs and guns: America's blind gunmen
by William Kremer
August 12, 2014

In the US, being blind is no bar to owning and carrying firearms. The blind people who do it say they are simply exercising their constitutional right, and present no danger to the public.

When Carey McWilliams went to the sheriff's office in Fargo, North Dakota, to fill out the paperwork for a permit to carry a concealed weapon, the staff immediately noticed he was holding the harness to a guide dog.

The woman behind the desk pointed out that he would have to pass a shooting test before being granted the licence, but McWilliams said he knew that. He told her not to worry.

"So then she took a picture of me, and my application then went up through the ranks - it got the signature of the chief of police of Fargo, the sheriff and the state attorney general's office - and they kept calling me and calling me, saying: 'There's a shooting test, there's a shooting test.'"

The day of the test came, and McWilliams duly went along to the police firing range with a friend who was also trying for a permit. The targets were half-size cut-outs of assailants, positioned seven yards (6.4m) away. McWilliams fired a series of shots with a .357 magnum, all of which landed in the heart region of his target.

Clearly, he knew what he was doing.

He had been into guns since he was 15, when, as an air force cadet, he went on a military camp. The marine in charge of the shooting range had a brother who had lost his sight but they still went hunting together, so he let McWilliams handle the M16 machine gun. McWilliams, who before he lost his sight at the age of 10 had dreamed of joining the armed services, was instantly hooked.

Three years later, he asked to enrol on a pistol marksmanship course run by the Reserve Officer's Training Corps, the body that trains officers for the US armed forces. At that time there was no requirement to be enlisted in the army to take the course, and after much discussion, the instructor agreed to take him on. On the range, McWilliams learned to take aim by listening to the sound of his target being wheeled back against the wall. It served him very well. McWilliams says he shot better than two-thirds of his class, and in his final exam scored 105 out of 100, with one bullet somehow ricocheting and passing through the target twice.

He used the same technique in October 2000, in the police firing range in Fargo.

"The deputy sheriff said: 'Well, you have all these stickers here telling me that you're blind, but you passed the test, so you got your permit. Expect a lot of grief because you're a test case for the whole system, no-one's done this before.'"

Concealed carry permits - the licences required to carry a gun in public - are issued at state level, and the criteria and rules vary across the US. While there is nothing in North Dakota's statutes to prevent a blind person - or a person with any physical disability - carrying a gun, in Florida, for example, a "physical inability to handle a firearm safely" is listed as a reason for ineligibility. Yet even there, a blind person with a North Dakota licence would still be able to carry his or her gun, since Florida recognises permits from that state.

It's even more straightforward for blind people to own guns if they are content to leave them at home. In most states, you don't need to perform a shooting test or get a licence to buy a gun. Consequently, no-one knows how many blind Americans own guns for home defence, target practice or hunting.

Carey McWilliams started hunting in 2008. When ducks fly across the sky, he says, they make a sound like bicycle tyres on a pavement, and he traces them with the barrels of his rifle. For other types of hunting, such as stalking elk, he goes out with a companion, who whispers directions - up a bit, left a bit, right a bit - but who is not permitted to touch his weapon.

Hunting in this way is not unskilled, says McWilliams. Ever the military enthusiast, he argues that it is no different from how sniper teams work in a warzone, with a spotter giving verbal directions to a marksman. At the moment he presses the trigger, the adrenaline rush is huge. "You could probably lift up a car at that point. After you're done it's like popping a balloon and you just get tired."

The bigger the game, the bigger the rush.

"In the beginning I thought it was a joke, that somebody was blind and wanted to go on alligator hunt," says Mark Clemens, who runs a company specialising in shore hunts in Florida. "Then I sent an email back and I guessed he was serious. And once I got him on the phone, you know, he said that he was having a hard time finding anybody that would take him. That's what the sad part was. Everybody thought he wasn't capable of doing it. He was definitely capable of doing it, if he had instructions."

The alligator that Carey McWilliams pulled in with Clemens and his team in 2009 was more than 11ft (3.4m) long. As McWilliams recounts how he killed the beast with a .44 Magnum bangstick - a cross between a gun and a spear - his voice fills with emotion. He paints a picture of lightning, lassos, trucks nearly falling off dykes and a second alligator creeping up on the group from the shore. "They don't die like they do on TV," he says darkly.

