The Sentinel

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/27/10

2010-07-28T11:33:43Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

VCDL Update 7/27/10

1. Reminder: VCDL meeting August 5 in Richmond area
2. VCDL booth at Lynchburg gun show on August 7 and 8 - help needed
3. Va. Tech families asking Congress for gun show checks
4. I think I'll skip the Caroline County Fair this year
5. Man hurt in another shooting at IHOP
6. Anti-gun restaurant in Blacksburg goes out of business
7. Articles from the D.C. Gun Rights Examiner
8. Right to bear arms still not absolute
9. Man who shot fiancee in hunting accident sentenced to four months in jail
10. Gun rights groups out-donate gun control groups
11. The NRA protects a potential serial killer
12. Must see video!
13. Clarence Thomas, gun control and the case for black self-defense
14. SAF sues in New York over 'good cause' requirement
15. Gun seekers must be patient for permit
16. Arizona Republican Pamela Gorman fires guns in ad
17. New gun store and shooting range in Lynchburg

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/27/10"

VA-ALERT: VCDL mini-update 7/22/10

2010-07-22T19:45:18Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

1. There is NO VCDL meeting scheduled tonight in Annandale!
2. Time for VCDL meeting in Richmond on August 5th
3. Help still needed for the VCDL booth at the Chantilly gun show next weekend
4. VCDL to have a booth at the Louisa County Agricultural Fair next weekend
5. Gun show coordinator update
6. Gun shows and events

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL mini-update 7/22/10"

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/21/10 - Part 1

2010-07-22T05:21:03Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

VCDL Update 7/21/10

1. Reminder: VCDL meeting August 5 in Richmond area
2. The new VCDL carry cards are available! (The 7/10 to 6/11 edition)
3. Video from VCDL celebration in Richmond, July 1
4. Catholic Virginian: No need for guns in restaurants that serve alcohol (mentions VCDL)
5. Who needs a gun in their own house in a rural community like the Eastern Shore?
6. RT LTE: Guns and alcohol make customers apprehensive
7. Sentara Port Warwick shooting was possible self-defense against knife attack
8. Facts and law aside, gun control advocates are right
9. Lawmakers: High Court decision on guns shouldn't affect Va. [Video]
10. RT LTE: Gun permit holders are less likely to misuse right
11. Demand for Va. gun permits drops (VCDL quoted)

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/21/10 - Part 1"

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/21/10 - Part 2

2010-07-22T05:13:30Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

12. Who needs a gun in Prince William County?
13. VCDL member hassled for open carrying at Virginia Beach hotel, but with a good ending
14. More items prohibited at Music for Americans
15. Roanoke Times cartoon
16. VA-ALERT reader defends right to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol
17. VA-ALERT reader: firearm myths
18. VA-ALERT reader: more on the Coriolis effect
19. VA-ALERT reader: German rail guns did have to compensate
20. Man hurt in another shooting at Va. IHOP
21. Columnist: VCDL makes the NRA look 'moderate', Justice Thomas is like Malcolm X on guns
22. Eugene Volokh discusses Firearms Owners' Protection Act. -- using Virginia in his example
23. Individual choices at stake as laws take effect
24. Debate continues over U.S. gun laws [Video]

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/21/10 - Part 2"

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/21/10 - Part 3

2010-07-22T05:08:03Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

25. Applications for concealed-gun permits from Utah hit record levels
26. Utah's gun permit popular with nonresidents
27. Judge blasts Iowa sheriff for denying gun permit to man considered 'weird'
28. Thomas' principled jurisprudence in arms case
29. Vendor (not customers) has a negligent discharge at a gun show
30. Time Magazine web site photos on OC
31. Police shoot Army veteran at Las Vegas Costco
32. How the McDonald decision shows that activism works
33. Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
34. Tell me again how taking away all our guns would make us safe

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/21/10 - Part 3"

VA-ALERT: Victory in York County!

2010-07-21T18:20:19Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Last night the York County Board of Supervisors voted to repeal their discharge bans and let state law rule!

The only fly in the ointment was that they did decide to keep a ban on discharging rifles that are greater than .22 caliber.

