----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Virginia Tech protest --Operation Campus Safety
2. NIkki Goeser featured in NRA magazine
3. Ashby Arms
4. Ammo hazards
5. New coverage of VT protest. Eric Smith interview.
6. Pro-gun group to rally at Virginia Tech
7. Eric Smith stands tall in the VT Collegiate Times
8. Annie, don't get your gun
9. Same tired, rude anti comments follow article
10. Looks as if we made NPR, also
11. Gun nuts to rally for concealed firearms on campus
12. Some House Democrats looking for new minority leader
13. Suspect robs Suffolk woman at gunpoint
14. Smoking gun? Most Gunwalker guns targets of ban efforts, but not wanted by cartels
15. House Judicial Committee approved states reciprocity bill 19-11
16. TSA releases VIPR venom on Tennessee highways
17. U.S. Rep to U.N. says Obama wants Senate to ratify Arms Treaty
18. PA college student fights back with concealed carry
19. Pregnant woman killed after shielding children from gunfire at school
20. California gunners hold open-carry protest
21. More: NYC PD smuggling guns into NY? Say it ain't so!
22. New Jersey Second Amendment Society promotional video
23. Gun ownership by state
24. Felons can have guns
25. CBS highlights public opposition to gun control
26. NATO taking guns from Libyans
27. Wal-Mart going to carry Mini-14s and AR-15s, Ace Hardware selling handguns!
28. Survey to answer for those in the 2nd Congressional District (Scott Rigell)
29. IMPORTANT - fanny pack carry at GMU on November 9th
*************************************************
1. Virginia Tech protest --Operation Campus Safety
*************************************************
EM Ed Levine provided me with this link to facebook for carpool coordination at the VT protest:
http://vcdl.us/vt
If you don't use facebook and want to carpool, send me an email (president@vcdl.org)
*************************************************
2. NIkki Goeser featured in NRA magazine
*************************************************
Nikki Goeser suffered a horrendous loss when her husband was murdered right in front of her by her stalker. Nikki was disarmed because of a Tennessee law at the time that prohibited having a gun, either openly or concealed, where alcohol is served.
From the NRA's First Freedom Magazine: http://tinyurl.com/3eqquq2
*************************************************
3. Ashby Arms
*************************************************
As firearms have become more and more mainstream, many gun stores are using radio ads to promote self-defense with firearms. Dennis Golden with Ashby Arms emailed these hard-hitting advertisements that they are running in the Harrisonburg area.
http://www.youtube.com/user/AshbyArms#p/u/4/mreuMvtl8Fk
http://www.youtube.com/user/AshbyArms#p/u/5/6M73ns2DUuQ
*************************************************
4. Ammo hazards
*************************************************
Bryan Gilbert emailed me this:
--
From handgunsmag.com: http://tinyurl.com/628q73b
Potential Ammo Hazards
by Walt Rauch
October 25, 2011
Of all the guns you may own, the one you carry for self-defense is the one to which you should pay the most attention. Unfortunately, the opposite is usually more accurate. The "always" gun (as in always with you) gets the least attention because you have probably already established its reliability--or you certainly should have--and are now taking it for granted.
The problem is, there's a bit more to do on an ongoing basis past checking to see if the gun is loaded or empty and giving it a quick brush and puff to remove any clinging debris or clothing lint. The cartridges need regular examination, the bore (and the cylinder if it's a revolver) examined for any foreign objects.
If the gun is not carried but permanently positioned, as might well be done with a home-defense gun, you should also check for any "critters" that found the bore a good place to raise a family.
For semiautos, determining the condition of the cartridges you load is critical. How many of us regularly chamber and re-chamber the first two rounds of our carry loads? Each time you chamber or clear a round it is bumped as it loads or is cleared. As this happens, so does "bullet pushback" and "crimp-jump." Also, the case rim and extractor groove get altered slightly.
Pushback happens when the bullet is loosened in its case by repeatedly striking the barrel feed ramp and interior of the cartridge chamber. This allows the bullet to then be both pushed back or moved forward (crimp jump) against the tensioning done to the cartridge case neck where it envelops the lower circumference of the bullet to hold it in place.
As to the effect of even relatively slight backward movement, chamber pressure increases due to the powder now burning in a smaller space, and this increased pressure can reach a catastrophic level.
How much is "slight"? In 2004 I read a report from Hirtenberg Ammunition Company (produced at the request of Glock Gmbh) regarding the .40 S&W cartridge. The ammo company found that if the bullet was pushed back 0.1 inch, chamber pressure doubled.
More recently, this phenomena was further confirmed by Guy Neil, a ballistics expert who, in his column in the March/April edition of Front Sight magazin, noted that years ago Speer cartridge company found the chamber pressure of a 9mm round increased by 55 percent when its bullet was seated 0.033 inch deeper.
These pressures are significant. For comparison sake, an aerosol can of air used to clean a computer runs about 70 psi. Normal chamber pressure for a 9mm +P cartridge is 38,500 psi, and a proof load measures 55,500 psi.
The bullet can also move forward (the crimp jump mentioned earlier) due to inertia acting on it as the cartridge is slammed forward in the loading or firing cycle. I don't know of any pressure problems with this, but clearing such a round is difficult since, due to the added length (though slight), it no longer easily clears the ejection port window. Also, if loaded in the magazine, the longer round can wedge itself such that no rounds can be moved upward to be chambered.
The worst situation here is when the bullet separates from its case. I've experienced this using reloads in rifles and handguns when the bullet was not properly crimped.
With a revolver, normal loading will not cause bullet pushback, but cartridges can jump the crimp, lengthening to the point they protrude through their charge holes. Then, as the cylinder turns to bring up a live round, the protruding bullet stubs against the frame of the revolver, preventing it from turning.
Smith & Wesson addresses this in the revolver owner's manual, with particular attention paid to S&W ultralight revolvers. It is suggested that a simple firing exercise be done using one's selected carry ammunition. Fully load the cylinder, then fire all but the last round. Inspect this one to see if the bullet has started to move forward from its case (a caliper is handy for this; measure the cartridges as they come out of the box, then measure the last round to see if there's a difference). If this happens, try another brand or bullet weight and repeat until you find one where this does not happen.
Also, despite the higher prices now charged for quality ammunition, it is worth its cost as the ammo makers are well aware of the foregoing problems and make every effort to provide cartridges that can tolerate a few repeated cycles in a pistol. But don't be cheap. If there is any doubt, there is no doubt. Don't carry or fire questionable ammo and never shoot any range discards. (As Patrick Sweeney noted recently in these pages, most cheap, off-brand ammo is just that--cheap at best and just plain junk at worst.)
Bullet pushback or any bullet movement, along with case damage, cannot be ignored when shooting any firearm. Even the best ammo can be altered or damaged enough that when it is fired it could cause severe, if not fatal, injuries to yourself or others. Prevention is always the best policy.
*************************************************
5. New coverage of VT protest. Eric Smith interview
*************************************************
From wsls.com: http://tinyurl.com/3nq7j4d [Video]
Virginia Tech policy tweak triggers conceal-carry protest
By: KEN HEINECK
October 27, 2011
BLACKSBURG, VA -- A tweak in the rule book by leaders at Virginia Tech has triggered a November protest on campus. Tech's Libertarian Party is hosting members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League in a pro-gun right's demonstration.
"We don't believe that as a public university, Virginia Tech has any right to regulate the possession of firearms at all," said Eric Smith, President of the Virginia Tech Libertarians.
The university made efforts this summer to change their policy banning guns on campus after an opinion by the attorney general said it was too broad.
"We don't believe guns belong on college campuses, we don't think they belong in classrooms, they don't belong in dormitories, they don't belong in dining halls," said Larry Hincker, President of University Relations at Virginia Tech.
"Normal citizens are not here to stop criminals that's what you have the police for and I figure that if untrained people have guns and try to do that it's going to cause more harm than help," said David Gonzalez-Fitch, a student at Virginia Tech. [PVC: Gonzalez-Fitch doesn't seem to realize that CHP holders DO have training.]
According to Ken Cuccinelli, policy governing students and faculty does not apply to someone without university affiliation. VCDL members say it is why they have planned demonstrations at a handful of colleges including Tech.
"This is kind of the straw that broke the camels back, we were already concerned about this in the first place," said Smith.
Smith said the reason they chose the date of the home football game between UNC and Virginia Tech to protest is because of the national media attention that is expected on campus, but it is also a school day and one reason why Hincker says the permit was granted at the Squires Student Union, and not around the bulk of classrooms.