Since then, McWilliams has killed a black bear and is now set on African game. He owns "eight or nine" guns, including an AR-15 machine gun, the civilian version of the M16 he handled as a teenager. Meanwhile, he has continued advise other blind Americans about how they can go about getting their concealed carry permit - he says he has now mentored nearly 100.

One of those is Jim Miekka, who in social terms comes from a different world. Carey McWilliams is unemployed, and lives in a trailer home with his wife, Victoria, who describes him as "a redneck - but a harmless redneck - if Carey could drive he would have a big pickup truck". Jim Miekka, meanwhile, is a financial trader who divides his time between Florida and Maine, where he lives on an 80-acre property. But both men have an indefatigable attitude, take pride in being free-thinkers and are completely hooked on guns.

In his 20s, Miekka lost his sight - and two of his fingers - in an explosion in his kitchen, while he was trying to develop a chemical that could be used in mining. Not long afterwards, he began to apply his ingenuity to his new situation. With help from his father, a chemical engineer with about 20 patents to his name, Miekka bought a cadmium sulphide photocell and wired it to turn visual information into clicks like those on a Geiger counter. The clicks intensified when the device was pointed at the outlines of objects, allowing Miekka to make out the edges of buildings and roads.

"I found out that it worked best with a telescope," Miekka recalls, "and at about the same time my best friend Bill was getting into target shooting, and he said, 'Why don't we try mounting it on a gun and seeing how it works?'"

The system is similar to that used for blind shooting in the Paralympics, where a high-frequency tone tells competitors how far they are aiming away from the centre of a target, which is coloured more brightly than the outer rings.

Jim Miekka
Over the years Miekka, now 54, has refined his technology, moving over to a pair of stereoscopic photodiodes. His latest scope, made together with a gunsmith, allows him to pick out an orange target of 0.17in (4mm) diameter at 100 yards (91 metres) - something he says four friends with 20-20 vision could not do. It can also pick out standard National Rifle Association (NRA) targets, allowing him to compete against sighted shooters.

"I like going out to the range and out-shooting people that can see," says Miekka. His father, Dick Miekka, has never beaten him, and says he's remarkable to watch. "He finds the centre of his target. And then nothing happens. Nothing moves and the bullet comes out. He is absolutely, totally still. You'd never know that he'd fired the gun except that you heard it and saw the result on the target."

Throughout his life, Jim Miekka has brought this extraordinary single-mindedness to bear on a series of intellectual puzzles. He is the creator of two mathematical algorithms for predicting downturns on the stock market - the Miekka Formula and the Hindenberg Omen - that have long been used by Wall Street traders. More recently, he has become obsessed with a 22-year-old murder case after watching a TV documentary, convinced that the scenario presented to the jury was against the laws of physics and the accused was wrongly imprisoned.

But when asked what achievement he is most proud of Miekka says he likes the fact that if you put the words "world's best target shooter" into Google, the first result you are likely to get is a video of him on his range. Miekka's love of guns doesn't end with target shooting, either. He also enjoys dressing up as a cowboy and competing in fast-draw competitions under the nickname the Midnight Gunslinger. He can draw and fire his six-shooter in half a second.

In 2007, Miekka came across an enticing-sounding book in the tape library catalogue, Guide Dogs and Guns. "My shooting ability is well-documented and undeniable," read the blurb on the back cover." So prepare to step into a world filled with Braille, machine guns, canes, killer whales, guide dogs and nuclear weapons. This isn't a soft, blind man conquers all type of fluff biography but it is a hard-hitting, bare-knuckles, although at times humorous, look into the life of America's first sightless gunslinger."

It was Carey McWilliams' autobiography. Miekka phoned McWilliams and listened to his advice on how to obtain a concealed carry permit. "I learned from Carey that you want to be somewhat discreet," he says. "I knew the key thing was getting a friendly instructor."

This advice was based on McWilliams' failure to get a permit for Minnesota, the state just to the east of Fargo. Even though he passed the shooting test, McWilliams is convinced the NRA instructor in charge tipped off the sheriff that he was blind. "Now why he did that I don't know because if had been of a different race or ethnicity or sex or whatever there would be riots in the street over that, because that's a civil rights issue," he says.