The York County Sheriff, Danny Diggs, did a fantastic job in standing up for gun owners in front of the Board of Supervisors and deserves the lion's share of credit for this victory.

Around 30 gun owners showed up and around 4 antis. Significantly, no one from a Home Owners Association was there.

The vote was broken into two parts: repealing the ban on discharge of rifles that are greater than .22 caliber and repealing all other discharge bans, including discharging a gun in and around a subdivision (state law would prevail and there would be no issue if such discharge was done safely).

Here is my impression of the Board members in this matter:

Walter Zaremba - voted wrong both times and fell flat when he tried to use logic to lay down the groundwork for his anti-gun vote

Sheila Noll - knew she couldn't stop the .22 caliber rifle restriction from being lifted if it was voted on in conjunction with lifting the other restrictions, so she pushed for the TWO votes . As gun owners talked, she bobbed her head up and down like she understood what they were saying, but at the end of the day she voted wrong on both items. I am now thinking she was just working a kink out in her neck

Donald Wiggins (chairman) - voted correctly on both items. Some of his comments originally made me uncomfortable as to how he was going to vote, but he came through in the end. He also voted to NOT have a separate vote on the .22 caliber rifle limitation

George Hrichak - the quietest one on the Board, but the one who really understands freedom. He pushed to not have a separate vote on the .22 caliber rifle limitation, too

Thomas Sheppard Jr - I thought he might support both repeals, but in the end voted wrong on the .22 caliber rifle limitation. He pushed with Ms. Noll to have the two votes, instead of just one.

What was really frustrating is that NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN CHARGED with violating the .22 caliber rifle restriction, but three of the five board members voted to keep it any how. The three votes to keep that restriction were politics at its worst: keeping up an illusion that they were still doing "something" to "protect" their constituents, while actually oppressing those who are law abiding.

Anyway, this was still an important victory for York County - we can come back to get rid of that .22 caliber rifle restriction later.

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

"Even in the immediate aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings..."

2010-07-19T12:32:17Z

...Virginia lawmakers could not be "moved" to pass laws that are irrelevant to that tragedy.

So laments the Roanoke Times in a recent Editorial.

Ignoring the editorial's blatant propaganda in attempting to link the Virginia Tech tragedy to gun shows (the perpetrator of Virginia Tech received his guns from licensed dealers, not at gun shows, and was subjected to the requisite background checks), the fact is, as already mentioned on this blog a couple of weeks ago, even the anti-gun lobby's own "researchers" have begun admitting that the "gun show loophole" is a fallacy:

In fact, there is no gun-show loophole as such. Federal law is silent on the issue of gun shows and permits private-party gun sales to occur anywhere.

Furthermore, this same researcher, Dr. Garen Wintemute, a researcher who's never met a gun control proposal he didn't like, was forced to admit that a measure requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows would have minimal impact, if any at all, on criminal access to guns:

Gun shows account for a small percentage of all gun sales in the United States — between 4 and 9%, according to the best estimates available.¹ Similarly, they account for just 3 to 8% of all private-party gun sales. Legislation to close the gun-show loophole would not affect the great majority of private-party sales, and motivated illicit buyers could simply find private sellers elsewhere. (In addition, closing the alleged loophole would not necessarily reduce, by more than a small amount, the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes. Most sales at gun shows — more than 80%, according to unpublished data³ — are made by licensed retailers, not private parties, and data from gun-trafficking investigations indicate that two thirds of the guns used in crimes that have been linked to gun shows were sold by licensed retailers²).

In other words, there is very good reason for legislators to refused to be "moved to pass laws" that are based on nothing more than emotional appeals and imaginary links to heinous crimes.

As much as the Roanoke Times editorial staff loves to paint the NRA as some faceless, unstoppable leviathan, the elephant in the room is that it is the millions of law abiding gun owners (and dependable voters) that the NRA represents, as well as the tens of millions of other law abiding gun owners who are not NRA members, that gives "the gun lobby" such sway over the the legislative process.