The student group at first applied to use the Drillfield at the center of campus, but was denied.
"The whole purpose of having permission to cite a rally or protest is so that the university can place it in a location where it will not have a significant impact on the ongoing events of the university," said Hincker.
What remains clear about this controversial issue is the difference in opinion of both university leaders and gun rights advocates.
University leaders say the attorney general's office is currently reviewing the new language added to their gun ban making it a regulation. The next step is presenting the move to the university's Board of Visitors.
*************************************************
6. Pro-gun group to rally at Virginia Tech
*************************************************
Michael Burnham emailed me this:
--
Philip,
We made the front page of USA Today Online.
From usatoday.com: http://tinyurl.com/4x7czh5
Pro-gun group to rally at Virginia Tech
By Melanie Eversley
Oct 27, 2011
A pro-gun group plans to demonstrate Nov. 17 on the campus of Virginia Tech, where a 2007 massacre by a troubled student left 33 people dead, The Roanoke Times and other news organizations report.
The Virginia Citizens Defense League announced its plans in a message sent to members and e-mail subscribers, the Times reports.
The plans are part of an effort by the group to demonstrate at more than a dozen public colleges and universities across Virginia in response to state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's stance that a university's governing body must have some say in whether it is legal to carry a concealed weapon in campus buildings, according to the Times.
According to the website AmmoLand.com, the protest is slated for 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET in front of the student center.
The website of the Defense League, based in Newington, Va., indicates that it was founded in 1994 and it is "dedicated to advancing the fundamental human right of all Virginians to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment."
*************************************************
7. Eric Smith stands tall in the VT Collegiate Times
*************************************************
Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
From collegiatetimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/3f5ck9v
Gun law hurts campus safety
By Eric Smith, guest columnist
October 26, 2011
With regards to the article entitled "Concealed carry group to visit tech" by Josh Higgins (Collegiate Times Oct. 20), I would like to formally announce that the Libertarians at Virginia Tech will be sponsoring the Virginia Citizens Defense League and their protest.
We are proud and excited to host an organization who has passionately and tirelessly worked to protect the Second Amendment rights of Virginians. I can neither speak on behalf of the VCDL (the opinions that follow are mine and do not necessarily reflect the views of VCDL), nor can I give out any details until the protest approval is finalized. Currently, students, faculty and staff are not allowed to carry a firearm on campus under any circumstances. Violation of this rule all but guarantees an expulsion for students and an immediate termination for faculty and staff. Law-abiding citizen-students who have a concealed carry permit are unable to defend themselves once they cross an imaginary line onto campus.
Permit holders are authorized by the Commonwealth of Virginia to carry a concealed firearm almost everywhere, with very few exceptions. To obtain a permit they must undergo a background check and take a course that teaches basic firearm safety. It should also be noted that permit holders have an extremely low crime rate compared with their peers. Yet, despite all of this, Tech still feels the need to disarm these people. Remember, on the tragic day of the April 16 massacre, Seung-Hui Cho did not have a concealed carry permit, nor did he care about the fact that he was breaking the rules as he sneaked guns into classrooms. Policies such as the ones in place by Tech serve only to disarm those who obey the law.
Though we cannot say for certain what would have happened on that tragic day had students been allowed to be armed, we do know there is a possibility he could have been stopped. As a libertarian, my concern lies much more with the blatant disregard for individual and constitutional rights than in the practicality of armed students preventing shootings.
Lest we forget, the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, inalienable right guaranteed to us by our Constitution, which Tech, as a public university, should have no authority to regulate.
Now Tech is proposing a new set of rules which would ban visitors and other non-university-affiliated people from carrying on campus, incriminating those who violate this order. The proposal would, of course, also now make criminals out of students, faculty, and staff who chose to make the decision to carry a firearm for self-defense.
We honestly do not know why they are doing this other than the mere fact that Ken Cuccinelli's recent opinion seems to give them an implied authority to do so based on the the way current legislation is interpreted.
It has never presented an issue nor, to my knowledge, has anyone ever actually been seen carrying on campus. Our school's leadership has fallen into a culture of fear, where logical thinking and respect for civil liberties are tossed away in favor of a false sense of security.
Tech administration is making an issue out of something that is clearly not one: they intend for this to be the final nail in the coffin of our right to defend ourselves. We will not stand for that, and we will join the VCDL in protesting the sophomoric legislation proposed by Tech, which continues to whittle away at our rights. I challenge anyone to make a logical argument as to why students, vetted and licensed to carry by the Commonwealth, should not be allowed to carry on campus. One of the more comical arguments to me revolves around the supposed issue of drunk students shooting each other in an argument that would otherwise just lead to fists.
To the people who have been constantly reiterating this tired argument, do you realize that those of us who are concealed carry permit holders are already allowed to be carrying, without incident, at fraternity parties and downtown?
One year later and there have been no shootouts at off-campus parties or at the ABC establishments. That is because permit holders, as law-abiding citizens, only wish to exercise a natural right and responsibility to self-defense and do not unlawfully carry while intoxicated (or drinking at all). I challenge anyone to make a logical argument supporting the obvious fallacy that these regulations would in any way deter a criminal or madman from murdering students.
Someone who is willing to do something so heinous, insane and clearly illegal will not care about the fact that he broke a few rules sneaking firearms onto campus. It is bad logic at best, and intentional irrationality at worst.Libertarians at Virginia Tech will always stand on the side of logic and, more importantly, liberty. There is a reason our forefathers fought, bled and died to be able to create the most powerful document protecting civil liberties in the history of mankind -- the Constitution.
Furthermore, there is a reason they chose to explicitly enumerate the right to keep and bear arms. Some 220 odd years later, many of us have forgotten this reason and have succumbed to mob-style democracy, happily giving away our own rights and slowly tearing down the very foundation of this great nation. I recognize this issue is extremely polarizing and can get many people on both sides outraged. I encourage us all to be civil to one another as we are all part of the great Hokie community and, in the end, we are all working towards the same goals: liberty and security.
Though we may disagree on how to achieve the maximization of these goals, we further ourselves through civil and constructive debate. I leave you with words of Benjamin Franklin: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
*************************************************
8. Annie, don't get your gun
*************************************************
From commonwealthtimes.org: http://tinyurl.com/5s7b2ax
Annie, don't get your gun
October 24th, 2011
Shane Wade
Opinion Editor
A couple of weeks ago, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported about the pro-gun Virginia Citizens Defense League's planned demonstrations at state universities to protest efforts to ban the concealed carrying of guns in campus buildings.
Law can be a tricky thing, but my current understanding is that guns are not allowed on public universities' campuses in Virginia. [PVC: Wrong.] Although the issue of guns on campus resurfaces every few years or whenever a shooting occurs, I intend to resolve this discussion with a concise, comprehensive solution that appeals to both liberal academics and pro-gun groups.
Despite any personal misgivings I may have against the VCU police regarding bicycle policies, I trust their ability to resolve a crisis in an efficient and timely manner. I know that if a violent altercation involving weaponry occurred near or on-campus, they would be there, either to prevent it entirely or to prevent its escalation. That's the primary reason I'm not in favor of having guns on campus. In the form of a regulated, qualified police force, we already have guns. [PVC: Oh, yeah - this approach worked great at Virginia Tech in 2007.]
But to extend those same carrying rights to students, you have to suspend some logical though in order to believe that allowing students, certified or not, to carry concealed guns on campus is a wise decision. To be blunt, I find it hard to trust some students to dress themselves or bandage their own paper cuts, let alone wield a firearm. It's trying enough for some students to turn off their phones before class, so it's a stretch of the imagination to think they'll be able to turn on the safety before strolling into a lecture. Allowing students, who come here to learn in a peaceable environment, to carry firearms on campus would be almost tantamount to declaring that the VCU police department is incompetent and campus is unsafe. [PVC: Here we go again, The "all students are idiots" lie used to block things like self-defense, but the "students are intelligent and the future" when justifying their ability to vote or to do politically correct things.]
Proponents like the Virginia Citizens Defense League and Students For Concealed Carry would offer an argument describing a scenario where a gunman opens up on a classroom and a single student pulls out his gun, fires and brings down the gunman. But that's an uncommon view of the situation that misses the obvious logical failings; including the possibilities that the gunman only had his gun because law allowed it and that the "hero" isn't immediately shot. [PVC: The antis have such active and unrealistic imaginations.] It also perpetuates the idea that only guns can protect against guns. [PVC: If a criminal pulls a gun on a police officer, what exactly does he think the officer is going to pull to protect himself - nun-chucks?]