The sheriff, Bill Bergquist, referred the matter to a judge, McWilliams defended himself in court and lost. "He was blind, and that was why we took it to the court," Bergquist says simply, adding that it was his own office staff that told him about McWilliams' disability, not the NRA instructor.

Jim Miekka took his shooting test at a gun show in Florida, under an instructor who, he felt sure, would say nothing about his blindness, and sure enough he received his permit despite Florida's rule that bars those with a "physical inability" from carrying guns. It seems likely that he slipped under the radar.

Miekka says he needs the permit so that he can take his weapons to the range and to quick-draw events. But he also takes the pistol with him when he goes on his daily walks through the countryside, because he is afraid of being attacked by a dog. "There's a 99% possibility that if you have to use it in self-defence it'll be against a dog," he says.

Carey McWilliams is also concerned about dogs, and has good reason to be. In 2009 he was attacked by three German shepherds and had to spend days in hospital receiving treatment. For weeks afterwards he was scared to leave home and is still on morphine today. He says the incident is the reason he can no longer work.

He wasn't carrying his pistol at the time and doubts it would have helped him, since he was too busy covering his neck and face to reach for a gun. But it's not just dogs that worry him.

"Being blind you're naturally more vulnerable to the criminal element," he says. "You're naturally more a pedestrian. You can't avoid a dangerous situation or run from one if an attack occurs. So you're going to have to stand and fight with whatever means you have available. For me, that's a 9mm pistol."

As a backup, he sometimes carries a 10in (25cm) marine fighting knife in his jacket pocket.

"I've only had to extract the gun three or four times in self-defence. One time a person charged me across the yard, another time a person tried to run me down with a car when I was on the street trying to walk someplace. When I pulled the gun, they saw the action, took off and that was it. He was about split second from getting a bullet in the radiator."

At the same time, McWilliams says again and again that he would only use his weapon on someone at point blank range - "I consider my gun a blade with a bang." That is the only way, he says, that he can be sure he is under real attack and - his acoustic shooting skills notwithstanding - pick out his assailant.

To minimise danger to passers-by, he says his gun is loaded with frangible ammunition, which would be of no danger after exiting an assailant's body. "Surgeons absolutely hate those type of shots that I use because they do a lot of a damage internally," he says. "It would make a bullet wound about the size of a dime and an exit wound about the size of a baseball, and wouldn't go very far beyond that."

Not everyone thinks it makes sense for blind people to carry guns. Stevie Wonder has commented that it is "crazy" how easy it would be for him, blind since birth, to buy a gun. But when asked about these concerns, McWilliams responds that it's sighted people that seem to be doing all the shooting. So long as blind people just use their weapons in defence, at point-blank range, he says the rights and wrongs of them carrying guns come down to good judgment rather than marksmanship.

But how confident is he that, in that moment of fear and adrenaline, he would make the right judgement? McWilliams, who is not a small man, admits that years ago, someone grabbed his arm in the street to try and help him, only to find himself judo-tossed to the ground.

"I've had sighted people get a little aggressive, come up and grab me," he says. "The whole key to not being shot is basically to leave your hands off the blind person."

One blind man who has thought long and hard about when he would shoot in self-defence is Louis Hartley, a former deputy sheriff who lost his sight five years ago.

"It would have to be a lot more than somebody just taking me by the arm. It would be one of those instantaneous type of decisions that you would have to make by what they had said, like 'I'm going to cut your throat,' or 'I'm going to kill you' or 'I have a weapon and I want your money,'" he says.

"Or if they knock you to the ground or whatever - you have to make your mind up at that point in time."

His decision to carry a weapon was influenced by an incident in the 1970s, when he saw a fellow officer getting shot. "I decided at that point in time that I would always have a gun on me," Hartley says. Then, after he lost his sight, his sense of vulnerability increased enormously and he finds carrying a weapon "gives you a little bit more sense of a security, knowing you have something to fall back on".

Now 70, he had no difficulty renewing his concealed carry permit in his home state of Oregon. He just had to fill out a form with his son's help and have his photograph taken.