As difficult as it is for some to admit, it is gun rights supporters who are in the mainstream in the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is the anti-rights bigots of the Roanoke Times, the Brady Campaign, the Violence Policy Center and their ilk who are the fringe element...the minority that is, through propaganda and emotional appeals, attempting to foist their agenda onto the majority.

Thanks to alternative media and the tireless efforts of the millions of individuals who make up "the gun lobby", more and more freedom loving Americans every day are waking up to the truth about gun rights; and that's why we are winning.

VA-ALERT: YORK COUNTY to vote on gun-control repeal TUESDAY!

2010-07-18T02:51:49Z

From Philip Van Cleave

York County and nearby members:

We need as big a turnout as we can get on Tuesday, July 20th at 6 PM as that is when the York County Board of Supervisors is going to get public input and then debate and vote on a REPEAL to all of their discharge ordinances - letting state law prevail!

Living in Chesterfield County, I am envious of what will be a big improvement for York County.

**I fully expect that this will bring out various Home Owner's Associations and other anti-gunners, so we NEED to be there in large numbers to counter them.**

EVEN IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN YORK COUNTY, come out to help support those that do. Part of our strength is that we stand together shoulder-to-shoulder.

I hope this is the beginning of a trend that will give us much better discharge laws throughout the state.

Last time our turnout was OK, but we must do better this time - the opposition will be there. If you can't get there at 6 PM, it looks like you can still be in time for the debate if you get there as late at 7 PM.

Here is the information on the repeal:

-

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF YORK
YORKTOWN, VIRGINIA

Agenda

Regular Meeting
July 20, 2010

Board Room
York Hall
6:00 p.m.

...

7:00 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

...

2 Repeal of York County Firearms Ordinance. Consider adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 10-13 to repeal Section 16-7, Discharging Firearms within Certain Areas Prohibited, and Section 16-37, Discharge of High Powered Rifles Prohibited, of the York County Code.

a. Memorandum from County Administrator.

http://www.yorkcounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fDJxIbPniFw%3d&tabid=1900

b. Section 16-7, Discharging firearms within certain areas prohibited.

http://www.yorkcounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=hHR4xA575zI%3d&tabid=1900

c. Section 16-37, Discharge of high-powered rifles prohibited.

http://www.yorkcounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bV7kvCIL6zQ%3d&tabid=1900

d. Proposed Ordinance No. 10-13.

http://www.yorkcounty.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=RgD7DiACIw0%3d&tabid=1900

-

Here is the address:

York Hall
301 Main Street
(old historic Yorktown)

Carry is OK.

**I'll be there around 5:45PM with GSL stickers for everyone.**

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Why we're winning...

2010-07-15T11:37:10Z

Because in an open "debate", our position is supported by facts and history, theirs is supported by vague feelings and biased opinions:

Jack: Well, this is going to come as a surprise to many of the viewing audience, but guns and alcohol do not mix. This is ground-breaking, no, but we simply feel that working in the restaurant industry and, you know, letting these people in with guns, even if they're not allowed to drink, is simply not a good idea.

Phillip: If there were an issue and the police came along and found out one chance in a zillion that a permit holder had done something, then he will be in violation of the law. This is not happening here. We used to be able to carry concealed in restaurants before '95, there was never an issue. This is much to-do about nothing, quite frankly.

I will never understand why people like Jack Lauterback (who, during the interview, amazingly refrained from his internet habit of uncontrollably spewing obscenities) can't seem to grasp the concept that people who follow the rules aren't going to suddenly become raging criminals because of this simple law change.

Their entire irrational fear seems to be based around the assumption that the people who followed the law when it was illegal to carry concealed in places that serve alcohol will...now that it is legal for them to carry there...suddenly eschew their law-abiding ways and break the new law by drinking while carrying.

Jack, if we were willing to break the law, what was preventing us from carrying concealed and drinking in your employer's establishments before this law went into effect? Did the law prior to the change create some sort of magical force field that prevented us from entering should we be carrying a concealed firearm?

If you're so convinced that we'll break the law now, what was preventing us from doing so then?

Of course, he won't answer that question here, and...because he's so eager to debate the issues and all...he doesn't allow comments on his blog so I can't ask it there. Apparently he prefers venues where his critical thinking skills are only put to the test for a few minutes at most.