The conflict boils down to one issue: safety. Pro-gun groups want students to be able to defend themselves, and universities don't want to pollute campuses with an air of potential violence by allowing students to carry firearms. [PVC: This assumes that someone like Cho would ask permission before using a gun to commit murder - a totally false assumption.]
Here's my solution: throwing knives. As the late newspaper columnist Molly Ivins said, "... I am not antigun. I'm proknife." Call me crazy, but a solid arm and a knife to the arm or shoulder can be just as efficient in bringing someone down. Lift the ban on throwing knives, swords and all bladed weaponry and then we can consider lifting the ban on firearms. Call it an experiment, a testing period, whatever; let students wield knives, which also have practical uses, before we allow them to carry, let alone conceal, guns. [PVC: Bring a knife to a gun fight? Good luck with that. Mr. Shane has no idea about the subject of guns and self-defense and this opinion piece proves it.]
*************************************************
9. Same tired, rude anti comments follow article
*************************************************
A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this:
--
From collegiatetimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/5tqnm3j
Date set for concealed carry protest
by Josh Higgins, news reporter
October 26, 2011
The Virginia Citizens Defense League will protest at Virginia Tech for concealed carry on campus on Nov.17 -- also the same day as the Tech v. North Carolina home football game.
The main part of the protest will take place from 11:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., although the VCDL has been approved to protest beginning at 8 a.m., according to a VCDL statement released yesterday. Protesters plan to meet in front of Squires Student Center along College Avenue and Otey Street.
The protest is named Operation Campus Safety at Virginia Tech. The VCDL protesters will carry signs, pass out informative pamphlets and answer questions regarding concealed carry on campus.
In order to protest on campus, the VCDL had to be endorsed by a student organization, and waited to announce the date of their protest until an endorsement could be procured.
The Virginia Tech Libertarians have agreed to endorse the group. Eric Smith, president of the Virginia Tech Libertarians, helped to get approval from the university for the demonstration, the statement said.
The VCDL has planned a series of protests at Virginia colleges that ban concealed carry, and is waiting on endorsements from student organizations at other colleges to set dates for other protests.
The organization suggests supporters stop donations to these schools and send those funds to Blue Ridge Community College -- the only Virginia college that has not banned concealed carry.
*************************************************
10. Looks as if we made NPR, also
*************************************************
EM Dave Hicks emailed me this:
--
From npr.org: http://tinyurl.com/3vhkurv
Pro-Gun Group Plans Demonstration At Virginia Tech
by EYDER PERALTA
October 27, 2011
A pro-gun group announced yesterday that it had obtained a permit to hold a protest at the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia. The university was the site of one of the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, where a gunman killed 32 students and faculty.
In its announcement, Virginia Citizens Defense League said they were holding the Nov. 17 rally in an effort to "save lives" and support "freedom and liberty." The group is not explicit about what that means but in their reporting about the rally, The Truth About Guns, a pro-gun site, pins down their thinking:
Virginia Tech was the site of one of the bloodiest school shootings in the history of the United States. On that day a single gunman killed 33 people and injured 25 more before he took his own life. Many of us on this site believe the vast majority of those deaths could have been prevented by a single legally armed citizen and their firearm, but thanks to gun-free school laws and policies every victim was unarmed and defenseless.
The Roanoke Times reports that this is one out of more than a dozen events planned for colleges and universities across Virginia to protest a ban on concealed weapons inside campus facilities. The Times adds:
The protest effort stems from an opinion issued by state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli that said to ban legal concealed carry in campus buildings, a university's governing body must pass a state regulation. A simple policy, such as that now in effect at Tech, is insufficient, Cuccinelli opined.
Tech's board of visitors is expected to follow Cuccinelli's advice and take up a regulation banning state permit holders from carrying concealed weapons in buildings and at events, although a timeline for doing so has not been announced. Other universities are considering similar actions. [PVC: Clarifying yet again, that Cuccinelli did not encourage universities to do any of this, but if they were determined to do it, he provided the legal way to do so. (However, we think that Virginia law does not allow it.)]
*************************************************
11. Gun nuts to rally for concealed firearms on campus
*************************************************
Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
From joemygod.blogspot.com: http://tinyurl.com/3zt6dgq
VIRGINIA: Gun Nuts To Rally For Concealed Firearms On Campus
OCTOBER 25, 2011
A Virginia militia group will stage a protest rally next week because they want to be able to carry concealed firearms on college campuses. [PVC: Militia group? Where do they come up with this stuff?]
Members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League will visit ODU's Kaufman Mall on the afternoon of Nov. 1 to lobby for weapons policies that leave "the decision to carry or not to carry and how to carry up to the individual," according to an email alert from the group Monday. The ODU protest, organized with a college Republican group, is part of a broader VCDL push to oppose policies that prohibit holders of concealed-weapon permits from bringing their weapons into campus buildings. The gun rights group is scheduling similar protests on college campuses around Virginia.
Guns on campus. What could go wrong? [PVC: We have over 30 guns on campus that day and nothing happened. Another anti-gunner's over active and unrealistic imagination at work.]
*************************************************
12. Some House Democrats looking for new minority leader
*************************************************
[PVC: They should be looking for new Senate leadership, the current one is a disgrace.]
Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
From the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/62ncjd4
Some House Democrats looking for new minority leader
By Anita Kumar
10/24/2011
Even if House Democratic Leader Ward Armstrong wins his uphill battle against Del. Charles Poindexter (R) next month, he may lose his post as minority leader.
Some House Democrats say they will not support him after he distanced himself from President Obama and stressed that he is "pro-life, pro-guns" in a TV ad.
"It is very difficult to justify him as leader of our party," Del. David Englin (Alexandria) said.
Some delegates have complained in the last year that Armstrong -- who is considering a run for state office in 2013 -- seemed to focus too much on his future and did not help Democrats this election cycle.
Other names that have been mentioned as possible replacements for Armstrong for the No. 2 position of caucus chairman are: Dels. Mark Sickles (Fairfax), David Toscano (Charlottesville), Scott Surovell (Fairfax) and Englin.
In a recent interview, Armstrong (Henry) dismissed talk about the Democrats' leadership elections, which will take place after the November general election. (Read our story Sunday about the election between Armstrong and Poindexter.)
"There's always been a couple people looking for my job,'' he said.
Armstrong said he "probably" wants to continue to serve as minority leader -- a job he has held since 2007 -- but he hasn't focused on it.
"That is the furthest thing from my mind,'' he said. "Every ounce and breath of my being is concentrating on winning the election on Nov. 8. When I win that, then I'll turn my attention to the minority leader post."
Del. Lionell Spruill Sr. (D-Chesapeake) said he "likes and respects'' Armstrong but will not support him for minority leader.
"How can he diss the president and then want to run for minority leader?" he asked.
Spruill said he is not interested in running for the position himself. Englin said some people have asked him to consider running for either minority leader or caucus chairman, a post held by Del. Ken Plum (Fairfax). Englin said he's "open" to it.
Poindexter, like other Republicans, has tied Armstrong to an increasingly unpopular Obama in TV ads and campaign mailers in their high-profile, expensive race. "If Ward Armstrong thinks you need Obama, do you really need Ward Armstrong?" one ad asks.
In response, Armstrong released a TV ad: "That's a stretch, Charles. I'm pro-life, pro-gun and I always put Virginia first."
Armstrong has declined to say whether he would support Obama next year.
"I am who I am and I am for what I stand for,'' he said in a recent interview . "I am interested in being the best delegate that I can be in Richmond. I'm about a race that's going on in 2011; 2012 will be 2012."
Armstrong's views may help him in his conservative district, but may hurt him in a future statewide run.
He said he tried to help Democrats this election cycle by serving on the campaign committee that speaks weekly about strategy and policy, and recruiting candidates, but that the environment and redistricting made that very difficult. He also aid he raised about $2.5 million for the caucus the last four year, before his own race began.
He said he has not asked the party or caucus for any help for his own race, though that has left Plum and others largely on their own to raise money.
"Anyone with a competitive race is not expected to contribute,'' he said. "What am I to do? Every member is entitled to fundraise and oversee their own re-election."
