KD4HVZ

Obama: We're Working on Gun Control 'Under the Radar'

2011-05-28T10:28:00.000-05:00

From Fox News, we get the following;

On March 30, the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, Jim Brady, who sustained a debilitating head wound in the attack, and his wife, Sarah, came to Capitol Hill to push for a ban on the controversial "large magazines." Brady, for whom the law requiring background checks on handgun purchasers is named, then met with White House press secretary Jay Carney. During the meeting, President Obama dropped in and, according to Sarah Brady, brought up the issue of gun control, "to fill us in that it was very much on his agenda," she said.

"I just want you to know that we are working on it," Brady recalled the president telling them. "We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar."

http://nation.foxnews.com/guns/2011/05/25/obama-were-working-gun-control-under-radar

Sidearms in VA State Forests will soon be legal.

2011-05-15T13:53:00.002-05:00

Effective July 7th, 2011, gun owners can legally carrying sidearms in Virginia State Forests.

Be ware of cheep and/or warn holsters

2011-04-05T14:58:00.003-05:00

Take a look at what can happen when you have a worn holster. Keep tabs on the condition of all your components - including holsters!

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/03/robert-farago/hidden-holster-horror-revealed/

High Court’s Big Ruling For Gun Rights

2010-06-28T12:40:00.001-05:00

In its second major ruling on gun rights in three years, the Supreme Court Monday extended the federally protected right to keep and bear arms to all 50 states. The decision will be hailed by gun rights advocates and comes over the opposition of gun control groups, the city of Chicago and four justices.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the five justice majority saying "the right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner."

The ruling builds upon the Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller that invalidated the handgun ban in the nation's capital. More importantly, that decision held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was a right the Founders specifically delegated to individuals. The justices affirmed that decision and extended its reach to the 50 states. Today's ruling also invalidates Chicago's handgun ban.

Backgrounder:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appears poised to issue a ruling that will expand to the states the high court's historic 2008 ruling that individuals have a federally protected right to keep and bear arms, following an hour-long argument Tuesday. If so, the decision would mark another hallmark victory for gun rights advocates and likely strike down Chicago's handgun ban that is similar to the Washington D.C. law already invalidated by the justices.

Tuesday's lively arguments featured lawyer Alan Gura, the same man who argued and won D.C. v. Heller in 2008. He now represents Otis McDonald who believes Chicago's handgun ban doesn't allow him to adequately protect himself. Gura argued the Heller decision which only applied to Washington D.C. and other areas of federal control should equally apply to Chicago and the rest of the country.

"In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship," Gura told the Court.

He argued the language of the Constitution's 14th Amendment forces the states to protect the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights, which was adopted in the late 18th Century, was then commonly viewed as only offering protections from the federal government.

It wasn't until after the Civil War that the Supreme Court in a piecemeal fashion began to apply--or incorporate--parts of the Bill of Rights to the states. It has used the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to incorporate most of the Constitution's first amendments but has not yet done so for the Second Amendment. Gura argued that another part of the 14th Amendment would be a better vehicle for the justices to make their ruling but there didn't appear to be enough support from the bench on that front.

Chief Justice John Roberts was the most vocal advocate of using the Due Process Clause to extend the Second Amendment rights to the states. "I don't see how you can read -- I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

The discussion over "liberty" was a major philosophical theme of the arguments. Gura and National Rifle Association lawyer Paul Clement argued that the rights articulated in the Second Amendment are fundamental freedoms and would exist to all Americans even if there was no law specifically saying so.

James Feldman, lawyer for the City of Chicago, defended his city's handgun ban and argued why the Heller decision's Second Amendment guarantee doesn't comport with the view that it represents a vital protection of liberty that needs to be expanded to the states.

"[T]he right it protects is not implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Feldman said. "States and local governments have been the primary locus of firearms regulation in this country for the last 220 years. Firearms unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights are designed to injure and kill."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented in Heller and wondered why the right to bear arms was necessary to extend to the states. "[I]f the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms."

Later in the arguments Roberts disputed that notion. "I do think the focus is our system of ordered liberty, not any abstract system of ordered liberty. You can say Japan is a free country, but it doesn't have the right to trial by -- by jury."

Roberts was part of the five member majority in Heller and there's a good chance Tuesday's case will result in a similar 5-4 outcome. All of the members of the Heller majority are still on the Court and at least one of them would have to rule against extending the Second Amendment protection in order for the opposing side to prevail.

Original article can be found HERE.

Governor Bob McDonnell Signs VA Restaurant Carry into Law

2010-04-14T09:21:00.001-05:00

Fairfax, Va. - Governor Bob McDonnell has signed into law a NRA-backed measure allowing right-to-carry permit holders to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense in restaurants, providing they do not consume alcohol. State Senator Emmett Hanger (R-24) and Delegate Todd Gilbert (R-15) were the principal sponsors of Senate Bill 334/House Bill 505.

"This is a victory for self-defense in Virginia," said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "As headlines remind us, violent crime can happen anywhere. Law-abiding Virginia residents now have the option to carry a firearm in restaurants to defend themselves and their loved ones."

The measure passed the State Senate in February by a margin of 22-18 and passed the House of Delegates in early March with a vote of 72-27. Virginia is the 42nd state to extend self-defense rights to permit holders in restaurants.

"The right to self-defense and the protection of loved ones in and outside the home is vital. We are pleased that Virginia passed these laws to enhance the self-defense rights of law-abiding folks in the Commonwealth," concluded Cox. "The NRA would like to thank Governor Bob McDonnell and the lead bill sponsors, Senator Emmett Hanger and Delegate Todd Gilbert, as well as all the other legislators who supported this common-sense measure."

This law will take effect July 1, 2010.

In addition, Governor McDonnell has also signed the following pro-gun bills into law:

House Bill 8/Senate Bill 3, sponsored by State Senator Ralph Smith (R-22) and Delegate Charles Carrico (R-5), allows Virginia residents to renew concealed carry permits by mail.

House Bill 109, sponsored by Delegate Mark Cole (R-88), repeals the statute which allows the governing body of any county to require the sellers of pistols and revolvers to furnish the Clerk of the Circuit Court with the name and address of the purchaser, date of purchase and the number, make, and caliber of the gun.

House Bill 871, authored by Delegate Ben Cline (R-24), clarifies that a person who is applying for a concealed handgun permit for the first time has the same right to an oretenus (verbal or oral statements) hearing if the permit is denied as a person who has previously held a concealed handgun permit.

House Bill 1092, sponsored by Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R-6), gives retired law-enforcement the ability to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

House Bill 1191, sponsored by Delegate H. Morgan Griffith (R-8), allows a circuit court judge to authorize the Clerk of Court to issue concealed handgun permits in instances where the application is complete, the background check does not indicate that the applicant is disqualified, and, after consulting with the local sheriff or police department, there are no other questions or issues surrounding the application.

Virginians can thank Governor Bob McDonnell for his Second Amendment support at (804) 786-2211 or click here to thank him via email.

The shocking truth about a fundamental right being denied to 55% of citizens

2010-04-01T12:55:00.001-05:00

www.americanthinker.com

By M Allen Fritsch
March 22, 2010

There is a fundamental right being denied 55% of all Americans. This denial costs over 16,000 lives per year, meaning more than 44 of our fellow Americans will die every day that we delay. What should be done in light of these shocking figures?

Using the example set by President Obama and the Congressional Democrats, there is only one answer: Universal Gun Care for every American. Surely a right outlined in the Bill of Rights (2d Amendment) is just as important as a right NOT found the Constitution (Health Care).

Bonus, it should be easier to implement. After all, gun dealers and manufacturers are ready and willing to help solve the problem. Unlike the evil insurance companies, gun dealers don't want to take your weapon away from you when you most need it. Nor will they deny selling you a weapon simply because you haven't purchased one in the past (i.e. a pre-existing condition).

- Conventional estimates state that 45% of all US households own a firearm. This leaves at least 55% of all Americans "uncovered."

- In 2008 there were 16,272 murders in the USA. How many of those could have been prevented if the victims had been able to protect themselves?

My proposal is a modest one:

- Mandate for every American to purchase a gun or be provided one by their employer (children under the age of 26 can share a weapon with their parents)

- Tax credits to offset the cost of purchase (for those making less than $250,000 per year and everyone in Nebraska)

- For those that can't afford it, a grant or subsidy to purchase a weapon (union members can get two weapons subsidized before 2018)

- Funding for a series of community based gun dealers/clinics and firing ranges (especially in under-served urban and rural areas)

- Monthly ammunition benefit so that no one has to choose between feeding their kids, paying the rent, or buying a box of .38 special cartridges

Contact your representative today. The time to act is now.

M Allen Fritsch is an entrepreneur and business owner. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy and a former Army officer. His household is one of the 45%.

Virginia Bill Sent To Governor McDonnell For Signature

2010-03-16T08:53:00.000-05:00

Below is the list of bills sent to Governor McDonnell (R) and are awaiting his signature. Please e-mail the Governor by clicking here and respectfully request he sign the following legislation:

House Bill 8, sponsored by Delegate Charles Carrico (R-5), would allow the renewal of resident concealed carry permits by mail.

House Bill 109, sponsored by Delegate Mark Cole (R-88), would repeal the statute which allows the governing body of any county to require the sellers of pistols and revolvers to furnish the Clerk of the Circuit Court with the name and address of the purchaser, date of purchase and the number, make, and caliber of the gun.

House Bill 505, sponsored by Delegate Todd Gilbert (R-15), would allow a concealed carry permit holder to carry his or her firearm into a restaurant, provided he or she does not consume any alcohol. HB505 was conformed to SB334 by creating a Class 2 misdemeanor for consumption of alcohol while carrying concealed and stripping retired law enforcement officers of the ability to drink while carrying concealed.

House Bill 637, authored by Delegate Ward Armstrong (D-10), would exempt a boarding team member or boarding team officer in the United States Coast Guard from the concealed handgun permit issuance fee, provided they have completed 15 years of service or reached the age of 55.

House Bill 871, authored by Delegate Ben Cline (R-24), would clarify that a person who is applying for a concealed handgun permit for the first time has the same right to an oretenus (verbal or oral statements) hearing if the permit is denied as a person who has previously held a concealed handgun permit.

House Bill 885, sponsored by Delegate Cliff Athey (R-18), would allow any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private vehicle or vessel to keep the firearm locked in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel.

House Bill 1092, sponsored by Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R-6), would give retired law-enforcement the ability to carry a concealed handgun without a permit.

House Bill 1191, sponsored by Delegate H. Morgan Griffith (R-8), would allow a circuit court judge to authorize the Clerk of Court to issue concealed handgun permits in instances where the application is complete, the background check does not indicate that the applicant is disqualified, and, after consulting with the local sheriff or police department, there are no other questions or issues surrounding the application.

House Bill 1217, sponsored by Delegate Lynwood Lewis (D-100), would allow local school boards to offer firearm safety education programs in the elementary grades. To assist local school boards opting to provide such instruction, the Board of Education must establish a standardized program of firearm safety education for students in the elementary school grades to promote the protection and safety of children. The bill requires that the program objectives incorporate, among other principles of firearm safety, accident prevention and the rules of the NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe® program. Local school boards offering the program must comply with Board curriculum guidelines and integrate the instruction in appropriate subject areas, if feasible, to ensure that every elementary school student receives instruction in firearm safety education.

House Bill 1256, sponsored by Delegate Paula Miller (D-87), would provide that certain law-enforcement officers with at least 20 years of service who resign from their position in good standing to accept a position covered by the Virginia Retirement System, shall be eligible to carry a concealed handgun if he or she has received written proof of consultation with and favorable review of the need to carry a concealed handgun, issued by the chief law-enforcement officer of the agency from which the officer resigned.

Senate Bill 3, sponsored by State Senator Ralph Smith (R-22), would allow the renewal of resident concealed carry permits by mail.

Senate Bill 334, sponsored by State Senator Emmett Hanger (R-24), would allow concealed carry permit holders to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense in restaurants that serve alcohol, provided they do not consume alcohol. Senator Hanger's bill would make it a misdemeanor for a permit holder to consume alcohol while on the premises of the restaurant.

Senate Bill 408, sponsored by State Senator Jill Vogel (R-27), would allow any person who may lawfully possess a firearm and is carrying a handgun while in a personal, private vehicle or vessel, to keep the firearm secured in a container or compartment in the vehicle or vessel.

Please contact the State Senators and Delegates listed below and thank them for sponsoring legislation and working to defend our Second Amendment rights!

State Senators:

State Senator Ryan McDougle (R-4)

district04@senate.virginia.gov

State Senator Ralph Smith (R-22)

district22@senate.virginia.gov

State Senator Emmet Hanger, Jr. (R-24)

district24@senate.virginia.gov

State Senator Jill Vogel (R-27)

district27@senate.virginia.gov

Delegates:

Delegate Will Morefield (R-3)

DelJMorefield@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Charles Carrico (R-5)

DelCCarrico@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Anne B. Crockett-Stark (R-6)

DelACrockett-Stark@house.virginia.gov

Delegate H. Morgan Griffith (R-8)

DelMGriffith@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Ward Armstrong (D-10)

DelWArmstrong@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Todd Gilbert (R-15)

DelTGilbert@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Clay Athey (R-18)

DelCAthey@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Ben Cline (R-24)

DelBCline@house.virginia.gov

Delegate L. Scott Lingamfelter (R-31)

DelSLingamfelter@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Bill Janis (R-56)

DelBJanis@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Tommy Wright (R-61)

DelTWright@house.virginia.gov

Delegate R. Lee Ware (R-65)

DelLWare@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Paula Miller (D-87)

DelPMiller@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Mark Cole (R-88)

DelMCole@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-96)

DelBPogge@house.virginia.gov

Delegate Lynwood Lewis (D-100)

DelLLewis@house.virginia.gov

Handguns Allowed In Nation Parks Now - EFFECTIVE FEB 22, 2010

2010-02-24T15:56:00.001-05:00

January 21, 2010

Frequently Asked Questions

Implementation of Firearms Law

Q. Why do people have firearms in national parks – they never did before?

A. In most national parks, only authorized law enforcement officials have been allowed to carry firearms, but a 2009 federal law made national parks – and national wildlife refuges – generally subject to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. When did this happen?

A. The law was enacted on May 22, 2009, and became effective February 22, 2010.

Q. Were there parks where I could bring a firearm before February 22?

A. Yes, in most Alaska national parks and in a limited number of other national parks that allow hunting (when the firearm was brought for the purpose of hunting). The law does not change existing state and federal laws regarding hunting or the conditions for hunting in national parks. Also, people who drove with firearms could have an unloaded firearm that was rendered inoperable and packed, cased, or stowed when their travels took them through a national park.

Q. Can I have a firearm in every park after February 22, 2010?

A. If you can legally possess a firearm outside of a national park, you can possess it in that park on and after February 22, 2010. It is up to visitors to understand the requirements of federal law and the laws of the states/localities they live in or are travelling to (or through). Park websites have been updated to offer basic information about the applicable state law(s) and will generally include a link to a state website with more information.

Q. How do I know where I can take a firearm?

A. It is the responsibility of each individual to know and understand applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. Can I openly carry my firearm in a national park?

A. If it is allowed by applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. Can I carry a concealed firearm in a national park?

A. If it is allowed by applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. Can I have a firearm in my hotel room if it is inside a national park?

A. Unless the hotel has a policy on firearms, if it is allowed by applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. Can I have a firearm in my car or tent?

A. If it is allowed by applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. Can I take a firearm anywhere I go in the park? January 21, 2010

A. No. Federal law prohibits firearms in "federal facilities," which are generally defined as federally-owned or -leased buildings where federal employees work on a regular basis. Buildings that meet this definition will have signs posted at public entrances noting the prohibition on firearms.

Q. If I have a firearm and need to enter a building where it is prohibited, what do I do with it?

A. Safely store it according applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. If I'm in a park that is located in multiple states, how do I know which state's laws apply?

A: It is up to the individual to know the laws of the state they are in and where they are.

Q. If I travel with a firearm, but do not wish to take it into a national park, how/where should I store it?

A: Safely store it according to applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws.

Q. I've got my firearm, can I hunt while I'm here?

A. Only a limited number of national parks allow hunting. You must adhere to the park's hunting rules and regulations.

Q. I have a permit to carry a concealed firearm from my home state, does that allow me to carry a firearm here?

A. Some permits are recognized in multiple states, many are not. It is up to the individual to know which states accept their concealed carry permit.

Q. How do I know when I'm in a national park?

A: National parks will generally have posted signs indicating that you are entering a national park. In backcountry areas or large expanses such as those in Great Smoky Mountains National Park or Yellowstone National Park, it is up to the individual to know where they are and what the laws of that state are.

Q. Where can I find the firearms laws for each state?

A: Go to the following link for individual state websites. http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/State_and_Territories.shtml

Q. What kinds of firearms are allowed?

A: Any firearm that is not prohibited by applicable federal, state, or local law.

Q. I am worried that having firearms in national parks will affect the safety of my family and the experience we hope to have. Should I still come?

A. For nearly 100 years, the mission of the National Park Service has been to protect and preserve the parks and to help visitors enjoy them. The parks belong to all Americans – those who support this new law and those who do not. Our commitment is to enforce the law, enforce it fairly, and to ensure the safety of our visitors, the parks and their resources, while all visitors enjoy these special places. January 21, 2010

Q. My family and I come here to enjoy the peacefulness of the park – why is the National Park Service allowing people to bring firearms?

A. Firearms are allowed – consistent with applicable federal, state, and local firearms laws – as a result of a new federal law enacted in May 2009.

Q. I am frightened by firearms and am leaving the park. Can I have my entrance fee refunded? My annual pass refunded?

A. Park superintendents have the authority to provide a refund if the circumstances warrant it.

Q. What should I do if I feel threatened by someone with a firearm?

A. Contact the nearest park ranger or contact the park office and let them know why you feel threatened.

Q. What should I do if I see someone drinking alcohol who has a firearm?

A. Contact the nearest park ranger or contact the park office and report what you have seen.

Top Ten “Gun-Control” Myths

2010-01-11T08:06:00.001-05:00

From "Today's Survival Show":

Top Ten "Gun-Control" Myths

MYTH: Most gun deaths are caused by accidents or by crazed madmen.
FACT: More than two out of every three gun deaths are either suicides or drug-related murders.
Source: Centers For Disease Control – Deaths 1998 (625KB document!) and U.S. Department Of Justice – Bureau of Justice Statistics

MYTH: Twelve children are killed with guns each day.
FACT: Half of the people that politicians count as "children killed with guns" were actually legally adults. The gun murder rate started falling when crack cocaine started going out of style in 1990. In 1997, 2284 children aged 0-17 years were killed with guns, most of them teenagers. That is 6 per day. In 1998, the number dropped to 1971, still mostly teenagers. That is 5 per day. The age distribution of child gun deaths tracks the age distribution of child drug dealers.
Source: Centers For Disease Control

MYTH: The best way to protect children from guns is to keep children ignorant about them.
FACT: The best way to protect children from guns is to teach them gun safety and lock up guns whenever it is practical to do so. "Ignorance is best" is the old argument against sex-education, reworded by the same people who ridiculed it when it was used by sex-education opponents. With more than 250 million guns in the USA, children will encounter one sooner or later, especially if they live around police, security guards, hunters, or the military.

MYTH: Trigger locks are the best protection against unauthorized gun use.
FACT: The best protection against unauthorized gun use is to keep guns in a child-proof burglar-proof safe whenever they are not being used for hunting, self-protection, or target-shooting. Trigger locks do not protect guns from being stolen, and an improperly-installed trigger lock can cause a gun to fire accidentally, especially if the gun is dropped.