I suppose that makes sense; it's much easier for him to just spew bigotry, hatred and obscenities than to actually mount a sustained, detailed defense of his position.

In any case, that's that last I'll be discussing this subject. As I said on my personal blog, it's time for Jack's 15 minutes of fame to end and for him to fade back into the richly deserved obscurity from whence he crawled.

BTW: I realize that unofficial internet polls don't really mean anything, but it still feels good to see things like this:

VA-ALERT: Advanced training, #3 Danger on steroids - clearing a room

2010-07-12T17:43:49Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Back in May, I took several force-on-force classes at Practical Firearms Training in West Virginia. To make the training scenarios as real as possible, the instruction included "live fire" with Airsoft and paintball guns and simunitions. In this third scenario, our instructor once again placed us in a simulated convenience store. The room was sparse, but spacious. There was a small table at the front and some shelves with a smattering of grocery store items in the back, furthest from the door. Our task: clear the room. Or, alternatively, avoid discovery. It was "hide and go seek"---with guns.

One student was charged with "clearing" the room of a hidden bad guy. The other student hid, defending himself from an invader coming through the doorway. Once the scenario had run, the students would switch parts and the scenario would run again.

The room has only one door. A series of three closets runs along the wall on your immediate left, one-after-the-other, with hardly any gap between them. The closets stick out about a foot or so beyond the wall.

I was told to clear the room. I waited out of sight as the other student hid himself somewhere in the room.

I drew my gun from my holster. Keeping myself about an arm's length from the outside wall of the doorway, I peeked into the room. Carefully.

Hollywood always shows the good guy hugging the wall as he enters a dangerous space. Wrong. You don't want to "crowd" your cover or concealment; you need to be able to move freely. You're protected equally well whether you're right up against the cover or a short distance away from it. When you're "off the wall," you have more flexibility.

I kept the gun in front of me, close to my face.

You don't want your gun to pop into the room before the rest of you appears. If the bad guy sees your weapon, he'll know exactly where you are. Even worse, you aren't in a position to see him. He can shoot you where you stand. If he's close to your position, he could also grab your gun.

I began "slicing-the-pie." I slowly peeked into the room, starting from the most easily seen area, progressively scanning the room until I could see the entire area. It is critical that a minimum part of your head, your body, or your gun be visibly exposed to any part of the room that you have not yet scanned.

There's a reason doorways and entryways are called the "kill funnel". The bad guy can focus his attention (and firepower) on that area. You have no idea where HE is and must scan the room looking for him, all the while knowing that a hail of bullets could come flying at any exposed part of your body at any time.

As I started slicing the pie, I saw a small table, almost straight ahead through the doorway. There was no place for the bad guy to hide near it. So I kept slicing to the left very slowly.

As i slowly edged around the left side of the doorway, I notice that the closet door nearest to me was open. The door blocked my view into all of the closets. I couldn't see anything along the left of the wall, or much at the back of the room.

I figured I could peek through the gap by the door's hinge to look fort the bad guy. But it dawned on me that he might be able to fire though that same gap. I glanced quickly through the gap and quickly moved forward about a foot, so I wouldn't be visible any more through that gap.

I was now past the main doorway. I was using the open closet door as concealment, so I could slice-the-pie for the remaining left and rear of the room. The bad guy was either in one of the three closets, in front of the closets, or possibly further back in the far left -side of the room.

Even with a small part of my head sticking out around concealment, there was a palpable feeling of vulnerability. My heart rate increased dramatically. I knew I was now only seconds from confrontation. My next move could be my last.

I slowly and quietly sliced to my left. The closet door was my safety shield.

Suddenly I spotted him. Actually, I caught only a glimpse of my opponent: his foot and part of his leg. He was about five feet away on the other side of the door, just in front of one of the other closets.

Great. Now that I know where he is, now what?

Do I rush him, firing, risking running straight into a volley of bullets? Do I run into the room at an angle and open fire? While I would be harder to hit while moving, it would be harder for me to hit the bad guy, too.

Do I step forward past the door for a clear shot and open fire, trying to stay behind that door as much as possible? That seemed my safest option, even though it left me relatively stationary with partially obscured vision.