Sen.Mark R. Warner (D)and former governor Tim Kaine, a Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate next year, have held a pair of fundraisers for Armstrong. Warner plans to visit Franklin County for a rally the Saturday before the election.
But Armstrong has largely raised his $909,000 on his own. Democrats and the party have contributed $66,000.
"I will do it myself,'' he said. "It's enough of a sacrifice to ask them to get by without me fundraising."
*************************************************
13. Suspect robs Suffolk woman at gunpoint
*************************************************
Board member Bruce Jackson emailed me this:
--
From wavy.com: http://tinyurl.com/3dd7mlx
Suspect robs Suffolk woman at gunpoint
Woman was returning home from work
Tuesday, 25 Oct 2011
SUFFOLK, Va. (WAVY) - Suffolk police are looking for the suspects involved in a home invasion in the 200 block of Purple Martin Lane.
A woman was coming home from work around 3:30 a.m. on October 24 when an armed suspect came up behind her, Suffolk police spokesperson Debbie George said.
The woman was entering her home through her garage, when the suspect held a gun to her head and demanded money.
The suspect took money, jewelry, and handguns from the home and fled. The victim reported seeing a total of four males leaving after the incident.
Police said the woman and her husband own a restaurant in Virginia Beach. It is unclear where the husband was at the time of the home invasion.
There are no suspect descriptions at this time.
*************************************************
14. Smoking gun? Most Gunwalker guns targets of ban efforts, but not wanted by cartels
*************************************************
Jay Britt emailed me this:
--
From pjmedia.com: http://tinyurl.com/3l5vzhw
Smoking Gun? Most Gunwalker Guns Targets of Ban Efforts, but Not Wanted by Cartels
Do we now have motive?
By BOB OWENS
October 28, 2011
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."
In the meeting, she said, Obama discussed how records get into the system and what can be done about firearms retailers. Her husband specifically brought up the proposed ban on large magazine clips, and she noted that even former vice president Dick Cheney had suggested that some restrictions on the clips might make sense.
"He just laughed," Sarah Brady said approvingly of the president. Both she and her husband, she emphasized, had absolute confidence that the president was committed to regulation.
Washington Post April 11, 2011
Sarah Brady had every reason to believe that President Obama was zealously committed to turning the tide of more liberal weapons laws sweeping the nation.
While more states than ever were adopting concealed carry laws, shooting sports such as cowboy action shooting, IDPA, and three-gun competitions were surging in popularity, and ammunition and gun companies were unable to meet the explosive demand, the Bradys knew that President Obama would do nearly anything to impose stringent gun control laws.
They only had to look to his past.
In 1996, Obama filled out a candidate questionnaire while running for the Illinois state Senate, in which he supported state initiatives banning the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, and the ownership of "assault weapons."
While a state senator in Illinois in 2004, he voted against Senate Bill 2165, which asserted a right of citizens to protect themselves against home invasions with handguns despite local ordinances. The bill passed 38-20, with Obama voting against the right for citizens to defend themselves in their own homes.
Time and again throughout his career, including at the 2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia and the 2008 Democratic primary debate in Las Vegas, Obama betrayed an interest in closing down "unscrupulous gun dealers." He created and believed in a boogeyman, a vile caricature of the small businessmen he decided were scapegoats for the problem of inner city violence. This, even though he knew criminals used straw purchasers that acquired the bulk of firearms in crime.
Most damningly, Obama was a director of the far-left Joyce Foundation from 1996-2004, when the group plotted to undermine the Second Amendment:
During Obama's tenure, the Joyce Foundation board planned and implemented a program targeting the Supreme Court. The work began five years into Obama's directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun "grassroots" organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.
The plan's objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.
Joyce's directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.
The plot ultimately failed, but the die was cast; Obama showed his intent to undermine U.S. gun laws, whether ethically or otherwise.
Fast forward to near midnight, December 2010, in the desert in Arizona north of the Mexican border. Shot through the abdomen during a firefight with Mexican bandits, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry dies in Peck Canyon. Four suspects are arrested while a fifth evades capture. At least two AK-pattern rifles found at the crime scene are traced back to Operation Fast and Furious.
In January of 2011, ATF whistleblowers came forward and exposed the multi-agency plot, a conspiracy that involved the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Treasury, and State. More than 2,020 firearms had been "walked" from gun shops acting under orders from ATF agents through a network of straw purchasers known to the Department of Justice to the Sinaloa drug cartel in Mexico. Operation Fast and Furious is just one of ten alleged gun-walking operations run by the federal government in five states that may have run tens of thousands of weapons to narco-terrorists.
Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales has stated that at least 200 Mexican citizens have been murdered with firearms that the Obama administration pushed over the border; other unofficial estimates suggest that 300+ murders have been committed with guns "walked" by the Obama administration.
The question, then as now, is "why"?
Why would the White House, Senate-confirmed cabinet-level appointees, and other administration appointees conduct such a high-risk operation?
Perhaps the answer exists in the "smoking guns" themselves.
AK-pattern semi-automatics were by far the most common weapon types obtained by straw purchasers in Operation Fast and Furious, according to various reports. The imported Romanian WASR-10 rifle and its "Draco" pistol variant, AR-pattern rifles, FN Five-seveN pistols, and 50 BMG rifles made up the bulk of the weapons purchased during the operation.
AK-pattern rifles and pistols, and AR-pattern rifles are some of the most common semi-auto firearms in America. Interest in these weapons skyrocketed due to the drama anti-gun organizations drummed up when they coined the phrase "assault weapon," attaching it to these and similar firearms in order to craft the 1994 AW ban. The side effect was to make these firearms far more desirable. Today, entire shooting sports have been developed around the AR in particular.
Interestingly enough, the selective-fire versions of these weapons can be had far more cheaply on the black market than the semi-automatic version in U.S gun shops (selective-fire versions, if they can be found, require an extensive background check conducted over weeks, and cost tens of thousands of dollars). A selective fire AK-47 or AKM can be had for $100 or (far less) depending on conditions on the black market, while semi-automatic versions routinely cost $400 and up in U.S. gun stores.
AR-15 rifles routinely cost $750 for the most basic versions, and quality versions can easily run more than $1000 each. The cartels raid armories and buy selective-fire M-16 and M-4 rifles from deserting or corrupt Mexican military members for far less than the semi-automatic rifles finding their way to the cartels with federal government assistance, or obtain them from the same South American armories that they get their grenades from. It is a bit harder to pin-down a "street price" for an M-16/M-4 in Mexico, but cartels can probably obtain them for $5o0 or less.
The point, of course, is that it isn't remotely cost-effective for cartels to buy these weapons in the U.S.
Yet the AK- and AR-pattern weapons that are most bitterly opposed by gun-grabbing groups and politicians in the United States are the most common weapons purchased by Operation Fast and Furious.
This curious trend continues with Operation Fast and Furious' proclivity to purchase the FN Five-seveN pistol.
The Five-SeveN is a 5.7x28mm pistol developed as a companion weapon for the FN P90 PDW. Both were designed to use small high-velocity cartridges with low recoil signature, and the ability to penetrate soft-body armor when used with specific AP ammunition that is banned in both the United States and Mexico, except for law enforcement and military sales.
The various gun-banning organizations quickly labeled the Five-seveN the "cop killer." They attempted to claim that even the non-armor piercing ammo available to civilians could penetrate armor, and even did their own "tests." Their calls to ban the pistol increased after it was used in the Fort Hood shooting, even though we were "lucky" that the shooter used a pistol that had such little real-world stopping power. Mexican cartels do indeed like the Five-seveN, and even ape the Brady Campaign by calling it the "mata policia," Spanish for "cop-killer." Due to its 20-round magazine, unconventional cartridge, and sensationalized name, the Five-seveN is the most scapegoated handgun in America by gun control advocates.
Also, 50 BMG weapons are significant psychological weapons, in addition to being impressive physical weapons. They have tremendous penetration and range that make them excellent anti-vehicle weapons. The downside is that they are huge, heavy, and very difficult to maneuver and fire, and it is difficult to find trained marksmen to take advantage of their capabilities.
They are status symbols for cartels, and the rifle variants are used to a limited extent in specific situations. But what is interesting in particular about some of the Fast and Furious 50 BMG weapons purchased are that Barrett and TNW firearms are the most prominent purchases.