Carey McWilliams acknowledges that his desire for armed protection also comes partly from his personal history. He says he was the victim of physical abuse as a child, and was regularly beaten up at school, both before and after losing his sight. In one incident his collarbone was broken, which led him to study martial arts. Before long, he used his new skills to break a bully's nose with a palm strike. "I learned that basically the best defence is a good offence," he says.

Although he doesn't think guns are for everyone, he believes they do help some blind people become more confident and independent.

"I've always wanted to educate people that the blind aren't just zombies walking around, meant to be taken care of," he says. "Blind people can be empowered to take care of themselves."

16. Gun collections pose special estate problems

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:



Gun collections pose special estate problems
by Scott Daugherty
August 13, 2014

Taxes are a heavy component ofestate planning, but it is important to be alert for other issues. Even though much of my practice is in a right-to-carry state (Florida), it hadn't ever crossed my mind that guns require special attention in estate plans until I received a heads up from Allen J. Margulis of Total Counsel Law Group. I asked Attorney Margulis if he would like to do a guest post on the subject of gun trusts and he was gracious enough to provide the following:

People may collect guns for self‐defense, target shooting or hunting. Guns may be investments or heirlooms. Many gun owners want their guns to be used responsibly and be passed on to those who appreciate them. Certain firearms and accessories are federally restricted. A state may restrict them further. For example, short‐barreled rifles, automatic weapons, silencers and other such items, require a federal tax stamp to acquire as well as the approval of the local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO.) There are many regulations and issues surrounding passing guns down to one's heirs that are not present with a bank account, chair, picture or other type of property. We must consider not only where the beneficiary lives, the laws of that state, the laws of the state where the items are located, the eligibility of the beneficiary to be in possession, but also:

(1) Is it a good idea to put a weapon in the hands of the beneficiary? Are they mature and responsible enough?

(2) If not, what will we do?

A Gun Trust is a special purpose revocable living trust. A Gun Trust is written to hold only firearms. The owner of the gun is the trustee and the beneficiary. The owner appoints successor trustees and lifetime and remainder beneficiaries. The trust can be amended or revoked at any time and the owner can name and remove beneficiaries. In the past, Gun Trusts were created primarily for NFA restricted firearms (Title II items ‐ silencers, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and machine guns) but lately they have attracted the attention of those who own "assault weapons" .

Gun Trusts are used for two main reasons. The first is to expedite a transfer of a National Firearms Act firearm. Using a trust means you do not have to obtain the approval of your local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) and the application can be sent directly to BATF. This saves a lot of time.Registration of a NFA firearm to an individual or corporation takes approximately one to three months to complete. The firearm cannot be handled or transported by any other private individual unless the firearm's registered owner is present. However, NFA items owned by properly drafted trusts may be legally possessed by any Trustee and a beneficiary may use the item in the presence or under the authority of the Trustee. The second reason is to provide detailed instructions over disposition of one's gun collection.

Many gun dealers make trust forms available. The problem is that they are usually just standard revocable living trusts, not specifically written about firearms ownership. They typically do not provide guidance or limitations for the Trustee who may find him or herself committing a felony in the way the items are used, held, transferred or sold. Some people cannot legally possess firearms. Some transfers are illegal. A properly written "Gun Trust" for NFA purposes is far more than a form. It helps the decedent's loved ones deal with items that are problematic at best under both state law and federal law. Improper administration of regulated firearms can result in a criminal conviction and fines. Certain conduct constitutes a criminal offense, including receiving or possessing a firearm transferred to oneself in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm made in violation of the NFA; receiving or possessing a firearm not registered to oneself in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; transferring or making a firearm in violation of the NFA; or obliterating, removing, changing, or altering the serial number of the firearm. Penalties can include up to ten years in federal prison; forfeiture of all devices or firearms in violation, forfeiture of all rights to own or possess firearms in the future and a penalty of $10,000 for certain violations.