Whatever I was going to do, I knew I had to act quickly. If he'd spotted me, there was nothing to keep him from jumping out from behind that door and blasting me as I was considering my options.

I stepped out from behind concealment to get a clean shot, still trying to stay somewhat behind the closet door.

When I had him in sight, I opened fire. So did he.

The exchange had just begun when I saw an explosion of blue in front of my right eye (remember I am wearing a protective face mast). It was over for me. I took my face mask off in disgust. Had that been a real scenario, I would have been be lying on the floor, dead.

Equally sobering: I hadn't hit the bad guy even once.

Later, I replayed that last few seconds over and over. Should I have kicked the closet door shut, startling the bad guy, opening fire as the door was slamming? While the slamming door would be a distraction and I would have a clear shot, I would also have lost my concealment. Ugh.

What if I'd gotten down low to the floor and had shot around the closet? The low position would probably not be expected and might give me the edge by getting in a few good shots before the bad guy could react. Perhaps that might have worked.

As it was, I handled the situation badly and paid the price.

During this drill, fellow classmate Dennis O'Connor also lucked out. He was slicing the pie and completely missed the bad guy standing behind a box on the shelving in the back of the room. The items on the shelving were scarce and the bad guy's legs and lower torso were clearly visible. Dennis never saw them. The bad guy blasted him as soon as he stepped out to go around the closet door.

The experience highlighted an important principle of visual stealth: you can elude detection by embedding yourself amongst three-dimensional relief patterns of varying colors, textures and sizes. In Dennis' case, an otherwise exposed target blended in so well with the various items on the storage shelves that Dennis missed the bad guy entirely during his scan.

My main lesson from this exercise: do NOT clear a house unless you absolutely have to, especially alone. The police are paid to do that and will do so with enough people to property cover each area. If there is someone in your house, assume a defensive position and call 911.

One of our members was recently burglarized. Returning home, seeing an open side door, he cleared his house by himself. If he had performed this exercise in PFT's force-on-force training,he might have reconsidered.

The issue is simple: the person sequestered in the house has the tactical edge. He knows exactly where you have to enter the room. He's ready for you. BUT it's not a guarantee that he will prevail. As we will see in Part Four.

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: Tell Webb/Warner to oppose Kagan

2010-07-13T01:51:52Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Elana Kagan, the nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, has made statements that she does not support our Constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. We need to make sure that all nominees are clearly pro-gun, pro-liberty, and will honor the Constitution, not change it.

As such, we need to contact our Senators - Mark Warner and Jim Webb - and urge them to opposer Kagan's nomination!

Jim Webb is taking a poll on Kagan. To let his office know of your opposition, call 804-771-2221.

Also, let's send a webmail to each of them with our opposition to Kagan (HOWEVER, call the number for Webb, TOO):

Warner: http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Webb: http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

For the topic or subject, choose "Supreme Court Nominee" for Warner and "Judiciary issues" for Webb

Suggested message:

I urge you to OPPOSE the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Based on statements made by Ms. Kagan, she does not support our right to keep and bear arms. With our gun rights hanging by a 5 to 4 thread in the Supreme Court, we do not need another activist, anti-liberty judge on the highest court in the land.

Please let me know what you are going to do.

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: Roundtable with local anti-gun bartender

2010-07-12T06:59:51Z

From Philip Van Cleave

----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am scheduled to be on a round table with an anti-gun bartender on NBC 12 News "First at 4" in Richmond around 4:15 PM next Wednesday.

This particular 26-year-old bartender named, Jack Lauterback, who writes a bi-weekly column in Style Weekly titled "Punch Drink," has been fuming over the new law that allows CHP holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption.

He posted a blog entry that really angered gun owners.

He has since redacted his original post, but I already had a copy. He continues to add posts that are just as bad, though.

I have xxxx'ed out the plethora of expletives he uses (and overuses). All I can find in any of his posts are a lot of personal attacks against gun owners and no "meat" as to why CHP holders shouldn't carry in a restaurant. It makes me think of a creme puff, which is mostly air:

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

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Guns and Alcohol

The top story in today's Richmond Times Dispatch was titled 'Gun Owners Celebrate Law'.