MYTH: The politicians who talk loudest about "gun-control" work hard to prevent gun violence.
FACT: After demanding passage of the Brady Law, the Clinton-Gore administration prosecuted fewer than 5 out of every 100 convicted felons who violated the law. In 1998 only 102 out of 90,000 were federally prosecuted.
Source: U.S. Department Of Justice – Bureau of Justice Statistics, courtesy of US Congressman John Dingell

MYTH: If guns were illegal, criminals would not have guns.
FACT: Guns are readily available in China, Eastern Europe, and illegal-drug-producing countries such as Mexico and Columbia. Criminals smuggled 690,000 pounds of cocaine into the USA in the first 6 months of 2000. Thousands of guns can be hidden in 690,000 pounds of cocaine.
Source: USA Today newspaper, 28 September 2000, page 3A

MYTH: Mandatory gun registration means all guns must be registered.
FACT: Because it is already illegal for convicted felons to own guns, the Fifth Amendment protects felons from being forced to incriminate themselves by registering their guns. Any criminal can easily avoid gun registration by committing a felony and getting probation, or by storing his guns at the home of a convicted felon. If his existing guns are confiscated, he can buy more from any drug dealer.
Source: Fifth Amendment To The Constitution Of The United States and the US Supreme Court ruling Haynes Versus United States

MYTH: "Gun-control" organizations are run by dedicated volunteers.
FACT: The president of Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) makes more than $150,000 per year from gun violence.
Source: HCI financial filings

MYTH: The National Rifle Association (NRA) is evil.
FACT: For several decades the NRA has been working to reduce gun deaths. Their "Eddie Eagle" videos teach young children that when they encounter a gun they should: "Stop! Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." The NRA's magazines are full of advertisements for child-proof burglar-proof gun safes. The NRA-supported Project Exile has reduced gun deaths in Richmond, Virginia by strongly punishing criminals who use guns in crimes. The NRA has selfish reasons to fight gun violence: More gun deaths means more votes for anti-gun politicians and more money for multi-million-dollar "gun-control" businesses such as Handgun Control Incorporated.
Source: NRA "Eddie Eagle" videotape and American Rifleman magazine

MYTH: "Gun-control" laws worked in England.
FACT: After more than fifty years of "sensible gun-control laws," English criminals have more than three million illegal guns, twice as many as ten years ago.
Source: The Sunday Times newspaper, 16 January 2000, Killings rise as 3m illegal guns flood Britain and The Guardian newspaper, 23 October 2000, US-style gun law comes to Britain

Soure: http://www.tincher.to/myths.htm

You may view the latest post at
http://www.todayssurvival.com/?p=1049

Bob
Todays Survival Host

Quick overview of some of the current bills submitted for this year:

2010-01-05T16:53:00.001-05:00

HB8

Renewal of concealed handgun permits. Allows a person who previously has been issued a Virginia concealed handgun permit to submit an application to renew the permit via the United States mail.

HB26

Application for concealed handgun permit; documentation and information provided by applicant. Clarifies that the clerk of court accepting a concealed handgun permit application shall not require the applicant to provide any documentation or information not required by º 18.2-308 or by the application form prescribed by the Department of State Police.

HB49

Purchase of handguns; repeal one-gun-a-month limitation. Repeals the prohibition against purchasing more than one handgun in a 30-day period.

HB54

Handguns in courthouses. Allows a person who may lawfully possess a firearm to carry a handgun into a courthouse when the courthouse is being used for non-judicial activities.

HB72

Possession of firearms on school property; penalties. Changes the penalty for possession of a firearm on school property from a Class 6 felony to a Class 1 misdemeanor, the same penalty that applies to the possession of other weapons on school property. However, if a person possesses a firearm on school property with the intent to use the firearm unlawfully or to threaten or endanger another person, or if a person actually uses the firearm in an unlawful manner or threatens or endangers another person, such person is guilty of a Class 6 felony. If a person unlawfully discharges a firearm upon school property, upon other property being used exclusively for school-sponsored functions or extracurricular activities, or upon a school bus, such person shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of five years.

HB79

Concealed handgun permits; access to applications and permittee information. Prohibits a clerk of court from providing public access to concealed handgun permit applications and information regarding identifiable permittees without the written consent of the applicant or permittee. The applications and information would be available to law-enforcement agencies, and the clerk of court would be authorized to release aggregate information that does not identify individual applicants or permittees.

SB3

Renewal of concealed handgun permits. Allows a person who previously has been issued a Virginia concealed handgun permit to submit an application to renew the permit via the United States mail.

SB32

Possession of concealed handguns by faculty members at state institutions of higher education. Allows full-time faculty members of state institutions of higher education who possess a valid Virginia concealed handgun permit to carry a concealed handgun on campus.

HB52

Failure to carry concealed handgun permit. Provides that failure to produce, upon demand of a law-enforcement officer, a concealed handgun permit and a government-issued photo identification while carrying a concealed handgun is punishable by a $25 civil penalty. A court may waive this penalty if the person presents a valid concealed handgun permit and government-issued photo identification to the court.

HB69

Firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured and retained in Virginia. Declares that firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition made in Virginia and retained within the borders of Virginia are not subject to federal law or regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

Obama to attack guns as public-health threat?

2009-11-12T10:55:00.001-05:00

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Second Amendment advocates are expressing alarm that the most significant attack on gun rights across the United States in years soon could come in the form of a workplace "safety" regulation under President Obama's nominee to run the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Obama has nominated David Michaels, a George Washington University professor and the chief of the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy, which reportedly partially is funded by George Soros.

"The controversial OSHA nominee and left-leaning public health advocate also seems to have strong views on firearms," wrote Walter Olson atOverlawyered.com.

"That's by no means irrelevant to the agenda of an agency like OSHA, because once you start viewing private gun ownership as a public health menace, it begins to seem logical to use the powers of government to urge or even require employers to forbid workers from possessing guns on company premises, up to and including parking lots, ostensibly for the protection of co-workers."

WND has reported on Obama's czars and has published a Whistleblower magazine issue on the "shadow government" officials gradually being installed in positions of power in Washington.

Two already have met problems. Green jobs czar Van Jones quit his post after reporting, largely by WND, of his self-described communist beliefs and his belief that the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks. Also, White House communications director Anita Dunn, who launched a verbal assault on Fox News as an "arm" of the GOP, reportedly will step down this month.

Now comes Michaels, who although he would have to be approved by the U.S. Senate, comes with views that concern Second Amendment advocates.

Only two years ago, Michaels condemned proposals in Georgia and Florida that would have allowed workers to carry guns to and from their places of work for protection.

He continued in his 2007 writing to laud the ability of the federal government to respond by creating new laws to ban activities or behaviors.

David Michaels

"When the toll of preventable and pointless deaths or injuries from any single event or related events becomes so great, or particular aspects of the story bring it to the public's attention, our nation invariably demands more and stronger regulation, not less," Michaels wrote at the time.

"We saw this recently with the disaster at West Virginia's Sago Mine, when a mine explosion and failed rescue attempts resulted in the deaths of 14 miners. Within months, Congress passed the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response (MINER) Act," he said.

"This is not true only of recent times. On the heels of the Elixir Sulfanilamide scandal, in which a medicine manufactured with antifreeze killed scores of children, Congress passed the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938, requiring for the first time that pharmaceutical manufacturers prove the safety of their products before marketing them," he continued.

"It's hard to count all of the lives that this Act has saved, but one example stands out: The United States avoided the plague of thalidomide-related birth defects that ravaged Europe in the early 1960s as a result of controls granted the FDA under that legislation. A regulatory hero, FDA medical officer Dr. Frances Kelsey, had blocked U.S. licensing of thalidomide on the basis of inadequate safety data," he wrote.

"In the U.S., we see an average of one gun-related homicide every 45 minutes, or 32 each day," he wrote. "These are usually treated as isolated incidents, until a horrific event like the Virginia Tech massacre reawakens the public and strengthens public health advocates who are attempting to prevent gun violence."

At RedCounty.com, writer Bryan Myrick noted that the Washington Times has urged the Senate to reject Michaels' nomination.

"OSHA is an agency that already has a well-earned reputation for abusing its authority and reaching beyond its stated purpose. Add one zealot and it easily becomes an oppressive entity with immense power over all American businesses, large and small. At a time in which America's businesses desperately need the freedom to responsibly pursue earning profits and put workers back on the payroll, the chemical potency of combining Obama's left-wing agenda with an anti-business zealot manager at OSHA could prove toxic," Myrick wrote.

The first vote on Michaels' nomination already was canceled by the Senate Committee on Health, Labor, Education and Pensions.

At the Examiner, gun rights writer David Codrea warned that some "public health" excuse could be used for imposing draconian restrictions on gun owners.

He cited the comment from a director of the CDC's National Center for Injury Control and Prevention that, "We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned."

"Does anyone doubt that Michaels will bring a similarly creative agenda to apply through regulatory measures under the guise of 'occupational safety and health?'" he asked.

The BD Law firm in Washington posted a statement that Michaels is expected to bring major changes if approved. The law firm quoted Michaels' writing from earlier this year that OSHA "badly needs a change in direction and philosophy" and it should include a "campaign to change the workplace culture of safety."

The National Gun Rights organization called him an "anti-gunner."

Columnist Dave Kopel at the Independence Institute in Colorado said, "Plenty of Obama's administration appointees have a longer record of anti-gun activism than David Michaels, but perhaps none of them have the ability to make such a dramatic, instant change in the lives of law-abiding gun owners.

"By its own fiat, OSHA could outlaw the possession of firearms in every workplace and every employee parking lot in the United States," he wrote.

"That David Michaels is anti-gun is undisputed," he continued.

"The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution means that a valid federal law or regulation wins in any conflict with a state law. Many states have laws that protect the rights of employees to store lawful firearms in parking lots at work. If an OSHA regulation prohibiting such storage existed, the federal regulation would trump state law," he said.

"Under Michaels, OSHA could write a regulation stating that it is illegal for any business to allow guns in the workplace or in parking lots. No handgun could be locked in the trunk of a car, even if the owner has a Right-to-Carry license. No rifle could be stored in the car, even if there's no ammunition around and the gun will be dropped off at the gunsmith after work," he said.

Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, had supported Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns before it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. And since Obama has been in office, he's already advocated for a treaty that would require a federal license for hunters to reload their ammunition, has expressed a desire to ban "assault" weapons, has seen a plan to require handgun owners to submit to mental health evaluations and sparked a rush on ammunition purchases with his history of anti-gun positions.

Besides its reporting on Van Jones and Anita Dunn, WND previously reported on the controversy over the appointment of Kevin Jennings, a homosexual rights promoter, to oversee the office of school safety in the Department of Education.

Regulatory czar Cass Sunstein also has, among other issues, stated that marriage discriminates against singles.

Original article can be found HERE.

Justices take on potentially landmark gun rights cases

2009-09-30T15:11:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Setting the stage for a dramatic battle over gun rights, the Supreme Court on Wednesday accepted an appeal challenging the ability of state and local governments to enforce strict limits on handguns and other weapons.

The high court returned from its summer recess, meeting in private to consider thousands of pending appeals that have piled up the past three months.

The Second Amendment case from Chicago was the most anticipated of the petitions, and oral arguments will be held sometime early next year. Nine other cases were also accepted for review.

At issue is whether the constitutional "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to local gun control ordinances, or only to federal restrictions. The basic question has remained unanswered for decades, and gives the conservative majority on the high court another chance to allow individuals expanded weapon ownership rights.

The appeal was filed by a community activist in Chicago who sought a handgun for protection from gangs.

The justices last year affirmed an individual right to possess handguns, tossing out restrictive laws in Washington.

The larger issue is one that has polarized judges, politicians and the public for decades: Do the Second Amendment's 27 words bestow gun ownership as an individual right or as a collective one, aimed at the civic responsibilities of state militias and therefore subject, perhaps, to strict government regulation? And, is that regulation limited to federal laws or can it be applied to local communities?

The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The Supreme Court has told us one of two important things, and that is that there is an individual right to bear arms, now we are poised to find out whether that applies to state and local regulation," said Thomas Goldstein, a prominent Washington appellate attorney and co-founder of scotusblog.com. "That's really where the rubber hits the road because there are all kinds of state rules about when you can have and carry a gun."

The community activist in the Chicago case, Otis McDonald lives in a high-crime neighborhood in Chicago. He says his work helping improve his community has subjected him to violent threats from drug dealers and other criminals. But his application for a handgun permit was denied in a city with perhaps the toughest private weapons restrictions in the nation.

He was among several citizens who appealed the ordinance. A three-judge federal appeals court in Chicago -- composed of Republican appointees -- ruled in June for the city, concluding the Constitution and past high court precedent was vague on state versus individual fundamental powers.

"Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is the right to carry any particular kind of weapon," wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook, who has a conservative track record on that bench. Figuring out the limits of an individual right is "for the justices rather than the court of appeals," he said.

The justices have not yet taken action on a separate weapons case from New York.

In that case a Long Island man is appealing a 35-year-old state law banning a wide array of weapons, including chukka sticks -- or nunchuks -- composed of two sticks joined by chain or rope. They are staples of martial arts movies.

James Maloney has sought to keep them for practice, training and possible self-defense. He was arrested in 2000 for possession of a chukka stick in his home.

Maloney runs a one-man law firm and says he has long been an aficionado and historian of East Asian cultures.

The newest Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was part of a three-judge panel that rejected his lawsuit in January.

"It is settled law," the unsigned opinion concluded, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

The panel also noted the state's interest in restricting ownership of these weapons, which the judges said had been used by muggers and street gangs, and can be considered "highly dangerous." Sotomayor has not indicated whether she will recuse herself from consideration of the high court appeal.

In a separate 2004 ruling (U.S. v. Sanchez Villar) that rejected a challenge to New York state's pistol licensing law, Sotomayor and her fellow appeals court judges concluded in a footnote, "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

"We hold that the district's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority. "It is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."The Supreme Court in June 2008 rejected a sweeping handgun ban in the nation's capital, offering at least partial constitutional validation to citizens seeking the right to possess one of the most common types of firearms in their homes. On a 5-4 vote, the conservative majority of justices disagreed with arguments that the District of Columbia government had broad authority to enact what it called "reasonable" weapons restrictions in order to reduce violent crime. The city has since eased, but not eliminated, much of the previous restrictions.

Chicago and Washington are the only major U.S. cities that have enacted such sweeping firearm bans. Courts have generally upheld other cities' restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns. The conservative high court majority has in recent years upheld a California ban on assault rifles, similar to a federal ban that expired in 2004.

But Scalia in the Washington case did not address the question now before the high court over state and local restrictions. And he cautioned the right to possess guns is not unlimited, referring to bans on gun ownership by the mentally ill and convicted felons, the assault rifle ban, and limitations on guns near schools.

"The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose," he wrote.

Fourty-four state constitutions protect their residents' right to keep weapons, according to a brief filed by 32 state attorneys general in support of the individual weapons owners in the current appeals.

Some constitutional experts have noted the Bill of Rights had traditionally been applied by courts only to the federal government, not to local entities. It was not until the past half-century that the justices have viewed free speech, assembly, and the press -- among other rights -- as individual in nature, and fundamental to liberty, superseding in many cases the power of states.

There have been limits. The high court repeatedly has refused to extend to states the Fifth Amendment requirement that persons can be charged with serious crimes only by "indictment of a grand jury."

A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll of adult Americans in June 2008, the month the Washington ruling was issued, found 67 percent of those surveyed said they felt the Second Amendment gave individuals the right to own guns, and 30 percent said it only provided citizens the right to form a militia. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Original article can be found HERE.

Latest Bills to be Introduced

2009-08-05T13:01:00.001-05:00

Bills	Committee	Last action	Date
HB 1655 - Carrico - Firearms; award of court costs, etc., to entity that prevails in action challenging locality.	(H) Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety (S) Committee for Courts of Justice	(G) Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0735)	03/30/09
HB 2144 - Nutter - Concealed handgun permit applications; access to personal information.	(H) Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety (S) Committee for Courts of Justice	(G) Acts of Assembly Chapter text (CHAP0235)	03/27/09
SB 1035 - Hanger - Concealed handguns; prohibited in restaurants, etc when consuming alcohol.	(H) Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety (S) Committee for Courts of Justice	(S) Senate sustained Governor's veto	04/08/09
SB 1254 - Marsh - Concealed handguns; when permit from reciprocal State, person shall carry permit at all times.	(H) Committee for Courts of Justice (S) Committee for Courts of Justice	(H) Tabled in Courts of Justice	02/23/09
SB 1257 - Marsh - Firearms; criminal records check performed at a gun show before vendor may transfer.	(S) Committee for Courts of Justice	(S) Read third time and defeated by Senate (19-Y 21-N)	02/04/09

Washington drops hammer on state gun plan

2009-07-22T13:20:00.001-05:00

WEAPONS OF CHOICE
Washington drops hammer on state gun plan
'As you may know, federal law … supersedes the act'

Posted: July 21, 2009
9:14 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Federal gun regulators have written to gun dealers around Tennessee, dropping the hammer on a new state law that exempts weapons made, sold and used inside the state from interstate regulations.

The letter, dated just days ago, was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.

In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."

The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.

"As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state," the letter said. "All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made.

"These, as well as other federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines," the letter said.

Get "Shooting Back: The Right and Duty of Self-Defense" and learn why you have a responsibility to be armed.

The law was adopted by the state Legislature this year. It provides that "federal laws and regulations do not apply to personal firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that is manufactured in Tennessee and remains in Tennessee." It also carries exemptions for certain types of weapons and ammunition and the requirement that all firearms made or sold in the state have "Made in Tennessee" on them.

Tennessee is not the first state to move in this direction. WND reported earlier that Utah was considering such a plan, and the state of Montana earlier adopted its own gun exemption procedure.

Montana statehouse

Montana's bill provides that guns, ammo, accessories, silencers and other products made, sold and used in the state would not require any federal documentation, registration, serial numbers, records check or waiting period.

The pushback from the states comes at a time when the federal administration is replete with anti-gun activists in influential positions, including an attorney general, Eric Holder, who supported a complete handgun ban in the District of Columbia before it was tossed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Obama administration has even pushed for a treaty that would require sportsmen who reload their ammunition to obtain a federal license.

The Montana plan cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that "guarantees to the states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana certain powers as they were understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889."

"The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889," the Montana plan states.

"The regulation of intrastate commerce is vested in the states under the 9th and 10th amendments to the United States Constitution, particularly if not expressly pre-empted by federal law. Congress has not expressly pre-empted state regulation of intrastate commerce pertaining to the manufacture on an intrastate basis of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition," it says.

Further, state lawmakers cite the Second Amendment right of the people to "keep and bear arms as that right was understood at the time that Montana was admitted to statehood in 1889."

The Tennessee plan includes many of the same arguments.

The Tennessee Gun Owners website includes this comment: "And the battle begins. I don't believe this was unexpected. According to the 10th Amendment, the state has authority. Tennessee is applying its constitutional rights. The feds are saying, no, the Constitution doesn't count. Calling all lawyers!"

In Montana, a Democrat governor signed the gun exemption law; in Tennessee, a Democrat governor allowed the gun exemptions to become law without his signature.

At Resistnet.com, there was a discussion among hundreds of members who have stated their willingness to bring a lawsuit against the federal government over the issue.

"The sovereign state of Tennessee should stand her ground. If people would stand up to the bully (Big Brother) we might take back some of the rights that have been stolen from us. It will not be comfortable. It will not be easy. But, it can be done, if we want it bad enough," said one participant.

One other was a little less eloquent, but his message came through.

"This is a crock! This is a free state and it's time to tell the thieves in Washington to butt out."

The weapons definitions are part of a general move on the part of states – Alaska being the most recent – to simply declare their sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment.

About three dozen states have begun working on such plans.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed House Joint Resolution just days ago. It "claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."

The joint resolution does not carry the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Palin signed Alaska's Tenth Amendment declaration and Tennessee's governor signed that state's Tenth Amendment declaration of sovereignty.

Original article can be found HERE.

Richmond Store owner grateful for man who shot robber

2009-07-15T08:11:00.001-05:00

Richmond Times-Dispatch
Two shot in South Richmond store
By Reed Williams

Published: July 12, 2009

A gunman who had wounded a shopkeeper and opened fire on several customers was stopped yesterday when another man shot him at the store in South Richmond, authorities said.

The violent attempted robbery took place shortly after 1 p.m. at the Golden Food Market at 2701 Jefferson Davis Highway, the same store where another man was shot last month -- and only three blocks from the scene of another robbery in June that left a shopkeeper dead.

Owners of as many as a dozen Jefferson Davis-area businesses flocked to the scene of the shooting, and many were rattled by such a brazen daylight attack, said Councilwoman Reva Trammell, whose 8th District includes the Jefferson Davis corridor.

Trammell, who arrived outside the store shortly after yesterday's shootings, described a frenzied scene. One man told Trammell that the man who had shot the robber was a guardian angel.