The Barrett makes sense as a status purchase or if the semi-auto variants are those being used (most 50 BMG rifles are bolt-action single-shots), but TNW weapons are built to look just like the M2 military 50 machine gun. They are massive, easy to track (TNW is one of a handful of companies that manufacture these weapons), and utterly impractical -- and yet they have been purchased by Fast and Furious and recovered in Mexico to great fanfare.
Brady and other gun control advocates have been trying to get 50 BMG-caliber weapons banned for years based upon hysteria, despite the fact that five-foot long, 30-plus pound weapons are simply not used in crimes.
Perhaps it should not be surprising that every one of the Fast and Furious weapons are among those that gun prohibitionists like the Joyce Foundation, Violence Policy Center, and Brady Campaign have tried to have banned.
Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama have all stated they would like to see the sales of these weapons to civilians either heavily restricted or banned outright.
So: Is it plausible that Operation Fast and Furious just happened to focus on selling the very weapons anti-gun groups want to ban south of the border with the intent that they would be used to commit murder? Knowing that cartels can either get such weapons at lower cost and less risk in Mexico, or don't need them at all?
Mike Vanderboegh, one of the bloggers who first published the ATF whistleblower revelations of gunwalking, recently received new and disturbing information that builds an even stronger case that the Obama administration may have been dictating the actions of the straw purchasers through their FBI criminal informants:
In late September 2009, ATF Phoenix Group VII supervisor Hope MacAllister walked into the Lone Wolf Trading Company. She had a message for the owner Andre Howard, according to sources familiar with the investigation into Fast & Furious in both D.C. and Arizona, and the message was this: "The amount of weapons you sell is about to dramatically increase." Howard, the sources say, was cautioned that "he might not have enough stock" to supply the straw buyers that MacAllister somehow knew were on the way and that "he should stock up on what they wanted."
MacAllister seemed to know "exactly how many weapons (the straw buyers) wanted, how much cash they had and when they would be coming in," said one of the sources.
Less than a week later, the straw buyers -- all of modest means -- began flocking to Andre Howard's shop. Operation Fast and Furious was off to the races.
Vanderboegh goes on to comment that his sources -- which include federal law enforcement agents involved in Fast and Furious that have gone on to testify in front of Congress -- explain that there are essentially two ways that Agent McAllister and other Operation Fast and Furious task force members knew that straw purchase attempts were about to dramatically increase at Lone Wolf Trading, and what they were going to buy:
1. The multi-agency task force had obtained a warrant and was able to wiretap communications among the cartel members in Mexico and their straw purchases in the U.S., or;
2. Federal agents, acting through FBI criminal informants known to have been part of the conspiracy, were in fact telling the straw purchasers where to go and what to buy.
The former is, of course, plausible. Months ago a PJ Media source indicated that U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco, who was outside of the "Obama clique" in the upper management of the DOJ, had signed off on Fast and Furious wiretap authorization, and was being set up by the Obama administration to be the designated scapegoat for the operation. This possibility would entail intercepting communications with Sinaloa cartel members inside Mexico, for which the task force and DOJ do not have legal authority, and which the Mexican government could not have granted since they were intentionally kept in the dark about the plot.
The latter, however distasteful to consider, is the most logical. An FBI criminal informant was operating at a level higher than that of the straw purchasers, and would have been in a position to dictate not only the stores in which to make purchases, but what to buy. Vanderboegh goes on to point out:
Much, if not all, of the "buy money" was coming from an FBI paid confidential informant, it could simply be that the ATF was being used as part of a deliberate plot to "let the guns walk" in order, as the early ATF whistleblowers related to us back in early January, "to boost the statistics" of American civilian market firearms found at Mexican crime scenes.
This "prior knowledge" information seems to answer the question of "why" behind the Obama administration's gunwalking plots. Means, motive, and opportunity are all on display.
Prominent anti gun politicians who had been aggressively promoting the "90-percent lie" were in a position to use agencies under their control to carry out a gunwalking plot that planted the evidence to support their contentions. The very guns that these politicians wanted to most control or ban outright with far stricter gun control measures were then pushed to the cartels. No wonder the president laughed about his plot to advance gun control "under the radar."
Does the list of firearms walked and recovered provide the literal "smoking gun," laying beside the bodies of the hundreds killed in one of the most insidious abuses of power in American history?
*************************************************
15. House Judicial Committee approved states reciprocity bill 19-11
*************************************************
Steve Brown emailed me this:
--
From thehill.com: http://tinyurl.com/3vzcmn2
House panel clears conceal-and-carry gun bill, with one Republican defection
By Molly K. Hooper
10/26/11
The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved a gun-rights bill that could be headed to the floor by the end of 2011.
The legislation, which would allow for conceal-and-carry weapon reciprocity across states lines, cleared the panel on a 19-11 vote.
All but one committee Republican, Rep. Dan Lungren (Calif.), supported the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, which is sponsored by Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.); Democrats united in opposition to the bill. Lungren and other Republicans have raised concerns about the legislation's effect on the rights of states.
GOP leadership sources told The Hill that the bipartisan measure, with 245 co-sponsors, will likely come up for a vote on the floor before year's end.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said the bill would make it easier for individuals with permits to cross state lines with their concealed weapons.
"The bill allows law-abiding gun owners with valid state-issued concealed-firearms permits or licenses to carry a concealed firearm in any other state that also allows concealed carry. This legislation does not pre-empt a state's ability to set concealed-carry requirements for its own residents," Smith said at the markup.
Lungren, a former attorney general of California, opposed the bill, contending it infringes on states' rights.
Lungren wants the measure to set a minimum national standard for conceal-and-carry permit holders.
He is also concerned that residents of states with strict conceal-and-carry requirements would go to other states with less stringent requirements to obtain a permit.
"I wanted to offer an amendment that the person be a resident of the state in order for the reciprocity imposed by federal law -- in other words, a resident of the state that granted the permit," Lungren said, noting that his concerns were not adequately addressed in committee.
Democrats, meanwhile, cited the 10th Amendment, which deals with states' rights, in opposing the Stearns bill.
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), a co-sponsor of the measure until Oct. 12 when he formally withdrew his support, called the bill "repugnant" to his "perspective of states' rights."
"One thing the Tea Party is right on is that states ought to have more sovereignty. And on gun laws, states should have sovereignty, and we are taking away the sovereignty of the states," Cohen said earlier this month.
The White House has not indicated where it stands on the bill. The National Rifle Association (NRA) did not respond to several requests for comment.
But in an op-ed published on the conservative website Townhall.com, Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, stated that passage of the conceal-and-carry bill is a "top priority" for the organization.
"The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act doesn't violate the 10th Amendment. Rather, the act recognizes that the Second Amendment guarantees the fundamental, individual right of every law-abiding citizen to bear arms for safety when traveling," Cox wrote.
That opinion, however, is not shared by other gun-rights activists.
John Velleco, director of federal affairs for the Gun Owners of America, noted that his organization has concerns with the bill, but it does not officially oppose it.
Velleco said that states such as Vermont, Wyoming, Arizona and Alaska that do not require permits for individuals who choose to carry a concealed weapon would be punished under Stearns's bill.
The gun group has endorsed bills offered by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) that would take into consideration those states without permit laws.
*************************************************
16. TSA releases VIPR venom on Tennessee highways
*************************************************
Government gone wild.
Ben Piper emailed me this:
--
From paul.house.gov: http://tinyurl.com/5w7whvj
TSA Releases VIPR Venom on Tennessee Highways
By Ron Paul
If you thought the "Transportation Security Administration" would limit itself to conducting unconstitutional searches at airports, think again. The agency intends to assert jurisdiction over our nation's highways, waterways, and railroads as well. TSA launched a new campaign of random checkpoints on Tennessee highways last week, complete with a sinister military-style acronym--VIP(E)R--as a name for the program.
As with TSA's random searches at airports, these roadside searches are not based on any actual suspicion of criminal activity or any factual evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever by those detained. They are, in effect, completely random. So first we are told by the U.S. Supreme Court that American citizens have no 4th Amendment protections at border crossings, even when standing on U.S. soil. Now TSA takes the next logical step and simply detains and searches U.S. citizens at wholly internal checkpoints.
The slippery slope is here. When does it end? How many more infringements on our liberties, our property, and our basic human rights to travel freely will it take before people become fed up enough to demand respect from their government? When will we demand that the government heed obvious constitutional limitations, and stop treating ordinary Americans as criminal suspects in the absence of probable cause?