One of my favorite movies is Grand Torino. The reading of the will at the end where the Grand Torino goes to his Hmong friend rather than his snotty granddaughter is satisfying, but if he had been my dad or grandad I would have been much more interested in the rifle (Calibre .30 M-1, an air-cooled, gas operated, clip fed, semi-automatic shoulder weapon) that he had used to intimidate the punks on his lawn. (George Patton called that rifle the "greatest single battle implement ever devised by man"). I would have also had my eye on the Model 1911 .45 caliber pistol that he pointed at the gang bangers who were harassing the kid's sister. Somehow I suspect that if the son had mentioned a gun trust to the Clint Eastwood character it would have gone over even less well then the assisted living facility brochure. You may want to reflect on that before you pass this article along.

17. [MD] The most common rifle in America not protected by the second amendment

There are no limits to anti-liberty stupidity. And some judges are very susceptible to it.

EM Hal Macklen emailed me this:


This opinion could affect Virginia IF upheld by the Fourth Circuit:


The most common rifle in America not protected By the Second Amendment
by John Richardson
August 12, 2014

In a ruling today, US District Court Judge Catherine C. Blake, a Clinton appointee, said that AR-15s and semi-automatic AK-47s were not protected by the Second Amendment. Her opinion came in a Maryland case, Kolbe et al v. O'Malley et al, in which the plaintiffs were challenging the state's Firearm Safety Act of 2013.

Upon review of all the parties' evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.

First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.

The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs' claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.

As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.

Finally, despite the plaintiffs' claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.

Plaintiffs in the case included the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, the Maryland Licensed Firearm Dealers Association, a number of businesses, and individuals Stephen Kolbe and Andrew Turner. The defendants included Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley (D-MD), Attorney General Douglas Gansler (D-MD), and the Maryland State Police.

In reaching her conclusions, Judge Blake relied extensively on the testimony of such anti-gun stalwarts as Prof. Daniel Webster of Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Christoper Koper of George Mason University, the Violence Policy Center, and Lucy Allen of NERA. She even accepted as valid a database maintained by Mother Jones Magazine. She refused the plaintiffs' motion to exclude their testimony as flawed.

Judge Blake clearly indicates by her footnote on page 24 that she does not understand the difference between a M-16 and an AR-15. Indeed, she considers the AR-15 to be more dangerous.
The Supreme Court indicated in Heller I that M-16 rifles could be banned as dangerous and unusual. 554 U.S. at 627. Given that assault rifles like the AR-15 are essentially the functional equivalent of M-16s—and arguably more effective—the same reasoning would seem to apply here.

Applying intermediate scrutiny to the case, Judge Blake concludes:
In summary, the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which represents the considered judgment of this State's legislature and its governor, seeks to address a serious risk of harm to law enforcement officers and the public from the greater power to injure and kill presented by assault weapons and large capacity magazines. The Act substantially serves the government's interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of "law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." Accordingly, the law is constitutional and will be upheld.

In looking at this ruling, it is time to call a spade a spade. This is a bullshit ruling by an extremely biased, anti-gun judge. It should and must be appealed.

18. [IL] Online gun exchange not liable for murder victim's death, Appeals Court says

EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:



Online gun exchange not liable for murder victim's death, Appeals Court says
by Ashby Jones
August 12, 2014

Victims of gun violence — and their families — often have a hard time winning lawsuits against gun makers and sellers.

Lawsuits against websites that facilitate private firearm sales might not fare much better, judging from a federal appeals court ruling handed down Tuesday.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago upheld a trial judge's decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the brother of a woman killed with a handgun purchased through, an online marketplace for privately owned guns. The three-judge panel ruled that Armslist did not owe a "duty of care" to the plaintiff or his sister, and therefore the plaintiff could not prove negligence.

The quick backstory: In 2011, according to the opinion, Jitka Vesel was shot with a handgun illegally purchased by Demetry Smirnov, a Russian immigrant living in Canada. Mr. Smirnov found the weapon through, and purchased the gun in Seattle from a man named Benedict Ladera for $400. Because Mr. Smirnov lived in Canada, and had crossed state lines to buy the gun, the purchase violated federal law.

Soon thereafter, according to the opinion, Mr. Smirnov went to Chicago and began stalking Ms. Vesel, whom he met online but who spurned his romantic advances. In April, 2013, Mr. Smirnov shot and killed Ms. Vesel with the firearm purchased illegally from Mr. Ladera.

Ultimately, Mr. Smirnov pleaded guilty to murder; Mr. Ladera pleaded guilty to illegally selling a firearm.