"Whoever did it probably saved their lives in there," Trammell said of the shooter.

Police did not identify anyone involved in yesterday's shootings.

The man who shot the robber is a friend of the store owner, and he was wearing a holster with a Western-style revolver, said Managing Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Tracy Thorne-Begland.

After the suspect shot the store owner and opened fire on patrons, the owner's friend shot the suspect once in the torso, took his gun and called police, Thorne-Begland said.

Thorne-Begland said it appeared that the shooting of the suspect was justified, although he emphasized that the investigation was in the early stages.

Police said they expect to file charges against the suspect.

The store owner's injuries did not appear life-threatening, authorities said, but the gunman's injuries were said to be life-threatening. No one else was hurt.

Anthony Gregory, who lives near Golden Food, said he was in the store about 15 minutes before the shootings, and that while he was there, he saw a man with a baby making a purchase.

Gregory said the owner told the baby, "Welcome to the world. This is a dangerous world, so be careful. But don't worry, God will protect you."

Police Cmdr. Steve Drew said officers had been patrolling up and down Jefferson Davis yesterday and recently have bolstered their presence in the area. He said it was unusual for a commercial robbery to happen so early in the day.

The previous shooting at Golden Food took place late the night of June 12. And three nights earlier, a co-owner of the Come and Go Food Market, which is about three blocks north of Golden Food on Jefferson Davis, was shot and killed in a robbery.

Authorities said it was too early to know whether any of the three shootings on Jefferson Davis are connected.

A few hours after yesterday's shootings, Said "Sam" Messaf, the man who was shot June 12 at Golden Food, was at the store to help another man shut down the market.

Messaf described how he had been helping out at the store June 12 when two robbers came inside. One man opened fire, reaching over the counter and shooting as Messaf cowered behind it, he said. Messaf was shot six times in his legs.

He said he suffered nerve damage in his left leg and has trouble sleeping.

Trammell said residents and business owners were scared by the recent violence but have faith that police are doing their best to stop it.

"I'm still shook up," Trammell said. "I'm not afraid, but we've worked so hard on Jefferson Davis -- so hard in that area to bring crime down."

Original article can be found HERE.

Obama Mulls ‘Assault-Vehicle’ Ban to Spur Car Sales

2009-05-15T07:18:00.001-05:00

Here is a little humor for you in these crazy times.

(2009-04-27) — Since the Obama administration's talk of banning so-called 'assault weapons' has resulted in a huge spike in semi-automatic weapon sales nationwide, the White House has recently begun a covert 'whisper campaign' suggesting the president might also ban U.S.-manufactured cars and trucks with fully-automatic transmissions, now dubbed 'assault vehicles'.

President Obama reportedly hopes such chatter will give a much-needed boost to U.S. auto sales.

"These fully-automatics are the weapon-of-choice in the vehicular-manslaughter industry," said one unnamed White House source. "The automatic transmission allows the killer to accelerate rapidly without the manual process of clutching and shifting gears. Assault vehicles murder roughly four times as many people each year as do firearms. If you include suicides, cars still kill nearly twice as many people compared with all types of guns."

The administration source also noted that while people with criminal records make up the vast majority of gun-murder victims, 'assault vehicles' kill indiscriminately, murdering 39,800 Americans in 2008 alone.

"In most homicide-by-firearm cases, it's one crook killing another," said the source. "But automatic transmissions turn law-abiding citizens into killers of other law-abiding citizens, including women, children, seniors and innocent pedestrians."

Publicly, the administration maintains that it supports an individual's 'right to keep and be borne upon wheels', but the sophisticated whisper campaign is designed both to curry favor with the anti-car lobby, and to boost the economy by driving panic demand for fully automatics.

Original article can be found HERE .

Montana: New Montana gun law aimed at asserting sovereignty

2009-05-05T07:52:00.000-05:00

If only we could get this to catch on...

By KAHRIN DEINES - Associated Press - 04/16/09

Gov. Brian Schweitzer has signed into law a bill that aims to exempt Montana-made guns from federal regulation, adding firepower to a battery of legislative efforts to assert states' rights across the nation.

"It's a gun bill, but it's another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana," Democrat Schweitzer said.

Since the law applies only to those guns that are made and kept in Montana, its impact is limited. The state is home to just a handful of specialty gun makers, known for recreating rifles used to settle the West, and most of their customers are out-of-state.

But supporters of the new law hope it triggers a court case testing the legal basis for federal rules governing gun sales.

"What we need here is for Montana to be able to handle Montana's business and affairs," bill sponsor Rep. Joel Boniek, a Republican and wilderness guide from Livingston, told fellow lawmakers during the bill's House debate.

The measure is one of many introduced by state lawmakers across the nation seeking to confront what some see as a federal overreach into state matters that will be extended with the national stimulus plan.

Along with the gun bill, Montana legislators are considering a resolution that affirms the 10th Amendment principle that the federal government only has those powers that are specifically given to it by the U.S. Constitution.

"The whole goal is to awaken the people so that we can return to a properly grounded republic," Rep. Michael More, R-Gallatin Gateway and the Montana resolution's sponsor, said at a House committee hearing Wednesday.

As many as fifteen other Legislatures have also been mulling resolutions that buck federal control in states such as New Hampshire, South Carolina, Missouri and Oklahoma.

"The balance has swung far to the extreme to the empowerment of the federal government, and to the harm of the individual states," More said.

Opponents of the state sovereignty bids, however, warn they could give legitimacy to the kind of anti-government ideas that fueled the militia movement in Montana and elsewhere.

"When you really actually get in and look at it there is a lot of what we feel is very dangerous, very anti-government language that reads very similar to posters for the militia movement in the 1990s," said Travis McAdam, the interim director of the Montana Human Rights Network, a group formed to oppose racism and extremism.

One of the few state Senators who voted against the gun bill — Sen. Christine Kaufmann, D-Helena — is that group's director when the Legislature is not in session. She ties the bills' proliferation to fears about the Democratic administration of President Barack Obama and stimulus spending.

"I do think that there is a kind of renewed vehemence to this kind of right-wing rhetoric being spewed by conservative talk show hosts to rile the troops and they are using the fact that we have a Democratic, black president as one of their rallying calls," Kaufmann said.

The Montana bills are being sponsored by freshman legislators who ran as part of a broader effort to oust more moderate Republicans in last spring's elections.

House Resolution 3, the one sponsored by More, follows another states' rights declaration that deadlocked in the same committee earlier this session, although the committee's chairman said it may have a shot on its second try.

House Bill 246, the Montana-made gun bill, cleared the Legislature easily before reaching the governor's desk.

Its supporters next plan to find a "squeaky clean" Montanan who wants to send a note to the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives threatening to build and sell about 20 rifles without federal dealership licensing. If the ATF says it's illegal, the gun bill's backers plan to file a lawsuit in federal court with the goal of launching a legal showdown that lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Montana Shooting Sports Association, which drafted the bill, has said it will raise the money to pay for any legal costs.

"It doesn't cost us any money and I like guns," Schweitzer said after signing the bill.

"I like big guns, I like little guns, I like pistols, I like rifles, and I would like to buy a gun that's made in Montana," Schweitzer said.

General Assembly Overrides Veto of Two Pro-Gun Bills!

2009-04-09T07:11:00.003-05:00

Today, the General Assembly overrode Governor Tim Kaine's (D) veto of two pro-gun bills.

Senate Bill 877 will allow "retired" law enforcement officers to carry concealed in a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverages. Unlike Senate Bill 1035, this bill applies only to retired law enforcement officers. The Senate voted to override the Governor by a vote of 30-10 with the House voting 76-22 to override.

Senate Bill 1528 will allow a safety course required for obtaining a concealed handgun permit, conducted by a state-certified or NRA-certified firearms instructor to be done electronically or online. The Senate voted 28-12 to override with the House concurring 73-23.

Unfortunately, the Senate failed to override the veto of Senate Bill 1035, House Bill 1851, and House Bill 2528.

SB1035 would have permitted a Right-to-Carry permit holder to carry concealed in a restaurant, provided he or she did not consume alcohol. The bill failed to pass by a 24-16 vote. The veto was sustained by the Democratic-controlled Senate. The Republican-controlled House of Delegates voted to override on the legislation, but two-thirds of lawmakers in each house must agree to override a veto.

HB1851 would have exempted active duty military personnel or Virginia National Guardsmen from Virginia's "one-gun-a-month" law on handgun purchases. HB1851, which passed the House in the override session by a vote of 73-26, failed in the Senate by a vote of 26 to 14 (27 votes were needed for an override).

SB2528 would have established that no locality or entity may participate in a gun "buyback" program where individuals are given anything of value or money in exchange for surrendering a firearm to the locality unless the governing body first passes an ordinance authorizing the gun "buyback." The legislation also required that any locality holding gun "buybacks" sell the firearms to a federally licensed dealer "or be disposed of in any appropriate manner" if they could not be sold. HB2528 passed the House 71-28 only to be defeated in the Senate by a vote of 24-16.

Legislation To Restore Concealed Carry in National Parks Introduced

2009-04-08T07:15:00.001-05:00

Friday, April 03, 2009

On Thursday, April 2, U.S. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Bob Bennett (R-Utah), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) introduced legislation (S.816) to restore the Second Amendment rights of visitors in national parks and wildlife refuges (its companion bill, H.R. 1684 was introduced last week by Congressman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.).  The current Department of the Interior (DOI) regulations were amended by the Bush Administration in 2008, allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves by carrying a concealed firearm in national parks and wildlife refuges.  However, early this year, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule.  The NRA has been working for the past several years in the regulatory, legal, and legislative arenas to achieve this policy change.

"NRA would like to thank this bi-partisan group of Senators for leading the legislative effort to strengthen Right-to-Carry laws on federal parklands. Senator Crapo has been at the forefront of this fight from the very beginning, along with Senator Baucus," said NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox.  "NRA is committed to changing the old, outdated rule, and will continue to work aggressively with Congress to pass this critical legislation. NRA will continue to pursue every avenue to defend the American people's right of self-defense."

This bill would provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Parks and Wildlife Refuges did not.

This move will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes on most DOI lands, and will make federal law consistent with the state law in which these lands are located.

"This is a common-sense measure.  Senators Crapo, Baucus, Bennett, Tester and Lincoln should be commended for their efforts to allow law-abiding gun owners the option of protecting themselves in our federal parks and refuges.  This legislation will amend out-of-date regulations and restore the Second Amendment rights of American gun owners," concluded Cox.

Please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and Representative and ask them to cosponsor and support S. 816 and H.R. 1684! You can call your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121, and your U.S. Representative at (202) 225-3121.

Original article can be found HERE .

Governor Kaine vetoes a host of gun bills

2009-03-28T22:09:00.001-05:00

From VCDL

Governor Kaine vetoed a host of guns bills, some for things that the bills don't even do!

He thought he knew what they did, but he clearly didn't bother to actually read them.

This would almost be comical if it didn't affect the safety of the public.

Here are the bills he vetoed and his, er, logic in doing so, and my comments:

SB 1035, Senator Hanger, repeals the restaurant ban. Governor says, "Allowing concealed weapons into restaurants and bars that serve alcohol puts the public, the employees, and our public safety officers at risk. I take seriously the objections of law enforcement to this measure." Baloney. The Governor orders the police to tell him they think allowing permit holders to carry concealed in restaurants, even if they don't drink, endangers the public, then he uses their coerced statement to justify what he was going to do anyhow.

SB 877, Senator Martin, repeals the restaurant ban for retired police. Governor Says, "While it makes sense for current law enforcement officers to be permitted to carry their firearms when in such establishments, there is no compelling reason for retired law enforcement officers to have weapons in locations where alcohol is served." Well at least the Governor is consistent in his double-standard, that allows untrained Commonwealth Attorneys and their deputies to carry concealed in restaurants and drink, while denying anybody not on the government payroll the same right to protect themselves, not matter how trustworthy they have proven themselves.

HB 1851, Delegate Lingamfelter, exempts active duty military from One Handgun a Month. Governor says, "The new exemption would apply to active duty service members, whether Virginia residents or not. Because holders of valid Virginia concealed weapons permits are already able to purchase more than one handgun per month, House Bill 1851 only extends the ability to buy more than one handgun a month to nonresidents or those Virginians unable to obtain a concealed weapons permit." What?!? Unable to get a permit or CHOOSE not to, Governor? The Governor must be related to Marie Antoinette, with his "let them eat cake" attitude toward our military. Shameful.

SB 1528, Senator Cuccinnelli, allows for Internet-based training for CHP applicants. Governor says, "The state requires an applicant for a concealed weapons permit to take a written safety test to demonstrate that the individual understands how to use a weapon in a safe manner. Allowing the testing to be done online would weaken the ability of the Commonwealth to determine who is actually taking the test and open up opportunities for individuals to receive a permit under fraudulent circumstances with no guarantee that they can use a weapon safely." WHAT?!? There is NO requirement in current law for a written SAFETY TEST!!! Where did he come up with that? So he vetoed this bill based on a law that he just made up out of thin air. If there is any fraud going on, Governor, it is YOU swearing an oath to defend and protect the Constitution.

HB 2528, Delegate Cole, requires that localities pass an ordinance before doing gun buy-ups. Governor says, "I veto House Bill 2528, which unnecessarily interferes with the operations of local governments. Specifically, the bill prohibits local law enforcement from choosing to conduct voluntary gun buyback programs and then destroying the weapons. Some localities have found this program to be effective in reducing the number of illegal firearms in their communities. It is not a mandatory program, and law enforcement in each locality have made the decision whether such a program is desirable in their own county or city. There is no compelling reason for the General Assembly to take this decision out of the hands of local law enforcement." WHAT?!? It does NOT require that localities not destroy guns. The final bill that passed made it an option for localities to be able to either do that or to sell the guns to a federally licensed gun dealer. The Governor is NOT reading these bills and is vetoing them based on erroneous knowledge of what the bills do! Harvard needs to get that diploma back ASAP.

I would sum up Governor Kaine's attitude as, "To hell with the will of the People as expressed through the Legislature. I, King Kaine, know what all the People want and need and I have no interest in hearing their little voices and don't want to be confused with the facts."

--

What now?

On April 8th the General Assembly meets to override the Governor's vetoes. Unlike Governor Kaine, the General Assembly needs to show that public safety is more important than blind anti-gun politics.

A quick look at the vetoed bills:

SB 1035, the restaurant ban repeal, needs 5 more votes to be overridden in the Senate and the VCDL "robo calls" are working that issue right now. The House only needs 1 more vote to override the veto. (Senate 22 to 16, House 66 to 33) SEE ACTION ITEM BELOW!

SB 877, the restaurant ban repeal for retired police, passed by a large veto proof margin. (Senate 40 to 0, House 84 to 15)

SB 1851, One Handgun A Month exemption for active duty military, passed by a large veto proof majority. (Senate 31 to 8, House 86 to 13)

SB 1528, internet training for CHPs, passed by a large veto-proof majority. (Senate 29 to 10, House 99 to 0)

HB 2528, gun buy-up bill, passed by a large veto-proof majority. (Senate 28 to 12, House 85 to 11)

So only one bill is in any real jeopardy, SB 1035, the restaurant ban repeal for CHP holders. The other bills have decent margin of votes to override the Governor's veto.

--

ACTION ITEM

If YOUR Senator is one of the following:

Blevins, Colgan, Herring, Lucas, Norment, Northam, or Petersen

And/Or YOUR Delegate is one of the following:

Albo, Amundson, Caputo, Dance, Hamilton, Hargrove, Mathieson, May, Melvin, Paula Miller, Poisson, Rust, Shannon, Sickles, Tata, Tyler, Vanderhye, or Watts

You need to call them NOW and let them know that since they supported RETIRED police officers carrying concealed in restaurants, even if they are drinking alcohol, they NEED to change their vote and override the Governor's veto to SUPPORT concealed handgun permit holders carrying concealed in restaurants if they don't drink!

These legislators simply cannot justify what they have done by their contradictory votes. We MUST call them and let them know we expect them to make it right by overriding the veto.

Here are their LOCAL phone numbers. Remember - call them NOW if they represent you. Have your family members and neighbors do the same.

We CAN do this if enough of you do your part.

Remember to hold their feet to the fire on this one!

Senators:

Harry Blevins, 757-546-2435

Chuck Colgan, 703-368-0300

Mark Herring, 703-729-3300

Louise Lucas, 757-397-8209

Thomas Norment, 757-259-7810

Ralph Northam, 757-818-5172

Chap Petersen, 703-349-3361

Delegates:

Dave Albo, 703-451-3555

Kristen Amundson, 703-619-0444

Chuck Caputo, 703-476-6944

Rosalyn Dance, 804-862-2922

Phillip Hamilton, 757-249-2480

Frank Hargrove, 804-550-2900

Bobby Mathieson, 757-470-3000

Joe May, 703-777-1191

Ken Melvin, 757-397-2800

Paula Miller, 757-587-8757

David Poisson, 703-421-6899

Thomas Rust, 703-437-9400

Stephen Shannon, 703-281-5200

Mark Sickles, 703-922-6440

Bob Tata, 757-340-3510

Roslyn Tyler, 434-336-1710

Margi Vanderhye, 703-448-8018

Vivian Watts, 703-978-2989

National Parks ruling being appealed

2009-03-23T07:10:00.001-05:00

The NRA appealing temporarily suspended National Parks carry

Today, a federal district court in Washington, D.C. granted anti-gun plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against implementation of the new rule allowing concealed carry in national parks and national wildlife refuges.

Until further notice, individuals cannot legally carry loaded, concealed firearms for personal protection in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The court did grant NRA's motion to intervene in the cases. Under federal law, NRA is entitled to an immediate appeal, and NRA will exercise that right.

"Just as we did not give up the fight to change the old, outdated rule, we will not give up our fight in the courts to defend the rule change," said NRA chief lobbyist Chris W. Cox. "We will pursue every legal avenue to defend the American people's right to self-defense."

www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=12252

Some gun humor (with a twist of truh)

2009-02-28T10:03:00.001-05:00

(I have not confirmed the accuracy of the facts, but the point is unquestionably accurate!)

Doctors vs. Gun Owners

Doctors

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. - 700,000.

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
----------------

Now think about this:

Guns

(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. - 80,000,000.
(Yes, that's 80 million)

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups,
Is 1,500.

(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Statistics courtesy of FBI
---------------------

So, statistically, doctors are approximately
9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.

Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN...
BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat.

We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!!

Out of concern for the public at large, I withheld the statistics on
Lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek
Medical attention!

Restaurant Ban Repeal Bill moving forward

2009-02-25T08:28:00.001-05:00

SB1035, Senator Hanger's restaurant ban repeal bill, PASSED by 66 to 33! The provision for having to notify an ABC manager that a person with a CHP is carrying concealed was REMOVED. Excellent! This bill now heads back to the Senate, where we will see if they accept that change or not. Delegate Morgan Griffith offered up the amendment stripping the notification provision.

Some Humor: 40 Reasons to Ban Guns

2009-02-02T14:43:00.001-05:00

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun
control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the
lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics
showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into
effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,
which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting
spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a
lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot
with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking
gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -
give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete
Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about
guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil
engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer
programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which
was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using
federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing
trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of
the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain
rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,"
and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states
respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban
and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to
that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the
army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military
weapons'', but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles'', because
they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,
government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is
responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,
anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,
variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no
fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling
guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"
campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them
properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical
adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun
is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at
women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers
but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun
shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority
of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a
"weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which
most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned
because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use
of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and
typewriters, but self- defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of
the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the
Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap
lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a
representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is
entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger
capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone
and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns
because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that
private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the
police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the
police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police
chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with
cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of
people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential
promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to
buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for
defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their
duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong
hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Obama: Don't stock up on guns

2008-12-11T08:24:00.000-05:00

As gun sales shoot up around the country, President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday that gun-owning Americans do not need to rush out and stock up before he is sworn in next month.

"I believe in common-sense gun safety laws, and I believe in the second amendment," Obama said at a news conference. "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I said that throughout the campaign. I haven't indicated anything different during the transition. I think people can take me at my word."

But National Rifle Association spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said it's not Obama's words — but his legislative track record — that has gun-buyers flocking to the stores.