The real tragedy occurs when Americans incrementally become accustomed to this treatment on the roads just as they have become accustomed to it in the airports. We already accept arriving at the airport 2 or more hours before a flight to get through security; will we soon have to build in an extra 2 or 3 hours into our road trips to allow for checkpoint traffic?
Worse, some people are lulled into a false sense of security and are actually grateful for this added police presence! Should we really hail the expansion of the police state as an enhancement to safety? I submit that an attitude of acquiescence to TSA authority is thoroughly dangerous, un-American, and insulting to earlier freedom-loving generations who built this country.
I am certain people will complain about this, once they have to sit in stopped traffic for a few extra hours to allow for random searches of cars. However, I am also certain it merely will take another "foiled" plot to silence many people into gladly accepting more government mismanagement of safety.
Vigilant, observant, law-abiding, gun-owning citizens defend themselves and stop crimes every day before police can respond. That is the source of real security in America: the 2nd Amendment right to defend oneself. The answer is for people to be empowered to protect themselves. Yet how many weapons might these checkpoints confiscate? Even when individual go through all the legal hoops of licensing and permits, the chances of harassment or outright confiscation of weapons and detention of citizens when those weapons are found at a TSA checkpoint is extremely high.
Disarming the highways and filling them full of jack-booted thugs demanding to see our papers is no way to make them safer. Instead, it is a great way to expand government surveillance powers and tighten the noose around our liberties.
--------
From techdirt.com: http://tinyurl.com/42jld5v
TSA Decides Terrorists Must Be Driving; Partners With Tenn. Law Enforcement To Randomly Search Vehicles
from the the-United-States:-now-with-more-acronyms-than-rights! dept
Pitabred sends in the distressing but completely unsurprising news that the TSA, with the cooperation of the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, is now trolling for terrorists on the open highway.
The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security on Tuesday partnered with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and several other federal and state agencies for a safety enforcement and awareness operation on Tennessee's interstates and two metropolitan-area bus stations.
But this was no ordinary random search of vehicles. This one had its own acronym:
The agencies conducted a Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) operation at scale complexes where trucks and large vehicles are weighed. The VIPR operation was also conducted at two regional bus terminals in Nashville and Knoxville.
As awesomely G.I. Joe-ish as VIPR sounds, one would think that random searches of vehicles might run afoul of the Fourth Amendment. The word from above is: Don't worry about it. You're probably just thinking too much. Highway patrol Colonel Tracy Trott offers some much needed perspective:
The random inspections really aren't any more thorough [than?] normal, according to Tennessee Highway Patrol Colonel Tracy Trott who says paying attention to details can make a difference. Trott pointed out it was an Oklahoma state trooper who stopped Timothy McVeigh for not having a license plate after the Oklahoma City bombing in the early 1990s.
Question, the first: If these inspections aren't any more thorough than "normal," why the extra personnel and additional super-cool acronym?
Question, the second: An anecdote about catching someone after they've already performed an act of terrorism is hardly comforting.
Still not convinced that there's a whole lot of "nothing to see here" contained within this new operation? More empty statements are available to wave away your concerns:
Larry Godwin, deputy commissioner of TDSHS, said the checks at the weigh stations were about showing the people of Tennessee the government is serious about transportation safety, and to make sure the state is ready in case something were to happen.
I'm not going to speak for anybody else, but I find that the increased presence of law enforcement and various geared-up ancillaries rarely makes me feel "safer." Usually a swarm of drug/bomb sniffing dogs and SWAT-team members leads me to believe that either a.) something bad has happened or b.) something bad is going to happen. While I would agree that this sight would make me believe that the government is indeed "serious" about something, it does very little to convince me that it is "ready" for anything.
If you (like me) are still feeling a bit less than safe (and perhaps, more likely to be randomly searched), take heart! Your fellow citizens are being recruited to turn you in, should you happen to do something perceived as "suspicious," most likely at a high rate of speed.
Agents are recruiting truck drivers, like Rudy Gonzales, into the First Observer Highway Security Program to say something if they see something.
"Not only truck drivers, but cars, everybody should be aware of what's going on, on the road," said Gonzales.
It's all meant to urge every driver to call authorities if they see something suspicious.
"Somebody sees something somewhere and we want them to be responsible citizens, report that and let us work it through our processes to abet the concern that they had when they saw something suspicious," said Paul Armes, TSA Federal Security Director for Nashville International Airport.
While I'm fairly sure that's either a misquote or just a miswording by Armes, the idea that the TSA might "abet" (aid, encourage, incite, foster, promote) concerns seems very plausible. After all, without the vague threat of terrorist activity, where would they be? (Look under your vehicle.)
Let's briefly review the Fourth Amendment and see how this new effort checks down:
The Fourth Amendment... guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Reasonable search? Probable cause?
Tuesday's statewide "VIPR" operation isn't in response to any particular threat, according to officials.
Ah. Well, with the TSA moving onto the highway (having already made its presence known in bus stations and subways), it's presumably only a matter of time before it decides that terrorists have been chased out of the skies and off the road by its efforts, and at that point, there's really only one place left to look for potential troublemakers.
*************************************************
17. U.S. Rep to U.N. says Obama wants Senate to ratify Arms Treaty
*************************************************
The Senate isn't going to ratify it, no matter what Obama wants.
From prnewswire.com: http://tinyurl.com/3zytyo3
U.S. Rep to U.N. Says Obama Wants Senate to Ratify Arms Treaty
BELLEVUE, Wash., Oct. 19, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Obama administration "is seeking advice and consent" for Senate ratification of an international small arms treaty, and also supports the inclusion of small arms in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms learned today.
The disclosure is found in the text of a statement to the First Committee of the 66th session of the UN General Assembly, delivered by Laura E. Kennedy, the permanent United States representative to the Conference on Disarmament. CCRKBA obtained a copy of the statement.
In her statement, Kennedy recalls that the United States in 1997, under the Clinton administration, signed the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials. However, the Senate never ratified the document, and there was no interest in pushing the treaty during the Bush administration. American firearms rights activists have steadfastly fought against inclusion of small arms in any such treaty.
"More than half the members of the Senate have already advised Barack Obama that they will not ratify any treaty that threatens the Second Amendment rights of American citizens," noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, "so it's not clear why he is - according to Kennedy's revealing statement - suddenly seeking Senate ratification of this measure.
"If the Obama administration is this eager to push adoption of a treaty that's been gathering dust for eleven years," he added, "one can only imagine how fast this president will want to see action on the proposed global Arms Trade Treaty.
"This suggests that Obama fears he may be a one-term president," Gottlieb stated, "and he feels a compelling need to finally bring his anti-gun agenda to the surface and push it through. We have known all along about his desire to bind this country to an international gun control scheme, and now Kennedy's statement confirms that."
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation's premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.
SOURCE Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
*************************************************
18. PA college student fights back with concealed carry
*************************************************
Jeff Koke emailed me this:
--
Philip,
FYI
Temple University student.
From abclocal.com: http://tinyurl.com/3pw5ymj
*************************************************
19. Pregnant woman killed after shielding children from gunfire at school
*************************************************
Impossible - the federal Gun Free School Zone Act makes possessing a gun within 1,000 feet of a school illegal. We all know that laws stop violent criminals dead in their tracks.
John Treaster emailed me this:
--
Who could possibly need a gun at school?
A pregnant 34-year-old New York mother was fatally shot as she bravely shielded her children and others when gunfire erupted outside a Brooklyn school Friday afternoon, police said. Plus this happened in Bloomberg's bailiwick - doubly impossible.
From foxnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/66tgnno
Pregnant Woman Killed After Shielding Children From Gunfire at School
Published October 21, 2011
New York Post
NEW YORK - A pregnant 34-year-old New York mother was fatally shot as she bravely shielded her children and others when gunfire erupted outside a Brooklyn school Friday afternoon, police said.
Bullets also struck an 11-year-old girl and a 31-year-old woman who was walking out of P.S./I.S. 298 with her own kids right after classes were dismissed at about 2:35pm, authorities said.
"As soon as we crossed the street, they started shooting," said a cousin of the dead woman Zurana Horton, a mother of 13 kids who was on the way to pick up another one of them from another school when she was struck down.
"The gunfire was everywhere, we couldn't move, there was nowhere [to] go, we didn't know where the bullets were coming from," said the cousin, who did not give her name. "She was about to get ready to move out of here, she's getting married, but now she can't do any of that."
The 11-year-old victim, Cheanne McKnight, "kept screaming, 'They shot me in the face! They shot my face!'" said her aunt Ximinia Fernandez.