Ms. Vesel's brother, Alex Vesely, sued neither Mr. Smirnov nor Mr. Ladera. Rather, he sued, alleging that's negligence contributed to Ms. Vesel's death.

The lower court disagreed, and dismissed the lawsuit. On Tuesday, the court upheld that ruling, finding, in essence, that encouraged no one to behave illegally, and therefore shouldn't be held responsible.

Wrote the court:

Armslist permitted [the seller] to place an advertisement on its website and nothing more. It did not invite [the seller or buyer] to break the law. [The] allegations fall short of alleging any cognizable negligence claim for which Armslist could be held responsible for [the buyer's] acts.

Lawyers for Mr. Vesely did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday night.

A lawyer for, James Vogts, told Law Blog that "while Ms. Vesel's death was a tragedy, this was a lawsuit that had no merit and should never have been filed."

19. [MO] Guards with AR15s save businesses from looters [PICTURES]

Member Ruslan Ketenchiev emailed me this:



Armed Guards with AR-15s save North St. Louis businesses from looters
by Jim Hoft
August 11, 2014

Last night several businesses in Ferguson, Dellwood and North County were looted and torched following the death of 18 year-old Michael Brown.

A QuickTrip was burnt to the ground last night after it was looted in Ferguson.

Several businesses were vandalized and looted during the rioting.
But not this one…
St. Louis Ink Tattoo Studio

Mike Gutierrez (left) and Adam Weinstein (third from left) brought guns to guard their store during the riots in Ferguson last night. (River Front Times)

The St. Louis Tattoo Studio and County Guns businesses share a storefront in a Florissant strip mall less than ten minute drive from the epicenter of last night's riots in Ferguson.
Their stores were not looted.

20. [PA] Man shot, killed outside concert

Not the first time someone has been shot at a "peace rally" or an "anti-gun event."

Member Bill Albritton emailed me this:



Man dies after shooting outside Philadelphia concert held to promote peace, stem violence
by the Associated Press
August 14, 2014

PHILADELPHIA – Authorities say a man was shot and killed outside a Philadelphia concert being held to promote peace and stem violence in the city.

Police said the gunfire happened at about 8:30 p.m. Wednesday outside the Dell Music Center in the city's Fairmount Park.

Officials said the 20-year-old man was arriving at the "Philly Support Philly: Peace on the Streets" concert when he got into an argument with someone in the parking lot.

Police said the shooter opened fire, striking the victim twice. He was rushed to Temple University Hospital, where authorities said he was pronounced dead at about 2:15 a.m. Thursday.

No arrests have been made. Police say they are checking surveillance video.

The concert featuring rap music was attended by about 600 people. No other injuries were reported.

21. [GA] Teenage mother uses shotgun to defend her home, baby

Having an unloaded gun is dangerous. Luckily in this case, the victim survived.

EM Dave Vann emailed me this:



Deputies: Woman takes matter into own hands during home invasion
by Irisha Jones
August 13, 2014

ENIGMA, GA (WALB) - A south Georgia woman who fought back when two men forced their way into her home is encouraging others to do the same.

Berrien County Sheriff's deputies were called to a home in reference to a burglary around 5:45 p.m. Tuesday.

According to a report, 19-year-old Kayla Walker and her 10-month-old son were at home when she said she heard a noise at the back door.

She went to check it out, and that's when the door was pulled open by a man trying to get inside.

"But by the time I got in here, they was coming in and I was pushing them back out as hard as I could," she said.

Walker said she immediately pushed the man out of the house, but another man behind him pushed them both back inside, knocking her to the ground.

That's when she told investigators the second man straddled her and began beating her in the face, using racial slurs such as "stupid white (expletive)."

But Walker then said she grabbed the man by the testicles and caused him to fall over on her. She then grabbed him by the throat and began choking him.

"I head-butted him, then grabbed his privates and I reached up an started choking him," she recalled.

She told officials that she choked him until she felt like he was unconscious, and then let go.

But the man wasn't unconscious.

He began to fight Walker again, and according to the report, she grabbed a hammer and hit the man several times on the head and on his body with it.

She then ran, grabbed her child, and went into a bedroom, where she grabbed a shotgun and pointed it at the men.