"Prior to his campaign for president, his record as a state legislator and as a U.S. Senator shows he voted for the most stringent forms of gun control, the most Draconian legislation, gun bans, ammunition bans and even an increase in federal excise taxes up to 500 percent for every gun and firearm sold," Arulanandam said.

Obama answered "yes" in 1996 to a questionnaire from an Illinois group on whether he supported a handgun ban. But he later said a staffer filled out that answer and he did not support a ban.

Nationally, background checks for gun purchases jumped nearly 49 percent during the week Obama was elected, compared with the same time period last year, according to the FBI's National Instant Background Check System.

Anecdotally, gun dealers around the country have reported spikes in sales. The Illinois State Rifle Association Reports gun sales for November were 38 percent higher than last year.

"We don't dispute [the gun sales hike] because the numbers from the federal system certainly confirm that there is increased activity out there. We just think it's a bit stupid," said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence.

"Anyone who thinks they need to rush out and buy a firearm clearly has not been paying attention to how quickly we make progress on this issue. We don't think these are first-time buyers. We think they are people who already have more than enough guns at their homes to protect themselves and are buying more."

Original article can be found HERE .

A message from Bob Marshall

2008-12-03T12:32:00.001-05:00

I have long supported responsible gun owners to secure concealed carry permits. Back in the 1990's I opposed the gun a month law which passed anyway, I supported a revamping of Virginia's concealed carry law, and I opposed amendments weakening concealed carry rights.

In 2005 I voted for HB 2535 which allows the holder of a valid concealed handgun permit to possess a concealed handgun on school property while in a motor vehicle in a parking lot, traffic circle, or other means of vehicular access or exit from the school.

And in 2008 I voted for SB 476 which allowed concealed handgun permit holders to enter a restaurant where alcohol is served but which prohibits a person who carries a concealed handgun onto the premises of a restaurant or club from consuming an alcoholic beverage while on the premises.

In 2008 I and Del. Gilbert introduced concealed carry bills.

I would have voted for HB 1371 (Gilbert) which prohibits a state entity, including the board of visitors of a state institution of higher education, from prohibiting the possession of a handgun on state property by a person with a valid concealed handgun permit, unless expressly authorized by statute to adopt such a rule, regulation, or policy. This is directed primarily at sate college Boars of Visitors which have prohibited concealed carry permit holders who are students from exercising concealed carry rights on a campus.

Additionally, I introduced HB 424 which allows full-time faculty members of state institutions of higher education who possess a valid Virginia concealed handgun permit to carry a concealed handgun on campus.

However, Republican Speaker Bill Howell made it very clear he did not want these bills considered, and Militia and Police Chair Beverly Sherwood refused to call our bills up for a hearing. Del. Gilbert and I held a press conference at the end of the 2008 session and criticized Speaker Howell for this gag rule he imposed on our concealed carry bills.

Republican Majority leader Morgan Griffith said the bills would have failed if they were reported to the floor. But his statement does not square with his own actions in pulling a bill from the House floor when I offered an amendment to another bill which would have allowed professors to carry on campus.

When I was not in the House Chamber because of a previously scheduled meeting in Northern Virginia, Del. Griffith called up the bill I wanted to amend and it passed without my proposed concealed carry amendment.

What I am saying is that I am not hopeful the Republican leadership will assist us in this matter.

There is the additional problem that Speaker Bill Howell in 2008 pushed for and secured a House Rules change which limits all delegates to only introducing 15 bills per year. I talked to the Speaker about this at the Clemson-UVA game, Saturday, November 22. He told me no one ever asked him to introduce more than 15 bills, and that he saw no reason that any House of Delegates member should be allowed to introduce more than 15 bills. I disagreed with him, pointing out that I have more registered voters than some Virginia state Senate districts.

I voted AGAINST this rules changed and another one which provided for secret votes in sub-committees and was punished by Speaker Howell by being denied a committee chairmanship, removed as vice chair from a committee I had been on since 1992 and was subject to other "penalties."

You may want to contact Speaker Howell and Del. Griffith to let them know of your concerns about the way they are handling concealed carry bills, and their support for limits on the number of bills members may introduce.

They can be reached at: delwhowell@house.state.va.us and delmgriffith@house.state.va.us

The state senate has no such rules limiting the number of bills senators may introduce.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall

When Seconds Count: Stopping Active Killers

2008-11-18T14:59:00.000-05:00

Reported by: Brendan Keefe

There have been so many school shootings over the last 40 years that researchers have been able to develop a profile of the typical mass murderer.

They're called "active shooters" or "active killers" and their crimes play out in a matter of minutes. After the Columbine High School massacre in 1999, police changed their tactics.

The two student gunmen killed 15 people and themselves before the SWAT team was in position.

Commanders realized that it simply takes too long to assemble a tactical team in time to stop an active killer. The new tactics developed in response to Columbine involved creating an ad-hoc tactical team using the first four or five patrol officers on the scene.

They would enter the shooting scene in a diamond formation with guns pointing in all directions.

This technique was employed by police departments around the country. Then 32 people were killed by a lone gunman at Virginia Tech in April 2007.

Seung Hui Cho shot 47 people, 30 fatally, in the university's Norris Hall in just 11 minutes. That means every minute he killed more than three people and shot a total of four.

Once again, the gunman continued shooting until a four-officer team made entry and then he killed himself. Law enforcement reviewed its tactics.

Based on the Virginia Tech data, experts determined the first officer on scene should make entry immediately with an aggressive attack on the shooter.

Every minute the officer waits for back-up, another three or more people could die…

…The other statistic that emerged from a study of active killers is that they almost exclusively seek out "gun free" zones for their attacks.

In most states, concealed handguns are prohibited at schools and on college campuses even for those with permits. Many malls and workplaces also place signs at their entrances prohibiting firearms on the premises.

Now tacticians believe the signs themselves may be an invitation to the active killers. The psychological profile of a mass murderer indicates he is looking to inflict the most casualties as quickly as possible.

Also, the data show most active killers have no intention of surviving the event. They may select schools and shopping malls because of the large number of defenseless victims and the virtual guarantee no on the scene one is armed. As soon as they're confronted by any armed resistance, the shooters typically turn the gun on themselves.

Original article can be found HERE.

Barack Hussein Obama on Gun Control

2008-10-15T07:23:00.003-05:00

I generally try not to make this a overtly political forum to endorse or criticize a particular representative. But given this election and the extreme position that Barack Hussein Obama has on guns I feel it appropriate to keep posting these issues that we can influence (make sure you vote!) that relate to guns.

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws

Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?

A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban

Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."

Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok

Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?

A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?

A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month

Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns. Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers

Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.

When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities

Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?

A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality

I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair. Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban

KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.

OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions

Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.

Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:

Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices

Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Click here for definitions & background information on Gun Control. Click here for a profile of Barack Obama. Click here for SenateMatch answers by Barack Obama. Agree? Disagree? Voice your opinions on Gun Control in The Forum. Click here for a summary of Barack Obama's positions on all issues. Click here for issue positions of other IL politicians.
*Other candidates on Gun Control:*		*Barack Obama on other issues:*
*IL Gubernatorial:* Rod Blagojevich *IL Senatorial:* Larry Stafford Richard Durbin *2008 Senate retirements:* Wayne Allard(R,CO) Larry Craig(R,ID) Pete Domenici(R,NM) Chuck Hagel(R,NE) Trent Lott(R,MS) Craig Thomas(R,WY) John Warner(R,VA) *2008 Presidential Contenders:* Chuck Baldwin(C) Rep.Bob Barr(L) Sen.Hillary Clinton(D) Sen.Mike Gravel(L) Alan Keyes(C) Sen.John McCain(R) Rep.Cynthia McKinney(G) Ralph Nader(I) Sen.Barack Obama(D) Rep.Ron Paul(R)	*2008 Senate Races:* AK:Stevens v.Begich v.Cuddy v.Sikma AL:Sessions v.Figures AR:Pryor v.Kennedy CO:Schaffer v.Udall DE:Biden v.O`Donnell GA:Chambliss v.Cardwell v.Jones v.Buckley IA:Harkin v.Reed ID:Risch v.LaRocco IL:Durbin v.Sauerberg v.Stafford KS:Roberts v.Jones v.Slattery KY:McConnell v.Lunsford LA:Landrieu v.Kennedy MA:Kerry v.O`Reilly v.Beatty ME:Collins v.Allen MI:Levin v.Hoogendyk MN:Coleman v.Franken v.Ventura v.Cavlan v.Pallmeyer MS4:Wicker v.Musgrove MS6:Cochran v.Fleming MT:Baucus v.Kelleher NC:Dole v.Hagan NE:Johanns v.Kleeb v.Raimondo v.Larrick NH:Sununu v.Shaheen NJ:Lautenberg v.Zimmer NM:Wilson v.Pearce v.Udall OR:Smith v.Merkley v.Brownlow OK:Inhofe v.Rice RI:Reed v.Young v.Tingley SC:Graham v.Cone v.Conley v.McBride SD:Johnson v.Dykstra TN:Alexander v.Eaton v.Padgett v.Tuke v.Lugo TX:Cornyn v.Noriega v.Jameson VA:Gilmore v.Warner v.Marshall WV:Rockefeller v.Wolfe WY4:Barrasso v.Carter v.Goodenough WY6:Enzi v.Rothfuss	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Jobs Principles Social Security Tax Reform Technology War/Peace Welfare Other Senators House of Representatives SenateMatch (matching quiz) Senate Votes (analysis) House Votes Bill Sponsorships Affiliations Policy Reports Group Ratings

Obama: “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns.”

2008-10-07T08:08:00.001-05:00

J. MICHAEL SHARMAN
Published: October 6, 2008

The non-partisan National Journal scores senators each year on the totality of their economic, defense and foreign policy votes to rate how "liberal" they are.

Sen. Barack Obama has the highest score of all of the 100 senators. 1

Joe Biden is the eighth-highest scorer.

To put it in perspective, both Obama and Biden scored far higher than the only self-described Socialist in the Senate, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who had the 12th- highest score. 2

On practically every issue, Obama and Biden have political objectives that are radical and repugnant to most Americans.

Obama voted against a bill that would permit juries to consider the death penalty for gang members who murder to advance the gang's interest. 3

Both Obama and Biden have voted against making English our official language. 4

At a campaign event in Georgia, Obama told the crowd that "instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they'll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish." 5

Many people think some gun control is appropriate, but Obama believes in total gun control: He doesn't think you should own a gun at all.

When a questionnaire from the Independent Voters of Illinois asked Obama if he would "ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns," he responded "yes."

Obama told John Lott Jr., a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, "I don't believe that people should be able to own guns." 6

As to same-sex marriages, Biden said during the Oct. 2 vice presidential debate: "Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

"We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do." 7

And Obama published a letter on his Web site earlier this year, stating: "I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate.

"While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.

"Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples, which is precisely what DOMA does. I have also called for us to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' and I have worked to improve the Uniting American Families Act so we can afford same-sex couples the same rights and obligations as married couples in our immigration system." 8

Sen. Obama's repeal of DOMA would strip away the states' ability to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex marriage ceremonies held in another state.

His repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" would take away the military's ability to consider the impact a person's homosexual status or activities has on their military service.

And his last suggestion would grant even a temporary immigrant in the U.S. the ability to bring in their homosexual partner under the "Family Unity Program." 9

When he was in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against the "Induced Infant Liability Act" requiring medical care for babies who survive an abortion. The bill came up twice in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. CBS News reported Obama voted "present" in 2001 and "no" in 2002. 10

Why would Obama not allow abortion survivors to be given medical attention?

This is what he said during the Illinois State Senate debate in March 2001: "It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute." 11

If only they knew, the vast majority of Americans would consider Obama and Biden far too radical for their tastes.

J. Michael Sharman is an independent columnist who practices law in Culpeper. His column appears Tuesdays in the Star-Exponent.

1 "Vote Ratings - Rating Their Records" The National Journal, Feb. 2, 2008http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20080202_8.php?related=true&story1=co_20080823_9669&story2=co_20080823_5507&story3=nj_20080202_8
2 http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3952&sort=rating
3 "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics: Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control", CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
4
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00198
5 "Obama: 'You Need To Make Sure Your Child Can Speak Spanish'"http://election.newsmax.com/obama_spanish.html
6 Lott, John R. "Obama and Guns: Two Different Views"http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347690,00.html
7 Transcript: The Vice-Presidential Debate, October 2, 2008, The New York Times website,http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/vice-presidential-debate.html
8 "Equality is a Moral Imperative" Obama Biden website, posted Feb 28th, 2008 http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/alexokrent/gGggJS
9 http://www.uscis.gov/propub/ProPubVAP.jsp?dockey=4552a87982380b8452e1f90ed4168b40
10 "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics: Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control", CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
and Carpenter, Amanda "Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL" Human Events, 12/26/2006
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647#continueA
11 "Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics: Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control", CBS News,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml
and Carpenter, Amanda "Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL" Human Events, 12/26/2006
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647#continueA

Original article can be found HERE .

Attorney General Bob McDonnell released opinion regarding Open Carry in state parks

2008-10-01T13:16:00.003-05:00

Attorney General Bob McDonnell released an opinion in response to a request by State Senator Ken Cuccinelli (R-37) on whether or not the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has the authority to regulate the open carrying of firearms in state parks.

In his official opinion, Attorney General McDonnell found that, "no specific statutory authority granting the Department the authority to prohibit the open carrying of firearms in state parks. A person's right to carry a firearm openly is considered universal within the Commonwealth, subject to definite and limited restrictions upon certain locations and classifications of individuals."

Please click here to view the opinion.

Del. Norton blasts House vote easing DC gun restrictions

2008-09-17T11:39:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON (AP) -- D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton is denouncing the House for approving a measure that would make it easier for the city's residents to buy and own firearms.

She and other critics say the vote tramples on D.C.'s right to govern itself and could endanger both residents and political dignitaries who travel across the city.

Norton says the vote is particularly galling because she lacked the right to vote on its passage. Norton unsuccessfully tried to move a bill that would have given the district 180 days to come up with new regulations complying with a Supreme Court ruling that overturned D.C.'s gun ban.

The White House opposed that approach and supported the measure sponsored by Mississippi Democrat Travis Childers, saying it would "immediately advance Second Amendment principles."

******************

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The pro-gun majority in the House has voted to make it easier for residents of the nation's capital to buy and own firearms.

Democrats who favor gun rights joined Republicans in approving the measure backed by the National Rifle Association. It allows District of Columbia residents to possess semiautomatic handguns and eliminates rules that guns kept at home must be locked up and unloaded.

The House vote comes three months after the Supreme Court ruled that the District's three-decade-old ban on possessing handguns violated Second Amendment rights to bear arms.

Original article can be found HERE .

Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns

2008-08-18T11:05:00.001-05:00

A tiny Texas school district may be the first in the nation to pass a law specifically allowing teachers and staff to pack heat when classes begin later this month.

Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.

Superintendent David Thweatt told FOXNews.com the policy was initiated because of safety concerns.

"We have had employees assaulted before by people in the last several years," Thweatt said. "I think that safety is big concern. We are seeing a lot of anger in society."

He wouldn't comment further on the nature of the assaults.

The Texas superintendent linked gun-free zones with the uprising of school shootings in recent years.

"When you make schools gun-free zones, it's like inviting people to come in and take advantage," Thweatt told FOXNews.com.

In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and must use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.

Thweatt said the small community is a 30-minute drive from the sheriff's office, leaving students and teachers without protection. He said the district's lone campus sits 500 feet from heavily trafficked U.S. 287, which could make it a target.

The kindergarten through 12th grade school district is home to 110 students.

Thweatt said officials researched the policy and considered other options for about a year before approving the policy change. He said the district also has various other security measures in place to prevent a school shooting.

"The naysayers think [a shooting] won't happen here," Thweatt said. "If something were to happen here, I'd much rather be calling a parent to tell them that their child is OK because we were able to protect them."

He told FOXNews.com he doesn't think students will think twice about the new policy.

"I hope they forget all about it," he said. "We want them to pay attention [to their school work]."

Texas law outlaws firearms on school campuses "unless pursuant to the written regulations or written authorization of the institution."

While the district's plan shot them into the national spotlight, carrying guns to school is nothing new some states. In Utah, the law allows anyone with a permit to carry a gun in public schools and state institutions of higher education.

It was unclear how many of the 50 or so teachers and staff members will be armed this fall because Thweatt did not disclose that information, to keep it from students or potential attackers.

Wilbarger County Sheriff Larry Lee did not immediately return a call placed to his office by FOXNews.com.

Barbara Williams, a spokeswoman for the Texas Association of School Boards, said her organization did not know of another district with such a policy. Ken Trump, a Cleveland-based school security expert who advises districts nationwide, including in Texas, said Harrold is the first district with such a policy.

The district is 150 miles northwest of Fort Worth on the eastern end of Wilbarger County, near the Oklahoma border.

FOXNews.com's Michelle Maskaly and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Original article can be found HERE.

Bill that would end local handgun control in the District

2008-08-05T10:03:00.001-05:00

By Mary Beth Sheridan and Paul Duggan

Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 5, 2008; Page B01

Democratic leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives have agreed to allow a vote next month on a bill that would end local handgun control in the District, making it easier for D.C. residents to acquire pistols, including semiautomatics, while eliminating the strict handgun-storage requirements imposed by the city.

Supporters say the bill has a good chance of passing the House, where pro-gun measures are popular. But it is unclear whether it would succeed in the Senate, where complex rules make it harder to push through legislation.

"This poses a real danger," Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said, criticizing the legislation as "radical" because it would gut the city's gun-control rules.

"If it passes the House," she said, "you have to hope the Senate doesn't take it up."

The measure, filed Thursday by several conservative Democrats, adds more fuel to the debate over gun control in the nation's capital. After a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision June 26 ended the city's 32-year-old handgun ban, the District replaced the ban with strict handgun limits, which critics say violate the high court's ruling.

The bill would scrap those limits, allowing residents to own handguns without registering them with the D.C. police department, provided they meet federal requirements for firearms ownership.

Besides abolishing the requirement that owners keep their handguns unloaded in their homes and either disassembled or fitted with trigger locks, the measure would repeal the city's prohibition on most magazine-fed semiautomatic handguns -- a ban that has been in effect for decades and was not part of the Supreme Court case.

The legislation also would allow D.C. residents to buy and take delivery of handguns in Virginia and Maryland. Federal law currently prohibits gun buyers from acquiring the weapons in states where they do not reside.

Key negotiators on the bill, including Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), said in a statement that they have "an agreement with House leadership" for the measure to come to a vote early next month. The legislation was offered as a compromise after House Republicans had maneuvered to get a vote on another measure that would have gone even further, repealing a D.C. law that allows gunmakers to be sued by victims of firearms violence.

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.), one of the bill's sponsors, said supporters of the measure think that the city has "basically thumbed its nose" at the Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision by enacting tough limits on handgun ownership. The majority opinion affirmed an individual's right under the Second Amendment to own firearms for self-defense but said that governments may enact reasonable restrictions.

If the legislation fails, Altmire said, "at least we, as people who are accountable to our constituents, can go back home and talk about what we did on the issue."

Forty-eight Democrats have signed on as sponsors of the bill, including Democrats from pro-gun districts who could be vulnerable in November's election. Norton said in a statement that those Democrats "hope to relieve election year pressure by getting a Democratic-backed bill to the floor, out of fear that the [National Rifle Association] will run hometown ads against their reelection."

Democrats have a 37-seat advantage in the House.

While the debate goes on, D.C. police are continuing to process gun-registration applications, limiting owners to one handgun each while the prohibition on most semiautomatic handguns remains in place.

As of Friday, police said, 21 applications had been received and 11 approved. Among those who now have legal handguns in their D.C. homes is Dick A. Heller, 66, a security guard from Capitol Hill who sued the city over the 1976 handgun ban and won the Supreme Court case.

Heller filed another lawsuit against the District last week, alleging that the restrictions imposed by the District after the high court's decision violate the letter and spirit of the ruling.

Of the 11 newly registered handguns, police said, eight had been stored outside the District by their owners while the ban was in place. The other three were kept illegally in D.C. homes during the ban and were registered in recent days under an amnesty program.

Police said three applications have been denied (and the handguns seized) because the applicants had criminal records. The other seven applications are pending.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said two men are federally licensed to sell firearms in D.C. But the men deal only with selected clients, including police officers and security companies, the agency said.