The story described how a handful of gun owners met in bars across the state to salute the recent passage of a law that allows people with concealed-handgun permits to bring hidden firearms into restaurants that serve alcohol.

If the past two sentences didn't adequately describe how fxxxxx stupid some people are (including our Governor who signed the law), then I'll tell you how fxxxxx moronic these retards are in the following bullet points:

- 80 fxxxx stupid axxhxxxx met at O'Charleys Bar in Richmond today to celebrate the fact that they can bring a hidden gun into a bar. It's still illegal to drink when carrying a gun, but these fxxxxx complete wastes of life can still meet at a bar and drink Sprite with their guns. Fxxxx hooray!

- If these fxxxx piles of diarrhea need a gun for their protection while they scarf down their fried bxxxxsxxxx then they're a bunch of pussies. I say fried bxxxsxxx because they are no doubt redneck idiots who are extremely overweight.

- I'm honestly thinking about getting a concealed weapons permit with my spotless record and then going to these people's places of work and seeing how they feel about someone that they have never met, walking into their front door with a handgun. Finding these fat-loads will be easy because most of these idiots are the people fixing the power lines in front of my place or they're the ones constantly being late to fix my fxxxxx cable. Although more than a few will be tough to track down...Mostly because those few are poor and unemployed.

- Hide behind your 2nd amendment you uneducated axxhxxxx. When the Brits come back and try to re-colonize us, then you can tell me that I was wrong and that we need to bear arms. Until then...You're a fxxxxxx idiot.

- 'We all use safety when handling and discharging our weapons.'

- Yeah so did that NRA member before he caught his wife cheating and in a drunken rage blew her fxxxxxx head off.

- From the RTD: 'Phillip Bogenberger, a spokesman for the department (VABC), said a violation of the law is not an ABC violation. The responsibility to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages rests with the permit holder'

- Of course Virginia's Alcoholic Beverage Control wouldn't touch this one. They're the ones raping the bars for our money. They don't actually have to deal with drunk patrons who may or may not be carrying firearms.

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

Wow - look at all that profanity - Mr. Lauterback is a really impressive prose writer!

Anyway, he posted this recently:

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

Thursday, July 8, 2010

Gun Debate Update

I've just been informed that a gun debate roundtable is tentatively scheduled for the NBC 12 'First At Four' feature next Wednesday, featuring yours truly. I'm not sure if they're going to find some gun nut for me to make look stupid, or if I have to find one, either way, it's going down.

Who wants to bring it live on TV in front of thousands of people??? I'm waiting...

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

I've notified him via email that I'm the "gun nut" he's "going to make look stupid."

I'm looking forward to it.

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

I DO NOT RECOMMEND visiting Mr. Lauterback's blog site, as the added hits of 14,000 gun owners looking at his tasteless rantings would give him unjustified credibility.

However, it is not my job to serve as a censor. But be warned: If profanity, references to illegal drug use, and sexually explicit material bothers you, don't visit his blog. Otherwise go there at your own risk (duct taping your head is suggested, though). He's clearly hoping to goad gun owners into responding in kind to his insults, threats, and bullying. ***Don't fall for it.***

Also, he's been rewriting what he has said earlier, trying to tone it down. Things come and go on his blog. He throws out an attack and then withdraws it like it never existed: for a little while he had an entry equating me to a hillbilly and saying that debating me would be a cakewalk. An hour later, POOF, it's gone.