"He said, 'This is my new house. I'm here to stay.' I said, 'Not at this residence.' I put the gun to his face and the gun clicked and he ran," she said.

Walker told deputies that she tried to shoot the intruders, but there was no shell in the chamber of the gun.

She reported that the man ran away through the woods, leaving a trail of blood behind him.

The whole attack lasted about 15 minutes and she was left with several bruises and scratches, but no severe injuries.

"If this would have happened to a younger girl, they probably would not have fought back," Walker said. "They just need to know- don't give up, fight back to the fullest no matter what."

She said she reinforced her back door after the incident.

"Now that's he's come in we got a dead bolt lock on it. We got chains on it," said Walker.

Walker was able to identify one of the men in a photo line up from authorities. No arrests were made as of Friday evening.

22. [OR] Victims advocate strikes back at Bloomberg ad


Oregon victim advocate's op-ed rebuts anti-self-defense camp
by Dave Workman
August 11, 2014

An Oregon-based crime victims advocate authored an opinion piece in today's Salem Statesman-Journal that carries a devastating message for anti-gunners, and also delivers a verbal knuckle bruising punch to a 30-second video message produced recently by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg's "Everytown for Gun Safety" lobbying group.

Rachel Lucas, executive director of Safer Oregon – Oregon Crime Victims for Self Protection noted how she saw the Bloomberg group's video aired on "The View," and how it elicited a reaction from three of the four women panelists that the gun ban crowd probably did not expect. They, like Lucas, had "faced real life-threatening situations where their lives, and in some cases, their children's lives, were in real danger."

Lucas wrote that she survived a rape. She also noted that "nothing that I was trained to do during the attack itself was helpful at all. Not a thing."

"Women are the fastest growing demographic of gun owners in America, and we aren't just buying guns, we are training to use them too," Lucas wrote. "In that moment when your life is threatened and no one is there to help you, a bat or pepper spray just isn't going to do it. We also know that criminals break laws, and when seconds count, police are minutes away. When you have children or vulnerable others under your care, you know it even more."

Lucas' column should be required reading for anybody who believes that guns in the home, or carried in a pocket or concealed holster are a bad thing. It might be instructional for Shannon Watts, founder of the Bloomberg-funded Moms Demand Action, to have a chat with Lucas or some other crime victim who has, as veteran self-defense expert Massad Ayoob once succinctly put it: "made the decision."

It is hardly surprising that legions of people, many of them women, saw the Everytown video as a great argument for having a gun. The video depicts a woman on the phone to police – when seconds count, they're minutes away – facing her ex-hubby who kicks in the door, grabs their son and then pulls a pistol from his pocket and shoots her (off camera) in the head.

According to the video script, the woman has a restraining order against her ex. As the video reveals, a piece of paper neither stopped the guy from kicking in the door, or getting his hands on a gun. What could have stopped him was depicted in a hilarious "video fix" featuring a woman with a pistol defending herself. That has been taken down by YouTube because the Everytown group claimed a copyright infringement.

Still, sensible activists like Lucas took no time at all to conclude that having a gun and not needing it is preferable to needing a gun and not having it. It's like a fire extinguisher. If you never need to use it, that's a good thing. If you ever do need it, you need it right now.

23. [CA] Quadruple stabbing

Must have been an assault knife, with a bayonet lug, pistol grip, and collapsible stock.

Too bad none of the victims had a gun - that would have trumped the murderer's knife.


Santa Barbara County Sheriff: Man stabs four people to death
by Joseph Serna
August 12, 2014

A 46-year-old man is in custody Tuesday after allegedly stabbing four people to death in Goleta.

The Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office said they began investigating a quadruple homicide about 11 p.m. Monday at a home in the 600 block of Walnut Park Lane.

Authorities declined to state who called them or how they knew to go to that specific home, but said that the man who was found inside the house was taken into custody without incident. Neither the man's name nor the names of the victims have been released pending notification of next of kin, officials said.

A dog was also found stabbed to death.

Authorities said they believe the man acted alone. He is expected to be booked on suspicion of murder.

Goleta is a few miles east of UC Santa Barbara and Isla Vista, the beachside community where mass-killer Elliot Rodger killed six people earlier this year.

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