Unless the House legislation becomes law, allowing D.C. residents to purchase handguns across state lines in Virginia and Maryland, most would-be gun owners in the nation's capital will have to wait for a federally licensed dealer in the city to start doing business with more customers.

Lawsuit Filed in DC Gun Ban Case

2008-07-29T08:02:00.001-05:00

WASHINGTON (AP) - The plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that overturned Washington's 32-year-old handgun ban has filed a new federal lawsuit against the city.

In a complaint filed in U.S. District Court, Dick Heller and two other plaintiffs allege that the city's new gun regulations still violate rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The lawsuit cites the District of Columbia's unusual ban on firearms that carry more than 12 rounds of ammunition, which includes most semiautomatic handguns. The suit also claims that the city's regulations make it all but impossible for residents to keep a gun ready for immediate self defense in the home.

The Supreme Court struck down Washington's handgun ban June 26. The D.C. Council passed emergency legislation July 15 in an effort to comply with the court's ruling.

Original article can be found HERE.

Council to vote on gun bill today

2008-07-15T05:43:00.000-05:00

Washington, D.C. - The District of Columbia Council planned to vote today on emergency legislation to allow handguns if they are used only for self-defense in the home and carry fewer than 12 rounds of ammunition.

The legislation announced Monday comes as officials scramble to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month striking down the city's 32-year-old ban.

The proposal, which maintains some of the city's strict gun ownership rules and adds more regulations, was immediately criticized by gun rights advocates threatening more legal action.

The nation's capital would still require all legal firearms, including handguns, rifles and shotguns, to be kept in the home unloaded and disassembled, or equipped with trigger locks. There would be an exception for guns used against the "reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm."

Original article can be found HERE.

McDonnell on Gun Ruling

2008-06-27T07:42:00.001-05:00

Thursday morning, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

In response to this decision Attorney General Bob McDonnell issued the following statement:

"I am pleased by today's historic decision. The Court has recognized that the Second Amendment clearly protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. This basic right was so important to our Founders that they recognized it in the Bill of Rights. It is a fundamental individual right that government must respect and protect. The District of Columbia ban was an unconstitutional infringement of this right, and the Court has correctly confirmed this position. Last December we joined an amicus brief, with thirty other attorneys general, supporting the individual right to bear arms interpretation of the Second Amendment. This is a victory for the individual liberties of all Virginians, and all Americans."

At McDonnell's direction, Virginia joined a multi-state amicus brief of attorneys general, written by Texas in December, supporting the individual rights interpretation of the right to bear arms confirmed in the Second Amendment.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, arose from a challenge to the District of Columbia's prohibition of personal ownership of handguns, and additional restrictions on personal ownership of shotguns and rifles.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the gun policies of Washington D.C. violated the Second Amendment. The court found that the right to bear arms is an individual right guaranteed by the framers.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case. The Supreme Court specifically ruled on the question of whether existing law in the District of Columbia violates the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.

The case provided the first major review of the original intent and interpretation of the Second Amendment in almost 70 years. It is the first time since the amendment was ratified in 1791 that the essence of the meaning of the Second Amendment has been clearly defined.

Original article can be found HERE.

Concealed carry could save your life

2008-06-10T09:14:00.001-05:00

Concealed carry could save your life

Every time I read about a school massacre or other shooting by criminals or crazies, when someone mentions giving the right to carry a concealed weapon on or off campus, I wonder why so many oppose this solution.

Why are they so afraid of the obvious? People who have a concealed-carry permit may well be your best friend when a lawbreaking criminal confronts you or your loved ones.

Concealed-carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding citizens in our society. They realize that any abuse of the permit will result in their losing the privilege to carry a weapon. That's a right they do not want taken away.

Concealed-carry permit holders rarely commit crimes, much less a crime using a weapon.

They have been through a background check, taken the required training, and follow the permit-renewal process every five years. Many have served in the military, with the requisite weapons training. They are not a danger to society in any way.

In fact, guns are used more than 2.5 million times a year to stop a crime or save a life. States with the right to carry have a lower crime rate than those that have the strictest gun control laws.

Permit holders are your friends, teachers, church members, neighbors, wives, daughters, pastors, soccer moms, and others.

They're everywhere, yet you don't see them showing their weapons. You don't see the gunfights the anti-gunners always predict to instill fear. They are the people you want to be with, especially if a criminal threatens you or you loved ones.

It's a shame the anti-gunners have put out so much misinformation and fear. The sad thing is that so many people believe it.

Unjustified fear keeps us from implementing the one solution that works.

Michael Crum

Spotsylvania

Original article can be found HERE.

High court should shoot down handgun ban

2008-06-09T14:25:00.001-05:00

By Peter Bronson

A gun owner's glossary for understanding politics and the press:

Packing heat: Dick Tracy phrase that is found in 90 percent of stories about gun owners, but never used in the real world since 1950.

Assault rifles: An ordinary semi-automatic that politicians and mediacrats want to outlaw if it looks like a military full automatic - although it doesn't fire any faster than a common semi-automatic .22 varmint gun.

Gun nut: Anyone who owns anything more powerful than a Daisy BB gun.

The First Amendment: Sacred wisdom in the Bill of Rights that protects the freedom of the press.

The Second Amendment: A mistake that should be deleted, according to newspaper editorials that are protected by the First Amendment.

District of Columbia vs. Heller: The Supreme Court case that is giving night sweats to gun-banners. If 110 pages of arguments in March are a guide, five or six justices will decide this month that the Second Amendment still guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. Even handguns. Even in the District of Columbia.

"What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked.

Good question.

The D.C. ban outlaws all handguns. Other guns must be unloaded and locked. They cannot be carried from a gun store to a home, or even from room to room, the justices pointed out. So you can buy a gun in D.C., but you can't take it home.

Roberts asked how it could be constitutional to "totally ban the possession of the type of weapon that's most commonly used for self-defense ... that even as to long guns and shotguns, they have to be unloaded and disassembled or locked at all times, even presumably if someone is breaking into the home?"

Justice Antonin Scalia added: "I don't understand that ... you can, if you have time, when you hear somebody crawling in your - your bedroom window, you can run to your gun, unlock it, load it and then fire?"

The lawyer representing the D.C. City Council used a favorite argument of gun-banners: The Second Amendment was intended only for a militia.

Scalia replied: "But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons - that was the way militias were destroyed? The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

But the Second Amendment is not absolute, the D.C. lawyer argued. So, the justices asked, is it OK to ban books but not newspapers - because the First Amendment is not absolute?

The D.C. lawyer pointed out that machine guns can be banned. The justices replied that handguns are commonly used by citizens - i.e. the founders' "militia." Machine guns are not.

Justice David Souter wondered if a handgun ban can be justified by a high murder rate in D.C.

"All the more reason to allow a homeowner to have a handgun," Scalia replied. Bull's-eye.

For anyone who wants to find out how the Supreme Court works, or get a handle on the dynamics and thinking of the justices, the arguments are good reading. Go to http://tinyurl.com/334jc6.

Who knew that in 1942, the Supreme Court was asked if it was constitutional to own .30 caliber revolver, which is a pop gun today. The court said yes, and reaffirmed the Second Amendment.

That's what they will do again this year. If they don't, the Second Amendment will be shredded and the rest of our liberties will be less secure.

Most of the justices seem to understand what gun-phobics cannot seem to grasp: Sometimes 911 is no substitute for a .38. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

In the gun owner's glossary, all the arguments can be distilled into a few words:

The Second Amendment guarantees that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Peter Bronson is a columnist for The Enquirer. E-mail pbronson@enquirer.com

Original article can be found HERE.

Gun bans amount to wishful thinking

2008-05-22T08:04:00.001-05:00

By Dave Hicks, Dublin, VA

When is The Roanoke Times going to face up to the fact that gun bans do not have the results that the editors naively hope they will have ("Guns and council meetings don't mix," May 18 editorial)?

In recent years, nearly all the mass shootings in the U.S. have been in places where guns were banned. Killers, intent on making a statement by terrorizing and shooting a number of people, are drawn to these unarmed-victim zones. For the most part, they are not looking for a fight, but soft targets.

The ban doesn't stop criminals. It points them to their victims. In the meantime, these bans prevent law-abiding citizens from having the tools to defend themselves.

Repeatedly, the press has predicted carnage when a state relaxes its restrictions on carrying handguns by law-abiding citizens. It hasn't happened. Serious crime rates went down when the restriction went down.

On the other hand, in places like Washington, D.C., New York City and Chicago, the crime rates increase -- despite Draconian restrictions on guns. Why expect a criminal to obey a gun ban, while ignoring a spectrum of felony laws against the use of handguns in a crime?

Original posting can be found HERE.

The Sad Reality of what Anti-Gun Folks Believe

2008-05-20T08:52:00.001-05:00

Self-Defense 101

2008-04-10T07:59:00.001-05:00

By Emily L. Mullin
Published 3/31/2008 12:07:59 AM

With school violence on the rise and campus shootings becoming increasingly more common, some states are rethinking their gun laws. Instead of putting more useless restrictions on guns, many of these states are looking into the possibility of allowing people with valid permits to carry concealed weapons on school grounds.

Arizona State Senate Bill 1214, for example, would allow permit-holders of at least 21 years of age to carry concealed firearms at K-12 schools, community colleges and universities. Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Idaho, and Washington all have similar concealed-carry legislation pending.

Currently, Utah is the only state that allows guns at all public institutions of higher learning. In fact, state law makes it illegal for public colleges and universities to create their own restrictions regarding concealed carry. At least 11 institutions, including all nine public colleges in Utah and Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave, Virginia, permit concealed carry on their premises.

The University of Utah in Salt Lake City had banned firearms on campus until the state's supreme court struck down the ban in late 2006. Undaunted, the university is currently fighting in federal courts to reinstate the ban.

State law in Colorado leaves the decision up to institutions whether to allow concealed carry on their campuses. So far, the Colorado State University is the only public institution in the state to allow properly registered individuals to carry concealed weapons.

W. Scott Lewis, the media spokesperson for the non-profit organization Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, reported that since allowing concealed carry on campus, the aforementioned universities have not reported a single gun theft, incident of gun violence, or gun accident.

"There is no evidence to suggest that allowing concealed carry on college campuses will lead to more violence," said Lewis.

CRITICS WORRY THAT loosening restrictions on concealed carry on campuses would put guns in the hands of "just any college student," but this is not the case. Many students already own guns and use them responsibly but aren't allowed to bring them on campus.

In the 40 states that currently allow citizens to carry concealed weapons, individuals can take their handguns to shopping malls, grocery stores, office buildings, cinemas, banks, churches, and most public places. None of these states have experienced an increase in crimes or accidents involving guns since concealed carry became legal.

Obtaining a concealed carry permit isn't an easy process. Most states require individuals to go through extensive background checks, take and pass a concealed carry safety course and pay a steep permit fee. To obtain a concealed carry permit in Utah, one must be at least 21 years of age, have no criminal record -- everything from violent crime to the abuse of illegal substances is disqualifying -- and be mentally competent.

Most states require an individual to be at least 21 years of age to obtain a concealed carry permit. But in Indiana, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, and the Dakotas, the age requirement is only 18. What is most interesting about these states is that, according to FBI and DOJ crime stats for 2006, they all have very low crime rates. In fact, Maine, North and South Dakota, and New Hampshire are four out of the five low crime U.S. states, and Montana has the 10th lowest recorded crime rate in the country.

It is clear in the case of these states that more lenient concealed carry laws are not contributing to higher crime rates and more violence. Numerous studies conducted by the Journal of Legal Studies, Florida Department of Justice Statistics, Florida Department of State, Texas Department of Public Safety, and the U.S. Census Bureau have reconfirmed this.

Several sources report that concealed handgun license holders are about five times less likely than non-license holders to commit violent crimes.

ANTHONY RYAN, Colorado State University's SCCC representative, first became involved in the organization when researching concealed carry laws regarding colleges and universities. He is convinced that more guns do not cause more violence.

"It [concealed carry on campus] certainly has not produced the opposite effect as opponents believe it will. If it truly makes us safer or not, we don't know," he admitted. However, Ryan said that there is sufficient evidence to believe that allowing concealed weapons on campuses could "evens the odds" of survival in a tragic event, such as the shootings that took place at Virginia Polytechnic Institute or Northern Illinois University.

Tiffany Pickett is a student at Westminster College in Utah. She said she owns a firearm and has a concealed carry permit. Because Westminster is a private college, it does not have to follow state mandates. Westminster does not allow concealed carry on campus but that doesn't prevent Pickett from trying to change regulations at her school.

Pickett said she thinks that allowing concealed carry on campus will make people think twice about committing acts of violence. "At Virginia Tech, out of the 32 killed, 20 were over the age of 21 and may have qualified for a concealed weapon permit. If that many would have been carrying [a weapon] do you think 32 people would be dead right now? Probably not," she said.

Jim Manley, also a campus representative for SCCC, attends the University of Colorado at Boulder. He argues that gun bans offer the "illusion of safety," which people find "comforting" right up until "a tragedy like Virginia Tech shatters the illusion."

AND THEN WHAT? "The question going forward," said Manley, "is whether we will rebuild the illusion with more gun control, or endeavor to create schools that are actually safer by allowing law-abiding guns owners to carry on campus."

Advocates of concealed carry on campus aren't trying to re-create the Wild West. Rather, they insist that they are merely trying to make their colleges less vulnerable to violent rampages. "The perpetrators of mass shootings do not respect 'gun-free' zones any more than they respect human life," Manley reminded. So: "Banning concealed carry on campus effectively bans self-defense."

Emily L. Mullin is a journalism student at Ohio University and a campus reporter for the Athens News.

Officials dislike gun ban

2008-03-21T08:16:00.001-05:00

Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, four local law enforcement officials do not think gun bans deter crime.

"I think it's absolutely insane to think that we can take away a citizen's right to (have guns) and that is somehow going to make this country a safer place to live," said Martinsville Police Chief Mike Rogers. "We live in a very violent society with a lot of mean and crazy people who don't mind robbing and killing people, whether it's with their hands, a gun, a knife or a baseball bat."

Rogers said "I hope and pray" the Supreme Court will strike down the district's 32-year-old ban on handguns. The ban, which has been called the strictest in the nation, is being challenged by a Washington resident.

Supreme Court justices heard arguments in the case on Tuesday. It has drawn attention nationwide because the court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, since it was ratified in 1791, The Associated Press has reported.

If the court upholds the ban, it could lead to more areas attempting to impose similar bans, said Martinsville Commonwealth's Attorney Joan Ziglar.

Rogers said he opposes the ban because from his point of view, it only hurts law-abiding citizens who own handguns for protection or for sport shooting.

"Anyone who's fighting to eliminate guns, I don't care what kind they are, has obviously never experiened someone kicking down the front door of their home at 2 o'clock in the morning," he said. "Ain't no need getting out of bed and running to get the broom handle. If someone is breaking into your house, they don't have water pistols with them."

Outlawing handguns only makes things easier on criminals, Rogers said, because those who are intent on breaking the law won't worry about whether a gun is legal or not.

Henry County Sheriff Lane Perry agreed that criminals will find ways to get guns.

"The people who are going to participate in crimes, they're not going to worry about your restrictions for access," Perry said. "They're going to get what they want."

He said that when localities begin doing things such as banning handguns, it makes it difficult for residents to know whether they are abiding by the law from one place to another. For instance, his office often receives calls from people wondering whether their concealed weapons are allowed in other areas, he said.

"It needs to be a consistent regulation across the board," Perry said.

He added that whatever the court decides, he will continue to stress the importance of keeping guns safeguarded and out of reach of children.

Two local prosecutors said they expect the court to strike down the handgun ban.

"I think the court will be pro Second Amendment" and strike the ban, Ziglar said.

Randy Smith, assistant commonwealth's attorney in Henry County, agreed that he expects the court will strike the handgun ban.

The court may say some regulation of handguns is possible, "but a total ban without exception is probably not going to stand up," Smith said.

For instance, he said the First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. "Also, there are restrictions on the First Amendment in terms of place, time" and other factors, he said.

In Virginia, localities cannot enact a ban such as that in Washington, D.C., Smith said. However, the state code bans certain weapons, such as some assault rifles, and it has more regulations on firearms than many people imagine, he said.

For instance, mufflers and silencers must be registered, illegal aliens and those who have been acquitted of a charge by reason of insanity cannot have firearms, machine guns must be registered and it is illegal to hunt when under the influence of drugs or alcohol, Smith said.

By banning guns, he said, it means "criminals have guns and good people don't have guns." He said Great Britain, which bans guns, has one of the highest rates of violent crimes in the world.

"Home invasions are commonplace" because criminals know residents are not armed to protect themselves, he added.

Ziglar said she is torn on the issue.

On one hand, "I believe in the Constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms. At the same time, I believe people who are property owners in neighborhoods bombarded by gunfire ... deserve to have a neighborhood that is safe to live in," she said. "In an effort to have safe neighborhoods you have to have a balance in constitutional rights."

If Washington, D.C., overstepped that balance with its ban, the court will advise it of that, she said.

Ziglar is not concerned about law-abiding people having guns.

"Most law-abiding citizens do have guns and don't cause any problems with guns. They don't shoot back when there are drive-by shootings and they shoot the wrong house. They run for cover," she said.

But criminals are not going to follow the law, so making the law more strict will not affect the people it is designed to target, Ziglar added.

Both Rogers and Perry said they will be watching for the court's decision.

"I think either way, it's going to have an impact on citizen safety," Rogers said.

Original article can be found HERE.

Constitution, not love of guns, drives DC gun ban case

2008-03-19T16:26:00.001-05:00

By STEPHEN MANNING / Associated Press

Robert Levy has never owned a handgun and has no burning desire to own one now. He hasn't been a Washington resident since he was a teen in the 1950s.

But for six years, the wealthy attorney has carefully plotted a legal challenge to Washington's strict ban on handgun ownership, a potentially historic case now before the Supreme Court. The Florida resident helped hand-pick the plaintiffs involved and is paying the legal fees himself.

Why all the effort? Levy says he is driven to defend constitutional rights he believes are being trampled by the District of Columbia's strict ban on private ownership of handguns.

"I believe in the written Constitution and that the text ought to be interpreted the way it was meant to be," Levy said.

Levy, 66, didn't exactly try to keep his role secret as he and a small group of other lawyers crafted the case and shepherded it through the federal courts. He writes frequently about gun rights, stating a few years ago that Americans "deserve a foursquare pronouncement from the nation's highest court about the meaning of the Second Amendment." The high court hasn't directly ruled on gun rights in roughly 70 years.

And Levy freely acknowledges the case is manufactured, not one that bubbled up by chance from the district's steady flow of criminal cases involving guns. He wanted presentable plaintiffs to make a case for gun rights, not criminals.

"We didn't want crack heads and bank robbers to be poster boys for the Second Amendment," he said.

A former businessman who made millions in money management before going to law school at age 50, Levy is an attorney with the libertarian Cato Institute, though he says the handgun case is independent of his work there. He grew up in Washington and later lived in Maryland, but has since moved to Naples, Fla.

Washington's law was passed in 1976 in response to a spike in gun violence. But the city's murder rate was persistently high during much of the ban's existence, peaking at 479 in 1991 at the height of the crack epidemic. The rate has since plummeted but remains one of the highest in the nation.

Gun rights groups have long fought against the law, and Congress has tried several times to undercut it. But the case that made it to the high court has a more libertarian bent.

In fact, Levy sparred early on with the National Rifle Association, which feared the makeup of the Supreme Court at the time could lead to more restrictions on guns, not fewer. But the high court has since shifted to the right with appointments by President Bush, and Levy said he and the NRA have made peace.

Levy long considered a legal challenge to the law, which city officials say is based on the idea that the Second Amendment protects the collective right of states to organize militias, not the right of individuals to own guns. Most courts and legal scholars long agreed with that view. But around 2002, several factors converged that convinced Levy he had his chance.

First, liberal legal scholars like Harvard's Laurence Tribe began to argue that the Second Amendment did protect individual rights. In 2001, a federal appellate court made the same conclusion, but still upheld the Texas law on transportation of firearms. Levy was also encouraged when the Justice Department under then Attorney General John Ashcroft supported individual rights in the same case.