Believe it or not, with all his backpedalling, his blog is actually tame compared to what it was just a few days ago:

http://jackgoesforth.blogspot.com/

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/8/10

2010-07-10T00:40:03Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

VCDL Update 7/8/10

1. Reminder: VCDL picnic in Newport News quickly approaching!
2. Reminder: VCDL meeting August 5 in Richmond area
3. Virginia CHP form SP-248 revision
4. Concealed guns allowed in bars, restaurants
5. High court strikes down Chicago handgun ban
6. Anti-gun hysteria follows landmark ruling in Chicago gun ban case
7. Statements from NY on McDonald decision
8. VCDL quoted in Washington Post
9. Cuccinelli applauds the Supreme Court's 2nd Amendment decision despite backing GMU gun ban
10. Chicago announces new gun control law
11. The Heritage Foundation on McDonald
12. Wisconsin District Attorney says he will NOT prosecute a lot of Wisconsin's gun laws in light of McDonald!
13. Great editorial cartoon about the supreme court ruling
14. Why would anyone need a gun at the Mall?
15 Florida's first open carry event
16. Another gun owner unfriendly store
17. "Don't be a victim" airing on Spike TV
18. Video: 2A today for the U.S.A.

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/8/10"

VA-ALERT: Richmond gun show coordinators needed urgently!

2010-07-07T15:08:31Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

1. Urgent need for Richmond gun show coordinators!
2. Gun shows and events!

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: Richmond gun show coordinators needed urgently!"

Restaurant Ban Repeal Celebration Pix and Coverage

2010-07-02T14:25:57Z

Update: More press coverage at the bottom, and I'm working on getting some more event pictures.

We got pictures from four of the Seven venues at which we had Restaurant Ban Repeal celebrations.

Click All Images for full sized version

First up is Mona Lisa's Pizza in Norfolk. We had somewhere around 60 attendees. Somewhat less than the number that RSVP'd , but not a bad showing.

Next up is "Girls With Guns" reporting from Topeka's in Charlottesville:

Here are the pictures from the dinner. We had a small but enthusiastic showing and everyone had a nice meal. About a dozen in attendance. I guess the gorgeous weather kept a lot of people outside!

Ted Deeds Reported in from Uncle Julio's in Woodbridge:

I'd estimate we had about 50, maybe a max of 53 people (were expecting about 70+). The event was very smooth, no media. No problems. Cake delivered and devoured, 1 piece for each VCDL person there. We toasted VCDL and the win we had.

Click Here for more pictures from Woodbridge

And Dave Yates sends these pictures from Champps in Reston, commenting that the pictures should be forwarded to anti-gun Virginia Senator Janet Howell, in who's district Champps is located.

Click Here for more pictures from Reston

UPDATE: Another picture and a short video from Champp's submitted by member Ron Brahin

O'Charley's in Richmond got some media coverage in the Richmond Times Dispatch including this video

and a bit less objective reporting from NBC Channel 12, who felt it necessary to include the overtly disparaging term "gun lovers"

You need to download the latest version of flash player to use this player

Need Help?

The fact that their editorial decision-making process even considers it acceptable to use disparaging terms when referring to law abiding citizens (and potential viewers) speaks volumes to their supposed objectivity on this particular subject. Media Bias? Perish the thought.

However Fox Channel 5 in DC did demonstrate a bit less overt hostility to gun owner's rights in their more balanced piece including an interview with VCDL EM Ed Levine.

Overall, I'd say we had a pretty good day, both in terms of the obvious expanded recognition of the rights of law abiding citizens in the state of Virginia, and in terms of raising public awareness about the issues.

I'll update this post with more pictures or media coverage as I come across them.

Update: Pretty good piece in the Washington Post:

"Honestly, the likelihood of using it is very slim," said Bill Clark, 34, of Springfield, who was discreetly carrying his Sig Sauer .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun tucked under his shirt. "But I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

And a short little mention on CBS Channel 6 Richmond.

Members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League and others brought their firearms with them to the O'Charleys on Mayland Drive in the West End, to celebrate the new state law that allows people with concealed carry permits to bring their guns inside bars and restaurants, provided that they don't drink alcohol.

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/4/2010

2010-07-04T17:15:17Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

Happy 4th!