"I didn't know if she was OK -- I just saw a big hole in her face," Fernandez said at Brookdale Hospital, where she drove her niece after the horrific shooting. "That poor little girl." Cheanne was in stable condition with a graze wound to her face.
The shots -- believed to have been fired from the roof of a nearby building -- struck the victims as they walked in front of the Lucky Supermarket on Watkins Street, less than a block from the school, police said.
NYPD spokesman Paul Brown said police are eyeing the possibility the gunman was firing at a group of youths arguing on the street below. Investigators retrieved seven 9mm shell casings from the rooftop of the building at 1800 Pitkin Avenue -- a gang-ridden address -- and another five 9mm casings from the sidewalk right in front of the building.
When Horton heard the gunshots, she grabbed the child she was with and others around her "to protect them as the shots were fired," Browne said. Her dramatic sacrifice was caught on a surveillance video, sources said.
The third victim was identified by a cousin as Unique Mobily, who was shot in the arm and chest as she walked from the school with her kids. "She says she's OK, I talked to her," said Mobily's cousin, who did not give his name. "She's in pain, she's hurting."
Three men, one with a black hooded top and a second in dark clothing, fled from the scene eastbound on foot and entered a nearby property, said Browne, the police spokesman. Two people from the property were being questioned by police Friday night.
Two suspects, including the gunman, were still being sought. A $12,000 reward is being offered for information in the case.
*************************************************
20. California gunners hold open-carry protest
*************************************************
California had 30 patriots stand up for their dwindling gun-rights. Police gear up to answer calls from "frightened citizens." That's what happens when gun rights are kept in the closet for too long and people are not reminded that guns are used by good people to save lives. Too bad California's open carry movement didn't start sooner and wasn't bigger.
--
From nbcsandiego.com: http://tinyurl.com/3tqfaxc [Video]
Group Holds Open-Carry Protest in PB
Demonstration held over Governor Jerry Brown's signing of Assembly Bill 144
Oct 23, 2011
Nearly 30 people carrying shotguns, rifles and pistols gathered at Pacific Beach in a demonstration supporting open-carry of firearms on Saturday.
The protesters said they decided to hold the event after a recent decision by Governor Brown.
Police were forewarned about the event which took place at corner of Felspar and Ocean Front Walk on Pacific Beach.
"They know that we are law abiding people and we're not out to harm anyone," said Sam Wolanyk, a member of Responsible Citizens of California.
The heavily armed group took issue with Governor Jerry Brown's signing of Assembly Bill 144, making it illegal to carry an exposed unloaded handgun in public effective January 1st.
"That leaves us with the only option to exercise our second amendment rights to carry long guns which means rifles and shotguns," Wolanyk said.
Saturday's protest was the group's first effort to get the public used to seeing firearms in public.
Police said all of their actions were legal, but they needed to dedicate resources to deal with calls and questions from frightened people.
"[We are] just calming the public down with these individuals walking around with guns," said Asst. Chief Shelley Zimmerman of San Diego Police Department.
Many beach goers were shocked at the sight and disagreeing with the group's premise.
"You've got criminals that are carrying firepower, how are we going to protect ourselves but it doesn't make the whole society any safer," said one woman.
For Leighann Nickle , an Ontario resident and activist, carrying a 357 magnum revolver is an important option.
"I love my life, I love my family, I love my daughter and I love my community and everyone around it," said Nickle, "I want to be able to protect them if and when the need should arise."
*************************************************
21. More: NYC PD smuggling guns into NY? Say it ain't so!
*************************************************
David Codrea goes much further on the subject here:
"Are Bloomberg's cops the 'only ones' who can be trusted with guns in NYC?"
From the Gun Rights Examiner: http://tinyurl.com/3gfh3lk
He concludes with this:
[SNIP]
I could go on, but the point is made--not to "bash cops," as some monopoly of violence fascists/police state apologists accuse, but to simply document that the badge does not automatically make a person more trustworthy or better qualified than we peaceable gun owners. And as for those who would dismiss this as "a few bad apples," admittedly, out of the 35,000+ full-time and 4,500 auxiliary officers on the force, these few recently-documented reports represent a small percentage.
But then again, just look at what the dishonest citizen disarmament fanatics do to make the case that gun-owning citizens--who jump through all the hoops to carry firearms for self-defense--are a murderous threat because of anecdotal incidents involving an even smaller percentage of the total population of concealed carriers.
*************************************************
22. New Jersey Second Amendment Society promotional video
*************************************************
Frank Fiamingo emailed me this:
--
Hi Phil,
One of our members recently put this promotional video together for us. I would like to know what you think of it. He is actually an amateur, but I thought he did a really fine job getting the point across in a clever, entertaining and informative way:
The Never-ending Saga of Firearms Ownership in New Jersey
I was also hoping that if you like it, you would share it with your members and the people you know in the 2A rights community. We only put it up on YouTube a few days ago and we already have over 8600 views. I think it deserves to be seen. And even though it is about NJ firearms laws, a lot of the basic concepts are universal.
Thank you,
Frank Jack Fiamingo - President
President@nj2as.com
Video: http://www.nj2as.com/
*************************************************
23. Gun ownership by state
*************************************************
James Durso emaiiled me this:
--
FYI, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is run by the Centers for Disease Control and "is the world's largest, on-going telephone health survey system, tracking health conditions and risk behaviors in the United States yearly since 1984"http://www.cdc.gov/brfss/ .
From the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/2kmr5w
*************************************************
24. Felons can have guns
*************************************************
Christopher Stacy emailed me this:
--
From volokh.com: http://tinyurl.com/3pnfuyu
Second Amendment Protects Felon Whose Convictions Were 30 Years Ago
By Eugene Volokh
October 27, 2011
So held a North Carolina trial court in Johnston v. State (Oct. 24, 2011). Richard Johnston had been convicted of "felonious receipt of stolen property and conspiracy to commit grand larceny" in 1978, and pled no contest "to fraudulent setting fire, conspiracy, false statement to procure, and conspiracy to receive, receiving, conspiracy to commit larceny and accessory before the fact" in 1981. (The underlying crimes occurred in 1976, and "did not involve either violence or the use of a firearm.") Since then, Johnston has apparently led a law-abiding life, setting aside "routine traffic citations and two hunting citations, one of which was dismissed"; he is now 69 years old.
The trial court concluded that, when Heller said that bans on felon possession of guns were "presumptively valid," this presumption could be rebutted, and in this case it was rebutted, given the age of Johnston's conviction and his apparently blameless life since then. The court also suggested that its analysis might also apply to people whose last convictions were as recent as seven years ago, especially when the convictions were for nonviolent crimes; but it didn't have occasion to issue any specific holding on that point.
The court also concluded that North Carolina's firearms rights restoration law -- which allows firearms rights to be restored only when a person has only one felony conviction, that felony is a nonviolent felony, and the conviction is at least 20 years old -- violates the Due Process Clause, because it "provides no procedural mechanism by which a person subject to it may be heard on the issue of ... her likelihood to commit future crimes of violence using a firearm before being deprived of her fundamental liberty interest" (p. 23). (I'm not sure that this is a sound argument: If a permanent ban on gun ownership by all felons who have more than one felony conviction is unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds, the due process analysis is beside the point, but if it is unconstitutional as to certain felons, the objection is to the substantive prohibition and not to the procedure.)
Finally, though the court favorably cites Britt v. State, a 2009 North Carolina Supreme Court case that held that a felon whose crimes were similarly far in the past regained his constitutional right to bear arms, the Johnston decision rests on the Second Amendment, and Britt relied only on the North Carolina Constitution's right to bear arms provision. This makes Johnston potentially more influential in other jurisdictions, assuming it is appealed and affirmed on appeal.
The opinion is also quite long and pretty detailed in setting forth its arguments; if you're interested in the subject, read the whole thing.
*************************************************
25. CBS highlights public opposition to gun control
*************************************************
A VA-ALERT reader emailed me this:
--
From newsbusters.org: http://tinyurl.com/3ejaulu
CBS Highlights Public Opposition to Gun Control
By Brad Wilmouth
October 28, 2011
On Friday's The Early Show, CBS correspondent Whit Johnson filed a report highlighting a recent Gallup poll finding a majority of Americans opposing new gun control laws at the highest rate ever recorded. After beginning the piece by highlighting a woman who just recently decided to become a gun owner for the first time in her life, Johnson detailed some of the poll's findings:
According to a new Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans report having a gun on their property, up from 41 percent a year ago, the highest number Gallup has recorded since 1993. The poll also found that 53 percent of Americans oppose a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic guns, the first time more have opposed than supported a ban.