Along with two other lawyers, including Alan Gura, who will argue the case in front of the Supreme Court, Levy tried to find plaintiffs to make his case. Through word of mouth, the group of lawyers sought out a diverse group, racially, economically and in age. One was a gay man, another a black woman who felt threatened by drug dealers, another a white security guard.

Only one plaintiff remains: Dick Heller, a security guard who applied for a handgun license in 2003 and was rejected under the district's handgun ban. The lower federal courts, while striking down the law, concluded only Heller was harmed by the city's law.

Heller says a legal group he belongs to, the Washington-based United States Bill of Rights Foundation, was planning its own challenge to the law when they learned Levy was looking for plaintiffs. Heller said his motivation was a 1997 case in which he said a homeowner was prosecuted after shooting a burglar who broke in.

"Any citizen can be drinking his coffee, eating his bagel on a Saturday morning and have his life threatened," said Heller, who owns three guns that he stores outside of Washington.

Levy won't say how much he is spending on the case, only that it is expensive. But he adds that what he pays Gura "probably violates the minimum wage laws." He likes his chances, given the Supreme Court's makeup and lower court rulings on the issue of individual rights. And while defenders of the ban say it saves lives, Levy believes it strips citizens of their right to self protection.

"The worst possible solution is the one we have, where anybody who is a bad guy can get a gun any time they want, but the good people who want to defend themselves can't get one without breaking the law," he said.

Original article can be found HERE.

Letter: Firearms are used to protect

2008-03-12T07:03:00.001-05:00

By Lyndsay George

One company connected to two separate campus shootings. Coincidence? To some people, yes, but let's think about this for a minute.

The company, TGSCOM, sells 40,000 different products, 20 percent of which are firearms (not necessarily handguns).

It also advertises about 100 other online dealers and who knows how many different products they sell. Putting that all together, do you really think it's still a coincidence? Having that many people tied to one company means you are bound to get some sort of connection.

And what if the firearm that Seung-Hui Cho got and the accessories that Steven Kazmierczak got were purchased from Wal-Mart or Dick's Sporting Goods? It'd be the same thing � a large company that persists throughout the U.S.

But what's the point of making this connection at all? Aren't people really concerned about the laws behind purchasing firearms and their accessories?

First is the issue of mental illnesses. We've learned that Kazmierczak and Cho did have mental concerns. I agree with many people, pro- and anti-gun alike, that there should be laws against allowing people with a serious mental illness to purchase guns.

There are several bills in legislation right now to address such issues so that incidents like this can hopefully be prevented, and not just on campuses.

Second is the issue of the high capacity magazines. There's legislation in Illinois to put a ban on high capacity magazines (those that hold more than 10 rounds). This is a non-issue. You do not need to have high capacity magazines in order to shoot more things.

Cho didn't need them. You can do just about the same amount of damage with 10 round magazines as with 33 round magazines; it's called reloading. Maybe in the time Cho was reloading, someone could have even gotten off a shot and ended that tragedy � we'll never know.

Gun control advocates are only inhibiting the people who abide by the law. Criminals don't care if they break the law by carrying a gun when they shouldn't be, carrying concealed without a license, or buying a gun on the streets; they're criminals and they break the law. The only thing that more laws will do is inhibit the law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves from the law-breaking criminals.

It's not about where the guns come from or how many rounds a person can fire before having to reload. As Eric Thompson from TGSCOM said, "You realize the tool itself isn't dangerous, it's the person using it who can be dangerous."

Think about that next time you or your friends say you're against guns. Firearms are used to protect much more than they are used to hurt. People who legally own and use guns do so to protect themselves and their families, not to hurt others.

Lyndsay George
sophomore, biology

Original article can be found HERE.

Bush Administration to Propose New Rule Regarding Right-to-Carry in National Parks

2008-02-22T14:22:00.001-05:00

NRA-ILA
Friday, February 22, 2008

Fairfax, Va. - At the request of the Bush Administration and 51 members of the United States Senate led by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID), the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prohibition of firearms on agency land will be revised in the following weeks. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is leading the effort to amend the existing policy regarding the carrying and transportation of firearms in National Parks and wildlife refuges.

"Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's National Parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, NRA chief lobbyist. "Under this proposal, federal parks and wildlife refuges will mirror the state firearm laws for state parks. This is an important step in the right direction."

These new regulations, when finalized, will provide uniformity across our nation's federal lands and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that governed different lands managed by different federal agencies. In the past, only Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands allowed the carrying of firearms, while National Park lands did not.

The current regulations on possession, carry or transportation of loaded or uncased firearms in national parks were proposed in 1982 and finalized in 1983. Similar restrictions apply in national wildlife refuges. The NRA believes it is time to amend those regulations to reflect the changed legal situation with respect to state laws on carrying firearms.

The effect of these now-outdated regulations on people who carry firearms for self-protection was far from the forefront at the time these regulations were adopted. As of the end of 1982, only six states routinely allowed citizens to carry handguns for self-defense. Currently, 48 states have a process for issuance of licenses or permits to allow law-abiding citizens to legally carry firearms for self-defense.

The move for regulatory change by the Administration will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners who wish to transport and carry firearms for lawful purposes in most National Park lands and will make the laws consistent with state law where these lands are located. Fifty-one U.S. Senators from both parties sent a letter to the Department of Interior late last year supporting the move to render state firearms laws applicable to National Park lands.

"These changes will respect the Second Amendment rights of honest citizens, and we look forward to the issuance of a final rule this year," concluded Cox.

Original article can be found HERE.

Senate passes bill allowing concealed handguns in restaurants

2008-02-13T14:28:00.001-05:00

Associated Press - February 12, 2008 2:35 PM ET

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - The Senate passed a bill that would allow people to carry concealed handguns in restaurants or clubs, but would prohibit them from drinking alcohol on the premises.

The Senate voted 24-15 on Tuesday in favor of Republican Senator Emmett Hanger's bill, which makes it a misdemeanor for those carrying a concealed handgun to drink alcohol at such venues.

Current law allows gun owners to bring their weapons into a restaurant or club only if they are visible, and only if the business owner has not prohibited it.

Under the legislation, those carrying concealed handguns into restaurants or clubs would be required to inform an employee that they have a weapon.

Democratic Senator Richard Saslaw objected to the measure, saying he has heard from many restaurateurs who oppose the legislation.

Original article can be found HERE.

Historic examples show why we arm

2008-01-30T08:31:00.001-05:00

By Max Roper, Springfield

In answer to John Saxton's letter of Jan. 11, where he said, "Reduce weapons, reduce killings," I would like to take exception to his comments. His closing statement was, "some of us have a memory"! Perhaps I can improve that memory!

I think the average American should realize the reason our Founding Fathers were smart enough to write the Second Amendment to our Constitution.In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Between 1929 and 1953, nearly 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Between 1915 and 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938, and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews, and others who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Fifty-six million defenseless people were exterminated in the 20th century due to their inability to defend themselves! This can happen in any country where the citizens yield to a hairbrained idea such as gun control, for it is true, "Registration does lead to confiscation!"

Little more than a year ago, gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law, to surrender 640,381 personal firearms so the government could destroy them. This program cost Australian taxpayers more than $500 million. It may eventually cost more than money!

During the first year, Australian homicides were up 3.2 percent; assaults were up 8.6 percent and armed robberies were up 44 percent!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms were up 300 percent. Law abiding citizens turned in their firearms, while criminals who still possess their guns, did not!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery, this has increased drastically in the past few months, since criminals are now guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

During WWII, the Japanese decided not to invade American, because they knew most Americans were armed!

Establishments that post signs stating, "No guns allowed," only give assurance to the criminal that they will not be harmed while they are doing their dastardly deeds!

With guns, we are citizens! Without them, we are "subjects."

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property! Unfortunately, gun control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Original article can be found HERE.

VCDL 2008 Legislation Tracking Tool

2008-01-22T09:10:00.001-05:00

The Virginia Citizens Defense League has an awesome tool for tracking the status of gun related bills in Virginia. It also includes a VERY EASY way to write to comities that are hearing the bills. You can look through the list of bills and then click on the "Email This Committee" link. Enter your basic information and message, and the rest is done for you. You don't have to look up who is on the committee and figure out their addresses and all that hassle like the old days. It routs the message to those that should get it.

Here is the link: http://www.vcdl.org/static/2008leg.html

Don't surrender your weapons

2008-01-05T15:47:00.001-05:00

By Jim Ludington

Ludington, who lives in Roanoke, is the executive director of Arise America Ministries.

After the Virginia Tech shootings, and again after the Omaha mall shootings, liberals dominated the newspapers and TV talk shows with demands for stricter gun control. More rational voices tried to explain that you can't stop the criminal-minded (or criminally insane) from getting and using weapons, but liberals in lock step shouted all the louder.

Virginia Tech, like most American campuses, has strict rules preventing even those with legitimate concealed-carry permits from bringing guns on campus. "After all," they say, "guns are scary, and who wants to sit in a classroom thinking there's a law-abiding man or woman nearby with -- good heavens -- a loaded gun in their backpack?"

Now consider the recent shootings in Colorado. A deranged young man with a grudge against a school that kicked him out three years ago wants revenge. He has not, like the Virginia Tech shooter, been diagnosed with mental or emotional problems. In fact, his entire known criminal record consists of one traffic ticket issued earlier this year. He could have legally purchased a gun in any state in the United States, in spite of liberal politicians and gun control laws.

He pulled a handgun after being told he couldn't spend the night at the Youth With a Mission missionary training school and killed two, wounding two more. These folks were caught off guard -- no one could have expected a deadly attack on a school that simply trains young people for ministry abroad.

But immediately upon hearing the news, New Life Church in nearby Colorado Springs took action. They brought in armed security guards. No one suspected a killer was headed their way, but, just in case, they employed the use of armed security guards. Can any of us regular church members imagine armed security guards outside the doors of our church on Sunday morning? No, but thanks to the wisdom of the pastor and staff of New Life Church, armed guards were recruited to stand watch. (Notice the emphasis here: an armed killer is on the loose, and a church decides to employ armed guards. Amazing.)

Also amazing is the fact that the same deranged killer did come to the church just as a Sunday morning service was ending. He took a high-powered rifle out of the trunk of his car, opened fire in the parking lot and proceeded toward the church sanctuary.

One church member saw the gunman take out the rifle and begin firing. He recognized the firing stance, one that he had been taught in the military. Yet he remained hunkered down in his vehicle and "prayed for the gunman." Excuse me, but I'm a born-again, Bible-believing Christian, and I've spent a few years studying the word of God. I know that prayer is an effective tool. But I've also read Ecclesiastes, Chapter 3: There is a time to heal, and there is a time to kill. While the man in the car, who was presumably unarmed, prayed, the shooter went about his business.

Fortunately, the church staff had read Ecclesiastes as well, and had prepared in advance. Hearing the first rounds fired, an armed female guard headed toward the sound of the shots. She met the gunman in the main hallway, assessed the situation and shot him. He never made it more than 50 feet inside the church. Keep in mind that this man had nearly a thousand rounds of ammunition. The pastor said she may have "saved over 100 lives."

She may have saved more than 100 lives. Would those family members who lost loved ones at Virginia Tech please consider what might have happened if a courageous young lady or young man like this had been taking classes at Virginia Tech on April 16 and had had enough grit (and an accurate sense of our Constitution) to ignore the laws that forbade guns on campus? Many of those students and teachers may have been spared.

What will it take before we come to a point where people with common sense take a stand? When will we demand the right to protect ourselves and our loved ones? We must get beyond the mindless blather of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and other liberals who demand (ultimately) that we surrender our weapons and stand helpless before pathological killers like Seung-Hui Cho in Blacksburg, Robert Hawkins in Omaha, Mathew Murray in Colorado Springs and so many others.

As for me and my house, we will be armed.

Original article can be found HERE.

A Couple Bills to Respond To

2007-12-22T11:12:00.001-05:00

SB 32 Control of firearms; libraries.

Summary as introduced:
Control of firearms; libraries. Provides that localities may adopt an ordinance that prohibits firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof in libraries that are owned or operated by the locality.

Full text:
12/19/07 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087888256

Status:
12/19/07 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087888256
12/19/07 Senate: Referred to Committee on Local Government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SB 33 Control of firearms;

Summary as introduced:
Control of firearms; outdoor theaters, cabarets, carnivals, and fairs. Provides that localities may adopt an ordinance that prohibits firearms, ammunition, or components or combinations thereof at outdoor theaters, cabarets, carnivals, and fairs at which 500 or more persons are authorized to lawfully attend.

Full text:
12/19/07 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087890256

Status:
12/19/07 Senate: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087890256
12/19/07 Senate: Referred to Committee on Local Government

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HB 136 School; definition thereof for purposes of prohibiting weapons on school grounds.

Summary as introduced:
Definition of "school" for the purposes of prohibiting weapons on school grounds. Defines "school" for the purposes of prohibiting weapons on school grounds as any public school from kindergarten through grade 12 operated under the authority of any locality within the Commonwealth, or any private or religious school that offers instruction at any level or grade from kindergarten through grade 12. Currently the definition is limited to any elementary, middle, or secondary school.

Full text:
12/20/07 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087723676

Status:
12/20/07 House: Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/09/08 087723676
12/20/07 House: Committee Referral Pending

A Hero Among Us

2007-12-17T08:17:00.001-05:00

10 December, 2007 | joanie-f
Posted on 12/10/2007 8:56:33 PM PST by joanie-f

Since the tragic shootings yesterday at the two churches in Colorado I have been intrigued by the story of Jeanne Assam, the volunteer civilian security guard who took down the shooter at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

I watched an online interview with her – her first since the shootings – this afternoon, and came away with the knowledge that standing before me was a genuine modern American hero ... and a true soldier of God.

Many in the media will downplay her heroism, for reasons that are obvious to those of us who are school in their anti-liberty, anti-Second Amendment, anti-Christian bias. But be not mistaken: Jeanne Assam is indeed an American hero.

Assam, and the other dozen or so civilian security personnel at New Life Church, are all members of the New Life congregation, about half of whom are armed, and all of whom have undergone background checks, have successfully completed gun safety courses, and have CCW permits. They all volunteer because, as worshippers, they have a 'sense of ownership' at New Life. It is as if they are protecting their own home and family from intruders.

Senior Pastor at New Life, Brady Boyd, stated that Assam came to his office at 7:30 Sunday morning and informed him about the earlier shooting incident in Arvada. She strongly suggested additional security for the day's services at New Life. Pastor Boyd credits Assam for the heightened security, and for thus preventing significantly more bloodshed.

When twenty-three-year-old Matthew Murray began shooting in the parking lot of the New Life Church a few hours later, all chaos broke loose. Two sisters, Stephanie Works, 18, and Rachael Works, 16, were killed as they were getting into their van following the early service. Their father, David Works, 51, suffered two gunshot wounds -- one to the abdomen and one to the groin -- and is listed in fair condition at a local hospital.

Murray wore body armor, and was reportedly equipped with sufficient firepower (some accounts report that he was carrying as many as five hundred rounds) to bring down hundreds of people. For those who may believe that this estimate is inflated, consider the fact that reports indicate that approximately seven thousand people were tightly packed within and just outside the church at the time, and each round of Murray's rifle ammo, if properly placed, might certainly have been capable of taking down several people. The potentiality of hundreds of victims was not at all out of the realm of possibility.

During her interview today, Jeanne Assam stated that she attends one of the morning services and then volunteers as a guard during a later service. She has had previous law enforcement experience, has had to draw her weapon countless times in tense situations related to her law enforcement experience, but has never shot anyone before.

I was deeply impressed by her humility, her quiet intelligence, and her Christian outlook. At the outset of her comments she stated, 'I want to extend my sympathy to the families of the victims, and of the gunman. And I mean that very sincerely.'

In describing yesterday's sequence of events at New Life Church she reflected:

The shots were so loud that I thought he was inside. But he wasn't even inside yet, he was just entering the church. There was chaos as the parishioners ran in all directions.

I just knew what I had to do. It seemed like it was me, the gunman, and God.

I saw him coming through the doors and I took cover. I came out of cover and identified myself, engaged him and took him down. I knew that I could not let this man harm any more people. I said, 'God, this is you.' I asked Him to be with me and He never left my side.

I want to do His will and not my will. Where I was weak, God made me strong. He filled me, He guided me, He protected me, and many other people.

Assam fired off about a dozen shots, three of which managed to circumvent Murray's body armor, and all of which were fired while he was moving in her direction.

When she was asked whether the previous day's tragedy had prevented her from getting a good night's sleep on Sunday night, she replied that she hadn't slept a wink.

Assam is unmarried, and currently works for Messenger International, a Christian ministry organization. In connection with her affiliation there, she has found herself at a crossroads in her life and has been seeking to know God's will for her ... asking Him to provide direction and guidance. In an effort to clear her mind in that endeavor, she had been fasting for three days, with the support of other members of the ministry. Sunday was the third day of that fast, and she was in a somewhat weakened state as a result.

Toward the end of the interview, she was asked, 'What was in your mind when he went down?' and she responded:

'How awesome and powerful God is.'

She continued ... 'I've had some quiet time with God and have had a lot of people pray with me. I'm even more in awe of Him than I was before.'

It is people like Jeanne Assam -- armed, law-abiding citizens in all walks of life -- church members, teachers, students, pilots, factory workers, white-collar workers, etc. -- who will prevent such future shedding of innocent blood. Law enforcement generally arrives long after such tragedies occur – such as occurred in the recent shooting at the Omaha mall, where the killer accomplished his mission in less than five minutes, and the police didn't arrive until the mall was awash in innocent blood.

The Second Amendment proved its value this weekend when a legally armed, courageous, cool-headed American citizen saved the lives of many of her countrymen.

God preserve the Second Amendment. And God bless Jeanne Assam.

~ joanie

Original article can be found HERE.

No need for more gun laws

2007-11-10T22:53:00.001-05:00

By Ken Lewis

In reply to Jo-Ann Mahony's Oct. 24 letter, "Why aren't we controlling guns?" I and others who believe in the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights are consistently amazed how the "feel good" left-wing liberals and press conveniently ignore parts of the aforementioned documents that do not agree with their own beliefs. The facts are there are thousands of gun laws on the books as it is. The shooter at Virginia Tech broke many of them.

If laws would stop him, why did it occur? Don't blame an inanimate object. Where concealed weapons are allowed, violence, murder and the crime rate have drastically been reduced. If one person had been armed, or there had been the threat of an armed person, possibly this tragedy would not have occurred.

Why not look to individual responsibility and morals as the cause? Why not publish the fact that hundreds of attacks are thwarted by armed citizens?

The blame at Tech and other places can be placed squarely on our liberal "anything goes" attitude. At Tech the young man had been proven to have severe problems, but yet he was permitted to go free. Heaven forbid we should tell him he was wrong. As long as we bend over to be politically correct, we'll continue to have these problems.

I don't try to limit Mahony's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Why must she conveniently want to limit my Second Amendment rights?

Original article can be found HERE.

Speaker endorses concealed weapons

2007-10-30T07:24:00.001-05:00

By Caroline Black, CT University Editor

While the audience milled around in the entryway with exposed guns hanging from holsters in their khakis, Philip Van Cleave took the stage in Litton Reaves last night to speak on behalf of the rights of gun owners to carry their weapons concealed on campus.

Van Cleave is the president of the Virginia Citizen's Defense League (VCDL) and his lecture, Higher Education and Lawful Concealed Carry: How Much is Your Life Worth?, was hosted last night by the Libertarians at Virginia Tech.

Concealed carry is a legal authorization for anyone eligible to own a handgun or other weapon to be able to carry that weapon in a concealed, non-visible manner. Currently, it is against the university policy for anyone to carry a concealed weapon on campus.

Van Cleave opened his presentation last night in fr ont of a giant screen on which was projected a PowerPoint opening with the words, "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

That sentiment seemed to be echoed throughout his presentation, as Van Cleave made several more allusions and references that highlighted his apparent dissatisfaction with the performance of the police when it comes to providing safety to citizens. He summed up his thoughts on police protection with the phrase, "I'm responsible for my safety, the police will be my backup, but I'll protect myself."

Making his first specific reference to Tech, Van Cleave asked "How many students are here? How many police, how many square miles? It may be too late, and that is the significance of being able to defend yourself."

He took issue with university police, calling the concept a "conflict of interest" because with the administration as their bosses, university police can be told to try and keep crime statistics quiet by the people who "sign their paychecks."

Van Cleave governed his speech last night around a PowerPoint presentation that made an explosive metaphor of his views of gun control. Modeling gun control as a "bomb," the bureaucratic mindset as the "fuse," and the criminal mindset as the "flame," he speculated that when all of those elements come together, that is when bad situations occur, and the right to carry concealed weapons on campus is not the real problem.

He argued that students were being labeled as unstable or unreliable, and that gun control advocates don't believe that students are mature enough to handle the right to carry concealed weapons on campus. However, Van Cleave explained, students over 21 who are able to drive, drink, vote and serve their country should not be considered incapable of handling the responsibility of a concealed weapon.

Of the alert systems, Van Cleave said, "Basically, (by restricting the right to concealed carry on campus) the government is telling me that if these things fail, I'll die."

He was also of the opinion that being able to carry guns, even concealed, is actually a deterrent to crime, saying that there is a certain look or attitude that comes with carrying a concealed weapon that can alert potential attackers or criminals to the fact that someone they may be targeting can defend themselves, and they will be less likely to commit an act of aggression.

His presentation was peppered with personal stories and anecdotes in which just the presence of guns have prevented dangerous crimes, including a friend who was in a bank openly carrying a gun in a holster when a man entered wearing a ski mask, noticed the friend's exposed weapon, and hurriedly left the bank.

During a question and answer session in which the audience could write their questions on index cards, which were filtered by organizers, most questions seemed to be about gun rights that are already established.

One question was asked about whether or not Tech students had the right to carry weapons in a visible manner, to which one audience member loudly responded, "Only once!" to open laughter.

Van Cleave summarized his opinion that the right to conceal carry guns on campus would benefit students with one of his closing statements.

"(Seung-Hui) Cho had planned to kill himself when police showed up. If someone else had displayed force, would he have done the same thing? I believe he would."

Original article can be found HERE.

Letter: Protesting for the right to carry concealed weapons

2007-10-19T05:06:00.001-05:00

By Ken Stanton, graduate student, engineering education

Many of us look back on tragedies and wonder how they could have been prevented.

While no one can change the outcomes of past events, everyone should have the opportunity to prepare for future circumstances.

Self-defense is a right and a natural instinct of human beings, and advanced training can enhance one's ability greatly. However, in some situations weapons can become the last resort and only way to protect one's life, and police certainly cannot be everywhere all the time.

While controversial, carrying a handgun for personal protection is a right that many are trained for and comfortable with, and many want to exercise that right. However, students and faculty are arguably the most deprived of this right, as even public institutions are allowed to establish policies that restrict them from carrying, even with their state-issued concealed handgun permits.

During the week of Oct. 22 to 26, some Virginia Tech students and faculty members will peacefully protest these policies, along with others from across the nation. Participants will wear empty gun holsters, with neither weapons nor anything resembling a weapon, and will go about their days normally. The idea of this passive protest is to help you imagine your colleagues carrying weapons on a daily basis, and for you to see that this does not change their behavior nor does it change who they are. As well, participants will show their stances on the issue to administrators, faculty, students and any onlookers.

If you are concerned with how carrying weapons works, please read on. First, the state of Virginia grants permits to only those age 21 and older. The permit granted is a concealed handgun permit (CHP) and is only obtained after taking an educational course, passing a written test, passing extensive background checks and participating in hands-on training for the use of a firearm as a self-protection device. Next, this permit is for carrying concealed. Keeping a weapon out of sight keeps it from distracting others, but it also prevents potential attackers from identifying those who may stop them.

Third, it is illegal to carry when intoxicated, which many are concerned about on a campus where alcohol is prevalent. Finally, many advocates of this are willing to listen and debate the concerns of others, so please be respectful whatever your view may be. If you want more information about how to join in the protest, you can visit www.ConcealedCampus.com, check out the Facebook event "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Empty Holster Protest," or ask a participant.

If you want to get involved in the debate, please check out Facebook groups, www.100ideasva.com, or come to the presentation on Monday, Oct. 29 at 7p.m. in Litton Reaves 1670. Also, feel free to engage your colleagues in discourse, but please do not verbally attack participants — they may save your life some day.

Original article can be found HERE.

Student Group Launches 'Empty Holster' Protest

2007-10-18T17:49:00.001-05:00

(CNSNews.com) - College students who want to carry concealed weapons on campus will instead carry empty holsters next week.

The National Collegiate Empty Holster Protest is aimed at state laws and campus policies that "stack the odds in favor of armed killers" by disarming law-abiding citizens who are licensed to carry concealed weapons in most other places.

The grassroots group Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) noted that in the last twenty years, most of the mass shootings in America -- from the massacre at a Luby's cafeteria in Texas to the Columbine High School shootings -- have happened in "gun free zones."

"Labeling an area 'gun free' may make some people feel safer, but as the shootings at Virginia Tech taught us, feeling safe and being safe are not the same thing," SCCC said in a news release on Wednesday.

The group noted that the Virginia Tech "madman" had an advantage over his victims: "He wasn't concerned with following the rules."

The group argues that licensed gun owners pose little threat to college campuses. "While opponents may argue that guns have no place in institutions of higher learning, SCCC contends that it is the threat of uncontested, execution-style massacre that has no place in America's colleges."

The Empty Holster Protest, taking place Oct. 22-26, will be peaceful and "limited" to students wearing empty holsters, organizers said.

"The significance of the empty holsters is to symbolize that students, faculty, and guests are left defenseless on college campuses; therefore, no protestor will carry anything resembling a firearm in his or her holster," the group said on its Web site.

"Protestors will not carry signs or banners, and nobody will make any attempt to disturb the peace. Protestors will simply go about their daily routines while wearing holsters which, in both appearance and function, differ only slightly from cell phone holsters."

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus describes itself as a "national, non-partisan, grassroots organization comprised of college students, parents, and concerned citizens who believe that holders of concealed handgun licenses should enjoy the same rights on college campuses that current laws afford them virtually everywhere else."

Original article can be found HERE.

Should information about concealed weapon permit holders be kept private?

2007-10-09T09:15:00.001-05:00

From WDBJ7.com

Back in March, in an effort to demonstrate access to public records, the Roanoke Times printed the names and addresses of every concealed weapons permit holder in Virginia. Now a new proposal would keep the public from using the Freedom of Information Act to access identifying information about permit holders.

"A lot of the folks who were upset had gotten the permit to protect themselves from a stalker, from an ex-boyfriend, or girlfriend that was violent towards them," says Delegate Morgan Griffith. The last thing they wanted was their gun carry status and address printed for everyone to see. But even if the Roanoke Times had not printed the list, it was still available to any citizen who submitted a FOIA request to get it.

A subcommittee of the Freedom of Information Advisory Council is recommending personal identifiable information of concealed carry holders be kept private. Under their proposal, folks could request statistical information, like what percentage of the population in the Roanoke Valley has a concealed gun permit.

Law enforcement could still access the complete data for their jobs. The proposal must be approved by the General Assembly before it becomes law.

It is important to note that state police did not do anything wrong when they released the concealed carry list to the newspaper. They were just following the law.

Original Article can be found HERE.

Give schools a choice to be tougher targets

2007-09-27T20:40:00.001-05:00

— At issue: A state bill to allow trained adults the choice to carry a concealed firearm at school.

— Our view: Such adults have excellent safety records, while "gun-free zones" offer only the illusion of safety.

What did the past year's Virginia Tech killings, the massacre in an Amish schoolhouse and the school murder in Bailey, Colo., all have in common?

Each was committed by an armed adult, and each might have been halted or discouraged if a teacher had access to a firearm, or at least the choice.

But most American schools are easy targets for psychopaths. Giving Michigan school staffs a chance to defend their students and themselves — a choice they'd be free to ignore — is the purpose of a House bill introduced last week. We understand Michigan residents' feelings about the issue of guns in schools, but facts indicate the proposal by State Rep. David Agema, R-Grandville, is not only safe but overdue.

Utah passed a similar law in 1996 (upheld in 2003), and has seen zero accidents — and zero shootings. The few teachers who are armed keep their guns concealed, and don't advertise the fact. "If it came to protecting myself and protecting my kids, it would stop in my classroom," Natalie Aposhian, a Brighton, Utah, math teacher who is armed, said of any attack. "It wouldn't be going from class to class to class and randomly shooting children."

The view is not one typically expressed in stories. One headline ("Reading, writing, arithmetic … and revolvers?") falsely implied that guns would become a classroom fixture. ABC News' headline, "Mich. Lawmaker Wants to Arm Educators," gave the incorrect impression that teachers would have no say. Grand Rapids Superintendent Bernard Taylor ignored school massacres committed by adults when he said: "It hurts to hear we've come to this, that we're so afraid of children that we think we need to be armed to work with them."

But feelings don't match facts. House Bill 5162 would not "arm educators." It would give school staff who pass permit training and background checks the option to carry a concealed weapon, and only if their superintendent approved. Most teachers would not choose that option and, in many districts, superintendents such as Taylor would never allow any staff member to possess a firearm.

Yet in a 1997 shooting in Pearl, Miss., assistant principal Joel Myrick used his .45-caliber pistol to stop a 16-year-old who had shot nine students, two fatally. Sadly, some were shot while Myrick had to run to his car parked 1,000 feet from the school to retrieve his gun before he could run back and use it. In 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law, an adult killed a professor and a student and wounded three classmates before two college students retrieved their firearms and stopped the killer.

These cases disprove the argument that, in a school, civilians are incapable of making good decisions. Far from it, we're not aware of any cases anywhere in the U.S. in which a concealed carry permit holder's gun was misfired inside a school.

Another faulty objection is that a student might take away a teacher's gun and begin a rampage. This ignores the fact that, right now, rampaging students could more easily obtain and sneak guns into schools on their own. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold didn't need a teacher's gun at Columbine, Colo. Nor did Cho Seung-hui at Virginia Tech, Michael Carneal at West Paducah, Ky.; Jeff Weise at Red Lake, Minn.; Kip Kinkel at Springfield, Ore.; Robert Steinhaeuser in Erfurt, Germany; Evan Ramsey in Bethel, Alaska; Kenneth Bartley Jr. in Jacksboro, Tenn.; or any of the literally dozens of other school shootings.

Gun-free zones create an illusion of safety. They actually guarantee that nobody can fight back. That is why attacks occur at schools, not at gun shows. Michigan should allow trained, law-abiding adults a chance to protect themselves and our children. Rep. Agema offers teachers who want that a chance. Critics should give his bill the same consideration.

Original article can be found HERE.

Letter: Gun violence on campus

2007-09-27T19:56:00.001-05:00

By Patrick MacCormac

Is anyone else disgusted by how the article "Governor Kaine enacts review panel's proposals" (CT, Sept. 21) completely papers over any controversy?

The article calls groups such as The Million Mom March gun violence prevention groups, which is a quite the red herring (who is pro-gun violence?) because they're better known for their gun control platform.

While I agree 100 percent with adding a mental stability aspect to the background check, Kaine has yet to announce how this will be carried out.

The scary thing with adding background checks is that the laws can be written to make guns very difficult to obtain for law-abiding citizens, not just insane people. With extreme gun control groups backing these changes, I don't have high hopes that the laws will be written fairly.

Equally offensive was the quote from the Virginia Million Mom March president that "students on Virginia's campuses should be assured that they are learning in safe, secure environments," referring to banning guns on campuses. Guess what? Guns were already illegal on Virginia Tech's campus on April 16.

Incidentally, murder was illegal too, but those laws did nothing to stop the massacre, and writing more of the same laws would be equally useless. The only way to stop such unstable individuals once they begin their rampage is to meet force with force.

While I understand the uneasiness about allowing concealed weapons on campus, look at colleges in Utah. Concealed carry is allowed on all college campuses there, and they've never had a school shooting. Coincidence? Possibly. Also important, though, is the fact that Utah campuses have not turned into a complete war-zone, like many gun-control advocates seem to believe would happen if concealed weapons were allowed here at Tech.

I'm not saying that allowing concealed carry on campus is the solution to all of our problems, but it shouldn't be tossed out of the window due to baseless fears.

Patrick MacCormac

Junior, Aerospace Engineering

Original article can be found HERE.

Defense Free Crime Zone

2007-09-18T09:54:00.001-05:00

Gun-rights advocates stage protest at Norfolk council meeting

2007-08-29T07:10:00.001-05:00

By HARRY MINIUM
The Virginian-Pilot

Carrying a weapon openly is legal in Virginia, even at a large gathering such as Harborfest. Once city officials realized their error, the charges against Szymecki were dropped.

NORFOLK

More than 100 gun-rights advocates, most carrying handguns on their hips and wearing buttons saying "Guns Save Lives," came to the City Council on Tuesday night to protest what they called harassment of law-abiding gun owners by city officials.

The protest was called by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights group, after Chet Szymecki of Yorktown was arrested in June at Harborfest for carrying a gun.

Szymecki was arrested for violating a city ordinance banning guns at Harborfest - an ordinance that officials now acknowledge violates state law. City Attorney Bernard A. Pishko said city officials were unaware of a state law prohibiting localities from banning guns.

"We made a mistake," Councilman Barclay C. Winn said. "It was unintentional."

Most who came to protest didn't appear to believe it was an innocent mistake.

"You know it was illegal," said Dave Vann, who drove from Falls Church to speak. "You arrested someone, and now it's going to cost you dearly."

Szymecki, a Navy veteran, said he was manhandled and hurt and that his wife, Deborah, his three children and two other children who accompanied them were traumatized. He said he has hired Norfolk attorney Stephen Merrill.

An emotional Deborah Szymecki told the council that after several police officers were done handcuffing her husband, she was left without money or the keys to the family car.

Others rose to describe incidents in which they said they were questioned and often handcuffed by police for simply carrying a firearm openly.

"Apparently you have some officers who don't understand the law," said the president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Philip Van Cleave of Midlothian.

The meeting drew more rowdy as it continued, with speakers receiving thunderous applause and some expressing disgust for the council. Some used unsavory terms to describe the police.

Councilman Paul R. Riddick left the meeting as gun-rights advocates began speaking, he said, in protest of their protest.

Kim Barton, who would not say where she lives, tried to speak but was told by Mayor Paul Fraim that she couldn't because she had not signed up to speak.

"I want to hear what she has to say," Vann said.

Fraim replied, "I'm running this meeting " and informed Vann his time to speak had expired.

Harry Minium, (757) 446-2371, harry.minium@pilotonline.com

Original article can be found HERE.

One of Lt. Governor's Ideas: Guns on Campuses

2007-08-15T11:10:00.001-05:00

Christiansburg, VA - It's one idea some have said could have played a key role in the Tech tragedy: allowing students and university staff to carry firearms on campus. And it's part of Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling's "100 ideas for the future of Virginia."

Bolling has visited communities across the Commonwealth the ideas come from what he's heard. Currently, most colleges and universities in the state of Virginia do not allow students or staff to carry weapons despite concealed carry permits. If you aren't a student or staff, you can.

This idea calls for legislation to prevent colleges and universities from making those bans legally.

Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling, (R) Virginia - "Well I don't know the answer to whether or not if someone had had a weapon with them on campus if it would have made a difference. I don't know that anyone in Norris Hall on the day of this shooting had a concealed carry permit, but you know what we're looking at is do the prohibitions make sense?"

Bolling is a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms. Several other ideas from his listening tour work to protect the second amendment.

The original article can be found HERE.

Norfolk and visitor with a holstered .45 are tangled in a Catch-22

2007-07-22T06:52:00.001-05:00

By Matthew Roy

NORFOLK

Chester Szymecki Jr. was waiting for some music to start at Harborfest when a sheriff's deputy approached.

It was a warm June afternoon, and thousands of people wandered on and off the tall ships moored around Town Point Park. Szymecki had come from Yorktown with his wife, their three children and two children from their neighborhood.

Szymecki had brought along something else, too - a .45-caliber handgun in a holster on his belt.

The deputy asked Szymecki whether he was a police officer. He said no. And then, he said, uniformed city police began closing in. They gave him a choice, he said: Leave the event or face arrest. When he tried to say that there must be a mistake, he was disarmed and led away, handcuffed, he recalled.

Szymecki was charged with violating a local ordinance that the City Council had passed in May, which set up rules to govern Harborfest. Among them was a provision banning handguns and other weapons.

There's just one problem: A few years ago, the General Assembly barred localities from enforcing laws governing the carrying of firearms. That meant state law prevailed. And in Virginia, "open carry" is legal.

Localities today generally do not have the authority to restrict guns, said Mark Flynn, director of legal services for the Virginia Municipal League. A state law last amended in 2004 says localities cannot adopt or enforce laws regarding the purchase, carrying, possession, storage, or sale of firearms.

Szymecki was given a summons and released. When he showed up for court June 22, the case was withdrawn at the request of an assistant city attorney.

The case has enraged the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun rights group that has successfully challenged local gun restrictions around the commonwealth. Szymecki is a member. In the past the group has protested Norfolk's attempts to prevent the carrying of weapons in city parks.

Philip Van Cleave, the president of the league, says members plan to crowd the City Council chambers in protest at a future date.

The ordinance, he said, was "a huge mistake."

City Attorney Bernard Pishko said the city is not attempting to challenge the state law by imposing restrictions on handguns.

Pishko described the gun ban in the Harborfest ordinance as an oversight, a "housekeeping" issue. "This is one that we missed," he said. An ordinance governing Afr'Am Fest in May contained the same restrictions on weapons. Both ordinances were in effect only for the few days the events ran.

Pishko said his office has since advised police that "the only gun laws in effect for Norfolk are those in effect for Virginia."

Szymecki said the incident has changed the way he views the police. He said he plans to file a lawsuit and have a "neutral court" decide whether police violated his rights.

Matthew Roy, (757) 446-2540, matthew.roy@pilotonline.com

Original article can be found HERE.

DC takes handgun ban case to Supremes

2007-07-19T09:48:00.001-05:00

The city of Washington is asking the US Supreme Court to uphold a three-decade ban on handguns in the nation's capital in a case that could have ramifications on gun control laws in other states.

The US high court has not ruled since 1939 on any cases involving the right to bear arms, a hot-button issue which is protected by the second amendment to the constitution.

The capital bans all handguns unless they were registered before 1976.

But an appeals court ruled in March that the District of Columbia's ban on keeping handguns inside private homes was unconstitutional, following a case brought by six Washington residents who said they wanted handguns in their homes for self-defense.

Although that ruling did not apply to carrying handguns in the street, which is also banned in Washington, Mayor Adrian Fenty vowed to take the case to the nation's highest court in the name of safeguarding the public.

"We are willing to take our case to the highest court in the land to protect the city's residents," Fenty said in a statement received by AFP on Tuesday.

"Our handgun law has saved countless lives -- keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others or themselves."

If the Supreme Court reverses the ban, observers warn the impact could be felt in other major cities with strict gun laws, such as Chicago, New York and Detroit.

The powerful National Rifle Association opposes most gun restrictions as violation of the second amendment, which states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Critics of the Washington ban say it is ineffective, noting the crime rate in the nation's capital is much higher than the national average, with 169 murders in 2006, 137 of which were committed with handguns.

The case is to be brought before the Supreme Court on September 5.

Original article can be found HERE.

Norfolk illegally arrests VCDL member!

2007-07-19T07:08:00.001-05:00

And a lawsuit is being prepared.

Norfolk passed an ILLEGAL 'no guns' ordinance a few months ago (no, I
am NOT kidding) and ENFORCED that illegal ordinance against a VCDL
member!

Bad, bad, bad mistake.

New firearms ordinances, other than those to control discharge or
hunting, have been illegal in the Commonwealth since 1987! But
Norfolk appears to have been passing a series of gun banning
ordinances pertaining to various festivals that the City has put on
over the years!

Unbelievable. And Norfolk, of all places, KNOWS better than to do
that. (VCDL has had TWO large turnouts at City Council meetings a
few years ago to make sure that City Council was aware of Virginia's
preemption laws.)

But, Norfolk did it anyway and now it's time to pay the piper.

Worse, within the last month, Norfolk police have also harassed two
other gun owners who were lawfully carrying openly, one black and one
white - each was accosted on TWO separate occasions! More on those
incidents later in the alert.