The CBS correspondent noted that Democrats like President Obama have been reluctant to push new gun laws, and took a moment to note complaints from gun control advocates. After a clip of Colin Goddard, a member of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, complaining that there are not enough gun laws, Johnson undermined him by noting the substantial drop in "gun-related homicides" that has coincided with increasing gun ownership:
WHIT JOHNSON: But the number of firearm-related homicides in the U.S. has dropped dramatically, from more than 18,000 in 1993, to fewer than 9,000 in 2010 - numbers the NRA is quick to point out.
CHRIS COX, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Those rates are the lowest record in 43 years while gun ownership is at all-time high. It really destroys the arguments from the gun control community that more guns means more crime.
But the CBS correspondent ended his piece on an odd note as he seemed to wonder if new gun owners like the woman featured earlier would end up somehow undermining the positive crime statistics, and noted that the assault weapon ban likely will not be renewed.. Johnson:
Still, it remains to be seen how new gun owners like Katie Barbour will shape the debate going forward. The 10-year assault weapons ban signed by President Clinton expired in 2004. Polls like this one only reinforce the growing sense of reluctance among Democrats to once again take the issue on.
Below is a complete transcript of the report from the Friday, October 28, The Early Show on CBS:
CHRIS WRAGGE: But first here this morning, some news this morning about gun control that may surprise you. According to a new poll, most Americans are now against it. It's a sign that we're more comfortable with guns than ever, and correspondent Whit Johnson is in Washington with more for us on that. Whit, good morning.
WHIT JOHNSON: Chris, good morning to you. Well, it's difficult to monitor gun ownership in this country, but this new Gallup poll indicates that more and more people have guns in their homes, and that America's attitude towards gun control may be shifting. Katie Barbour is firing a gun for just the second time
KATIE BARBOUR, GUN OWNER: I was, never was around guns my whole entire life, and-
JOHNSON: Keeping an open mind, Katie went to this shooting range in Virginia with her boyfriend two weeks ago, and now they're handgun owners.
BARBOUR: I don't really think I'm comfortable with carrying a handgun around 24/7 strapped to my side yet, but, you know, I do, I do feel comfortable in a place like this.
JOHNSON: According to a new Gallup poll, 47 percent of Americans report having a gun on their property, up from 41 percent a year ago, the highest number Gallup has recorded since 1993. The poll also found that 53 percent of Americans oppose a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic guns, the first time more have opposed than supported a ban. Even after Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was seriously wounded this year in an Arizona shooting rampage, the cries for tougher gun laws have quieted on Capitol Hill. President Obama has said little about the subject publicly, frustrating gun violence prevention advocates like Colin Goddard.
COLIN GODDARD, BRADY CAMPAIGN TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE: That morning changed my whole perspective on this country, my community.
JOHNSON: Goddard was shot four times during the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre. He says the words "gun control" have become a political tabboo, and a distraction from much needed reforms.
GODDARD: Took me nearly losing my life to realize that, you know, we don't register guns, we don't license gun owners, we don't even do background checks on everybody.
JOHNSON: But the number of firearm-related homicides in the U.S. has dropped dramatically, from more than 18,000 in 1993, to fewer than 9,000 in 2010 - numbers the NRA is quick to point out.
CHRIS COX, NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION: Those rates are the lowest record in 43 years while gun ownership is at all-time high. It really destroys the arguments from the gun control community that more guns means more crime.
JOHNSON: Still, it remains to be seen how new gun owners like Katie Barbour will shape the debate going forward. The 10-year assault weapons ban signed by President Clinton expired in 2004. Polls like this one only reinforce the growing sense of reluctance among Democrats to once again take the issue on.
*************************************************
26. NATO taking guns from Libyans
*************************************************
Nancy Gruttman-Tyler emailed me this:
--
Philip,
I came across this NATO newsletter about the status of Libya, now that Gadhafi is gone. What's astonishing is the underlying assumption that the people must be disarmed. Obviously, there's no possibility of someone worse replacing him...hmmmm?
Nancy Gruttman-Tyler,
Hampton
From nato.int: http://tinyurl.com/63j3g5b
Securing Libya's weapons
19 Oct. 2011
It's easy to see where the oil revenues of Libya were squandered over the decades of Colonel Qadafi's rule. The streets of the country are now awash with weapons that have fallen into the hands of the National Transitional Council as they seized the caches that were built up to suppress the Libyan people.
The looting of these weapons hoards allowed the rebels to quickly acquire the firepower they needed to overthrow the regime, but it has resulted in a highly armed population. It is a problem that will need to be addressed quickly if it is not to create security issues further down the line.
Giving up the guns
The situation is serious and there have been calls for the National Transitional Council to act quickly. Recent advertising on Libyan television and radio has encouraged people to hand over their weapons to the authorities.
"It's started to be like a daily routine where people come and give up their weapons," says Abed, a member of the National Transitional Council in Abu Sleem. "Before, we had to go to their homes and collect the weapons, now it's the other way round."
It is easy to understand why Libyans are not keen to part with the weapons that have taken them through the revolution and thrown off the shackles of a hated despotic regime. Fear and uncertainty in their future has led many to feel that the time has not yet come when they can return to their old lives and put down the tools of war.
"I won't hand it over until the country is clear and Qadhafi is captured," says Osama, who used to be a mechanic before the conflict. "When nothing is wrong with the country, I'll hand over my weapon."
Others, who have a deeper trust in their new leaders, are ready to follow orders. "Even now if they want me to hand over my weapon I will happily do it, and I will go straight home. I have no problem with this. The most important thing is to have peace and stability in Libya," says Mahmoud with an assault rifle slung over his shoulder.
The revolutionary without his rifle
One shouldn't underestimate the power of the image of a man with a Kalashnikov in Libya now. A sense of bravado has built up around it. Before the revolution they may not have come across a weapon unless they were drafted into the army and a lot of young men had only seen guns in the movies.
"You have to be responsible of what you are doing first," says Ahmed, "I mean holding a gun is not easy. It's not like 'oh look at me I'm holding a gun, I'm showing off.' That's not it. You're doing something for your country, you're supposed to save people, make people safe."
However, unlike Ahmed, safety is not at the forefront of everybody's mind. The recent news of the capture of one of Qadhafi's sons brought people out onto the streets, firing wildly into the air in celebration. Smashed car windshields attest to the inevitable return of the bullets towards earth and there have been reports of injuries and even deaths.
The wrong hands
Whilst Kalashnikov rifles and other small arms such as rocket-propelled grenades have flooded Libya in their hundreds of thousands, there are weapons which although less numerous could cause an even greater threat.
It's feared that man-portable missiles, rocket systems and even chemical weapons could fall into the hands of extremists unless prompt action is taken to secure them. Individual nations have taken steps to resolve the issue on a bilateral basis. For instance, a recent Canadian initiative saw the government pledge 10m dollars to help Libya collect and neutralise the threat from these weapons systems, while both the UK and the US also acted to deploy military and civilian personnel on the ground to help secure stockpiles.
With the country awash with weaponry, the National Transitional Council will face a tough challenge in disarming their population and creating a safe future for Libya and the region.
*************************************************
27. Wal-Mart going to carry Mini-14s and AR-15s, Ace Hardware selling handguns!
*************************************************
James Durso emailed me this:
--
From God, Gals, Guns, Brug Blog: http://tinyurl.com/d5w4qlr
*************************************************
28. Survey to answer for those in the 2nd Congressional District (Scott Rigell)
*************************************************
http://rigell.house.gov/Components/Redirect/r.aspx?ID=186324-29143360
*************************************************
29. IMPORTANT - fanny pack carry at GMU on November 9th
*************************************************
EM Dave Knight, ever watchful, pointed out that if you are going to hand your fanny pack to a VCDL member to use the restroom at the GMU protest on November 9th, be sure to hand the fanny pack to someone who as a concealed carry permit! Otherwise that person would be in violation of the law.
-------------------------------------------
***************************************************************************
VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.
VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]
***************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: It is our intention to honor all "remove" requests promptly.
To unsubscribe from this list, or change the email address where you
receive messages, please go to:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303 [https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303]
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=15843530&id_secret=15843530-842dc303
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
No comments:
Post a Comment