Here's the story of the false arrest under an illegal ordinance (if
you take blood pressure medicine, now is the time to take it for this
is going to be very unsettling). Sorry for the length, but it will
read quickly:

Chet Szymecki arrived at Sail Virginia 2007, a tall ship festival in
Norfolk, with his family (wife, their three children, and two other
children from other families [all 13 and under]) around 2:30 PM on
Sunday, June 10th, 2007.

As luck would have it, Dennis O'Connor and I were also at that same
festival about the same time - but Chet didn't know that we were
there and vice versa! Damn, I wish I had known what was about to
transpire!

Chet, who was open carrying on that beautiful day, crossed paths with
dozens of officers, with many being cognizant of the fact that he was
openly carrying.

At 4:30 Chet and family had just ordered some waffle cakes and
returned to a music area for an upcoming show. Chet was approached by
a black female Norfolk Sheriff's officer and was asked if he was a
police officer.

Chet responded, "No."

The officer then stated that Chet must leave the festival area
immediately since he was not permitted to carry a firearm there. At
the same time another Sheriff's deputy closed in, and one more hung
back a few feet. The officer began communicating on her radio and
Chet was expecting the situation to totally dissolve within minutes
and he could then continue to enjoy the rest of the show with no
further interruption.

Within a few seconds two groups of officers from the Norfolk Police
Department approached from two different directions.

The primary group had 5-6 officers, and from the look on a
Lieutenant's face Chet could tell that things were quickly becoming
exponentially worse.

The Lieutenant came within inches of Chet and in a very condescending
tone of voice stated that Chet had two choices: leave the park or go
to jail.

While appearing to be as non-confrontational as possible (one hand
holding his waffle cake and the other feeding his mouth) Chet began
to reply that this must be a simple misunderstanding since he is
permitted to carry.

Chet was cut off and, as the Lieutenant leaned in to intimidate him,
the Lieutenant raised his voice and just about shouted that Chet had
only two choices: leave immediately or be arrested.

Chet was still in shock and once again began to speak. Not waiting
to hear what Chet had to say, the Lieutenant immediately told the
other officers to arrest Chet!

In the following seconds Chet had hands all over him. One officer was
tugging at Chet's pistol, having much difficulty removing it. Chet
was worried about an accidental discharge with his family being
literally feet away.

Other officers were pulling Chet's arms around his back and cuffing
him. Chet offered no resistance.

Chet's wife began to speak and she was immediately pushed back by a
black female Sheriff's deputy!

Chet's children were just about panicking watching their law-abiding
father being stripped of his dignity while their mother was being
forced back and being told that she may be arrested if she failed to
comply.

Chet's wife attempted to record the scene on her cellular phone and
was told she would be arrested if she did not secure her phone
immediately!!!

The police then forcibly escorted Ms. Szymecki and her children off
the property and left them standing on a street corner in Norfolk,
all alone and without car keys (Chet had them and the police would
not retrieve them). How very shameful.

A totally unnecessary use of force by the police on someone who was
not threatening anyone, leaving a wife and young children on a street
corner, totally unprotected.

Congratulations, Norfolk, those police-state tactics would have made
Stalin smile warmly at you.

While being whisked away, Chet stated that he was aware that he was
being unlawfully disarmed and detained and he demanded to be released
immediately.

That didn't draw any response.

After a few minutes when Chet and the police were in a clear area
where an Explosive Ordinance Disposal van was parked, along with many
other police vehicles, Chet was instructed to face a wall.

Chet informed the officers that the handcuffs were agonizingly tight
and repeated that he was not a threat to any of them and asked that
the handcuffs be loosened.

Two officers were behind Chet holding him - one officer replied while
squeezing the cuffs tighter that "they were not meant to feel
comfortable." Nothing like having a sadist on the police payroll. I
knew a couple of officers like this who worked the jail in San
Antonio.

Chet was just sickened by the lack of professionalism and, as an
ex-law enforcement officer and law abiding citizen, SO AM I!

After a half hour or so, and asking a few more times to have his
cuffs be loosened, Chet was placed in the rear of a squad car. At
that time Chet's left hand was totally numb and his right shoulder
was aching.

Chet informed the officer in the police car that Chet was a veteran
retired from active service and had sustained injuries in the line of
duty - Chet's right arm being one of the injured areas.

Chet informed him that his right Brachial Plexus nerve group was torn
from his spine and he had limited use and mobility of his right arm.
Chet stated again that he simply wanted the cuffs behind his back to
be readjusted.

The most the officer could offer was a suggestion on how to sit back
in the squad car in a comfortable way. Needless to say - Chet, who
had done nothing wrong, was very uncomfortable.

Several times one officer approached Chet and stated that "in a town
of 200,000 or more like ours you cannot carry around a gun like you
can in other places."

Chet told the officer that that law did not apply since: (1) the gun
Chet was carrying was not classified as a "firearm" in that code
section and (2) Chet had a concealed carry permit which rendered the
entire section inapplicable to him.

Chet was told he did not know what he was talking about and Chet had
no business carrying a gun while in Norfolk.

Speaking of being ignorant of Virginia gun laws, that officer needs
remedial training. What a disgrace.

While in the cruiser an officer approached Chet and once again Chet
was offered a choice: sign a summons or go visit the magistrate.

Being unfamiliar with the entire process and not understanding the
gravity of the decision, Chet asked for additional clarification. The
officer was polite and informed Chet that signing a summons was not
an admission of guilt and he was simply promising to show up at a
future court date. By not signing the summons Chet would go in front
of a magistrate and this, along with the associated processing, would
take many hours. Signing the summons would only take a few minutes
and then Chet could be released.

DOES EVERYONE NOW UNDERSTAND WHY VCDL FOUGHT A BILL EARLIER THIS YEAR
THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED OFFICERS TO THROW SOMEONE IN JAIL FOR ANY
CLASS 1 OR CLASS 2 MISDEAMEANOR AT WILL? Any doubts in your mind
that these officers would have done so to further humiliate and
intimidate Chet if they were given the option?

Chet asked what would happen if the magistrate realized that this was
all a simple mistake. The officer informed Chet that even if the
magistrate released him, the police could issue a bench warrant and
keep Chet in jail until his court date!!! Any doubt that these
officers would have done so?

It seemed that signing the summons was the proper choice and Chet
signed it. I agree.

Chet asked for his pistol to be returned and one of the officers
stated that it was being held as evidence. Chet asked him for a
receipt for his confiscated property. The officer stated that he had
a pistol, one magazine, nine rounds of ammunition, and a holster.
The officer said his verbal receipt was sufficient!

Like hell!

Chet was also forced to provide his Social Security Number - Chet
asked if this were voluntary or mandatory - Chet was told it was
mandatory. WRONG again, Norfolk Police! Chet was also forced to
fingerprint his summons papers in four areas.

Arriving home almost two hours later, Chet was forced to skip a
previously planned dinner engagement with another family and seek
treatment at a local medical facility. Chet said he has a high
tolerance for pain and discomfort but his right arm/shoulder and the
back of his neck was just killing him.

Chet was examined by the doctor and prescribed medications. The
doctor stated that since his arm has limited movement and the
officers forced it into this unnatural position for over an hour,
muscles and ligaments were probably strained.

Chet contacted me that evening and related the above story. The next
morning I was on the phone to Norfolk City Attorney, Bernard Pishko.

Mr. Pishko proceeded to tell me that the public streets for the event
were considered private property and thus guns could be banned. I
told him that the "Festevents" organization that was running the
festival was nothing but an arm of the City and could NOT ban guns.
I also said that if the private property part were true, why had Chet
not been arrested for trespass, but was instead charged under a City
ordinance?

Mr. Pishko said I wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what I was talking
about. He suggested that he could drop the charges against Chet, but
said that perhaps this issue should be settled in court. Mr. Pishko
said he was comfortable that the City would win.

Dream on, sir.

However, Mr. Pishko said the charges would be dropped and he kept his
word. The charges were "Nollo Prossed" at Chet's court hearing on
June 22nd and Chet is now in the process of getting his record
expunged.

Chet was charged under City Code 42660 Section 3c (weapon/firearm in
festival area).

In order to gather information the City may have on this incident,
VCDL has already sent Freedom of Information Act requests to the

* Norfolk Sheriff, to find out which officer started this whole
thing, along with any supporting information

* Norfolk Police, to get a copy of ALL radio traffic and other
documents relating to Chet's arrest.

* Norfolk City Attorney, on the City's relationship with "Festevents"
and to get a copy of the offending ordinance

The dollar amount of the lawsuit has not as yet been set, but I hope
it is enough to get the City's attention.

--

Two other law-abiding gun owners, one black and one white, were each
harassed TWICE by the Norfolk Police recently. Both were simply open
carrying.

The black gun owner, an articulate, polite, 23 year-old who has
helped at VCDL tables at various gun shows in the Tidewater area, had
guns drawn and pointed at him by the police on the first occasion.

On the second occasion, he was handcuffed, even after complying with
police demands to keep both hands on a nearby wall.

Both times the gun owner was released at the scene. But not after
being unnecessarily humiliated and manhandled.

On the second occasion, the police officers told him that if they saw
him open carrying again, they would handcuff him, run his gun for
stolen, and then release him again!!!

Forget looking for real criminals, just harass the good guys,
Norfolk. Unbelievable.

The white gun owner (Norfolk seems to be an equal opportunity
harasser) was also detained and then released.

--

VCDL has been sitting quietly on this until Chet's charges were
dropped. But these events cannot go unchallenged.

In addition to the lawsuit, VCDL will be attending a future Norfolk
City Council meeting to denounce the oppressive harassment of
Virginia's gun owners and demand an end to it.

The City of Norfolk and their police agents have a pattern of abusing
the law and law abiding gun owners. If you or I violate the law, we
risk fines and/or jail time. Why should local government officials
be immune from punishment for passing and enforcing an ordinance in
violation of state law? How long will the General Assembly let these
rogue officials get away with this abuse of the law?

WE NEED A **HUGE** TURNOUT TO MAKE SURE CITY COUNCIL GETS THE MESSAGE
LOUD AND CLEAR

I will advise when we have picked a date.

Tidewater - time to step up to the plate again.

The preceding text was taken from a recent VCDL VA-ALERT.

College student starts a movement to allow guns on college campuses

2007-07-18T14:40:00.001-05:00

While efforts to allow students and faculty with concealed permits to carry on campus is not new, the tragedy at Virginia Tech is inspiring an organized movement among students.

Twenty-five-year-old Andrew Dysart spent four years in the Marine Corps. He is now studying criminal justice at George Mason University. After April 16th, Dysart, a concealed gun permit holder, started wondering how he would defend himself on his campus. His curiosity led him to start Students for Concealed Carry.

"We believe that students with concealed handgun permits should be allowed to carry their handguns on campus, just like they're allowed to anywhere else in the state," says Dysart.

Many students carry concealed weapons off-campus without incident every day. Dysart does not believe they should be forced to disarm at school. He has also heard from students at other schools, including Virginia Tech, interested in starting their own movements. His group now has 55 members.

Dysart does not know if a concealed permit holder could have helped save lives at Virginia Tech.

"But I do think those students should have had a chance. If they've been through the training, they should have had that chance on campus. That's a chance that Virginia Tech didn't give them. That's a chance that George Mason doesn't give me," says Dysart.

Efforts to allow concealed carry on campuses have been swiftly killed by a House of Delegates Committee for two years now, partly because many college administrators do not like the idea.

The Virginia Tech Review panel will hold its final meeting Wednesday.

Original article can be found HERE.

Guns Should Be Allowed On Campus

2007-07-16T15:09:00.001-05:00

By: Larry Pratt

Gun free school zones have proven to be a dangerous delusion that has resulted in people being forced to be victims.

The only people guaranteed to be safe in gun free zones are criminals. They can count on the law-abiding being disarmed. In reality, gun free zones are nothing more than criminal safe zones.

Criminals have proven that they not only disrespect laws, they are willing and able to break them. The island nation of Great Britain has banned guns. In 1997 they confiscated virtually all legal guns. Yet today, the police there estimate that England has twice the number of guns in the country -- illegally. The press in Manchester refer to their city as "Gunchester."

Stricter gun control laws than those in the United States have not prevented Canada, Scotland and Germany from suffering from mass murderers striking schools in those countries.

The solution is to empower the most responsible people in America to be intermixed with potential victims so that they might have the opportunity to be the first responders to head off such attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech. We have enough people licensed to carry concealed firearms that we can now say with certainty that these are the folks who commit the fewest crimes in our society.

Concealed weapons carriers commit even fewer violent crimes than do police.

Yet our federal and state laws (with a few exceptions such as Utah and Arizona) prohibit these potential Good Samaritans from being armed on our college campuses. One concealed carry permit holder is a graduate student at Virginia Tech. After a murder at the edge of the campus last August, he wrote a letter to the editor.

In that letter, he confessed that he had not been carrying his gun on campus because he did not want to jeopardize his graduate career should he get caught. After the murders, he said, he has been considering that had he been killed, that would have jeopardized his graduate career!

We have seen that armed civilians, students and staff alike, have been able to get their guns and stop campus killers in the past -- such as in Pearl, Mississippi (1997) and Grundy, Virginia (2002). But in those cases, the heroes had to run to their cars and get their guns and run back to the scene of the crime to stop the killer, losing valuable time.

Armed self-defense works. Disarmament kills.

Larry Pratt is the executive director of the Gun Owners of America (GOA).

Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
http://www.gunowners.org

A dozen things people should know about CWP holders

2007-07-01T15:48:00.001-05:00

There's a lot of misinformation out there these days about people who have chosen to exercise their right to carry a concealed weapon according to the provisions made by state governments.

Here are a few things that CWP holders want people to know about them. Now of course there are exceptions to these general rules but I think you'll find these things to be true about the vast majority of your legally carrying neighbors.

1. We don't carry firearms so that we can ignore other basics of personal safety. Every permit holder that I know realizes that almost all dangerous situations can be avoided by vigilance, alertness and by simply making wise choices about where one goes and what one does. We don't walk down dark alleys. We lock our cars. We don't get intoxicated in public or hang out around people who do. We park our cars in well lighted spots and don't hang out in bad parts of town where we have no business. A gun is our last resort, not our first.

2. We don't think we are cops, spies, or superheros. We aren't hoping that somebody tries to rob the convenience store while we are there so we can shoot a criminal. We don't take it upon ourselves to get involved in situations that are better handled by a 911 call or by simply standing by and being a good witness. We don't believe our guns give us any authority over our fellow citizens. We also aren't here to be your unpaid volunteer bodyguard. We'll be glad to tell you where we trained and point you to some good gun shops if you feel you want to take this kind of responsibility for your personal safety. Except for extrordinary circumstances your business is your business, don't expect us to help you out of situations you could have avoided.

3. We are LESS likely, not more likely, to be involved in fights or "rage" incidents than the general public. We recognize, better than many unarmed citizens, that we are responsible for our actions. We take the responsibility of carrying a firearm very seriously. We know that loss of temper, getting into fights or angrily confronting someone after a traffic incident could easily escalate into a dangerous situation. We are more likely to go out of our way to avoid these situations. We don't pull our guns to settle arguments or to attempt to threaten people into doing what we want.

4. We are responsible gun owners. We secure our firearms so that children and other unauthorized people cannot access them. Most of us have invested in safes, cases and lock boxes as well as other secuity measures to keep our firearms secure. Many of us belong to various organizations that promote firearms safety and ownership.

5. Guns are not unsafe or unpredictable. Modern firearms are well made precision instruments. Pieces do not simply break off causing them to fire. A hot day will not set them off. Most modern firearms will not discharge even if dropped. There is no reason to be afraid of a gun simply laying on a table or in a holster. It is not going to discharge on its own.

6. We do not believe in the concept of "accidental discharges". There are no accidental discharges only negligent discharges or intentional discharges. We take responsibility for our actions and have learned how to safely handle firearms. Any case you have ever heard of about a gun "going off" was the result of negligence on somebody's part. Our recognition of our responsibility and familiarity with firearms makes us among the safest firearms owners in America.

7. Permit holders do their best to keep our concealed weapons exactly that: concealed. However, there are times with an observant fellow citizen may spot our firearm or the print of our firearm under our clothes. We are very cognizant that concerns about terrorism and crime are in the forefront of the minds of most citizens. We also realize that our society does much to condition our fellow citizens to have sometimes irrational fears about firearms. We would encourage citizens who do happen to spot someone carrying a firearm to use good judgment and clear thinking if they feel to need to take action. Please recognize that it's very uncommon for a criminal to use a holster. However, if you feel the need to report having spotted a firearm we would ask that you please be specific and detailed in your call to the police or in your report to a store manager or private security. Please don't generalize or sensationalize what you observed. Comments like "there's a guy running around in the store with a gun" or even simply "I saw a man with a gun in the store" could possibly cause a misunderstanding as to the true nature of the incident.

8. The fact that we carry a firearm to any given place does not mean that we believe that place to be inherently unsafe. If we believe a place to be unsafe, most of us would avoid that place all together if possible. However, we recognize that trouble could occur at any place and at any time. Criminals do not observe "gun free zones". If trouble does come, we do not want the only armed persons to be perpetrators. Therefore, we don't usually make a determination about whether or not to carry at any given time based on "how safe" we think a location is.

9. Concealed weapon permit holders are an asset to the public in times of trouble. The fact that most permit holders have the good judgment to stay out of situations better handled by a 911 call or by simply being a careful and vigilant witness does not mean that we would fail to act in situations where the use of deadly force is appropriate to save lives. Review of high profile public shooting incidents shows that when killers are confronted by armed resistance they tend to either break off the attack and flee or choose to end their own life. Lives are saved when resistance engages a violent criminal. Lives are lost when the criminal can do as he pleases.

10. The fact that criminals know that some of the population may be armed at any given time helps to deter violence against all citizens. Permit holders don't believe that every person should necessarily be armed. We recognize that some people may not be temperamentally suited to carry a firearm or simply may wish not to for personal reasons. However we do encourage you to respect our right to arm ourselves. Even if you choose not to carry a firearm yourself please oppose measures to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to be armed. As mentioned before: criminals do not observe "gun free zones". Help by not supporting laws that require citizens to be unarmed victims.

11. Those with concealed carry permits are quite likely the most conspicuously law-abiding people you will encounter. In the majority of states with a permitting system, the permitholder has voluntarily submitted himself or herself to a background check involving local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. Very often, fingerprints have also been taken and submitted for examination. You can be assured that we are not criminals carrying under the shield of the law. Multiple levels of government have concurred that we have followed the law. In addition, we have spent a great deal of funds on training, equipment, and the permitting process. We are not eager to jeopardize any of that through misconduct- we are well aware that if we misbehave, we can lose every last penny of that investment, as well as our very freedom.

12. We would NEVER use our weapons unless it was absolutely necessary in order to save an innocent life.

Credit for this goes to "Serenity" over at the 1911 Forum-
http://www.1911forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176240

Letter: Concealed weapons are not a threat

2007-06-27T21:00:00.001-05:00

By: Chris Soldan

Any time a proposal to allow citizens to carry concealed handguns is introduced, the same old tired arguments are pulled out of the box. Two are that "blood will run in the streets" and "it will be like the Wild West." Or as some put it, "any confrontation has the potential to turn into a fatal shooting."

With a Virginia concealed handgun permit, a student can carry almost anywhere in the state including the town of Blacksburg. We don't have a problem with people fighting and shooting each other in the streets.

I routinely went about my business in Blacksburg with a Sig Sauer pistol holstered on my belt. However, I always left my gun in my apartment when I went to class. Why should I be considered a safe and law abiding citizen while walking down Main Street, but then become a loose cannon waiting to shoot someone by stepping foot on campus?

In fact permit holders are generally some of the most law-abiding citizens in the country. Tales of blood running in the streets and petty disagreements resulting in shootouts with permit holders are a myth. Stories of citizens using guns to stop violence in schools are not hypothetical, they are actual events.

There should not be an invisible and farcical "no guns allowed" line drawn around Tech's campus. The only people who obey that rule are law-abiding citizens, not criminals intent on harm. Students should be allowed to defend themselves on campus using more than a cell phone. With that, they can only call the good guys with guns (the police) and wait to be rescued.

To quote Thomas Jefferson who was reading from Beccaria, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes … Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Chris Soldan
Biological Systems Engineering
Class of 2006 Alumnus

Original article can be found HERE.