1. TV stations declare: "Guns in bars!" July 1st (Oh, please)
2. Newspaper: Restaurants brace for armed patrons! (sheesh)
3. How does the earth's rotation affect the path of a bullet?
4. Who needs a gun in a Chesterfield restaurant?
5. Who needs a gun in Va. Beach?
6. Who needs a gun on the VCU Campus?
7. Suffolk widow, 66, describes violent home invasion
8. Girls with guns (including in Va.)
9. Wash. Times editorial on CHP
10. Lungren: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is an affront to the Constitution . . . " (Disclose Act)
11. John Stossel: Guns save lives
12. Who needs a gun on a busy highway?
13. More from his-dis-honor King Daley of Chicago
14. Criminal murders mother of 2, NY Daily News blames gun manufacturers
15. Perdue gun bill actions show sport shooters are not necessarily full Second Amendment supporters.
16. In debate over gun-carry laws, critics are quick to shoot down the facts
17. Number of concealed weapons holders in Brevard, Fla. soars
18. Sheriff urges Texicans to arm themselves in absence of state,federal protection
19. Man charged in Pa. stabbing rampage that killed 4

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 7/4/2010"

VA-ALERT: Tons of press coverage on VCDL celebrations!

2010-07-04T17:09:12Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Thought for today: "Freedom doesn't have a 4 year shelf life" - Mark in Woodbridge

All reports I have seen from the various VCDL celebrations are that they were a resounding success, with everyone having a good time. The establishments all welcomed us back any time.

The Reston and Richmond locations had the most reporters present.

While the largest cake was delivered by Board member John Fenter to the Norfolk location, Board member Dennis O'Connor delivered a smaller cake to 2nd place Richmond and I delivered cakes to 3rd and 4th place Woodbridge and Reston. Board member Al Steed Jr. brought one and some door prizes to the Vinton location.

I truly wish I could have attend all of the celebrations

Anyway, here is coverage and some pictures:

VCDL Blog has lots of good stuff, including pictures of the cakes:

http://blog.vcdl.org/index.php?/archives/992-Restaurant-Ban-Repeal-Celebration-Pix-and-Coverage.html

EM Ed Levine on Fox 5 DC:

http://tinyurl.com/edonfox0701

Reston pictures c/o EM Ed Levine:

http://picasaweb.google.com/102704483493882092481/VCDLRestaurantConcealedCarryBanRepealCelebrationDinner

Richmond Times-Dispatch (some weird statements, like Dennis having two CARTRIDGES on his hip - instead of two MAGAZINES):

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/jul/01/GUNSGAT01-ar-262007/

Channel 12 in Richmond:

http://www.nbc12.com/Global/story.asp?S=12745586&Call=Email&Format=Text

Dennis O'Connor does a great job in this Time-Dispatch video:

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2010/jul/02/guns02-ar-262143/

From Tidewaternews.com (restaurant owner who likes new law interviewed):

http://www.tidewaternews.com/news/2010/jul/02/concealed-guns-allowed-bars-restaurants/

Last, but not last, a good job by Freddie Kunkle with the Washington Post (he spent quite a bit of time in Reston covering the event):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070202929.html

Virginia gun-rights enthusiasts celebrate Va. law on firearms in bars
Virginians cheer (but don't toast) law allowing guns in bars
By Fredrick Kunkle
Saturday, July 3, 2010

When Anthony Dahm visited Champps Americana restaurant and bar Thursday, his menu of options had doubled: Thanks to a change in Virginia's gun laws, he could carry a semiautomatic handgun hidden behind the pouch holding his children's allergy medicine -- as well as the one worn openly on his hip -- without fear of committing a crime.

That was cause enough for Dahm to celebrate at the Reston restaurant with about 80 other members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a gun-rights organization that had long pushed for the new law, which allows people with concealed-weapon permits to go armed in places that serve alcohol as long as they don't imbibe.

Dahm, 44, a stay-at-home father from Vienna, said he seldom drinks and would rather run from a confrontation than shoot, yet the law gives him peace of mind that he can pack a friend in restaurants such as Champps.

The measure, popularly known as "guns-in-bars," took effect Thursday. After years of trying, the VCDL pushed the bill through the General Assembly this year and onto the desk of Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R), who signed it. Similar measures were vetoed twice by his predecessor, Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat whose grimmest days in office followed the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

The new law marks another step toward the normalization of carrying guns just about anywhere in Virginia. It also comes as gun-rights advocates are savoring Monday's Supreme Court decision that the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by state or local laws.

Building on the landmark 2008 Heller ruling that overturned the District's handgun ban, the Supreme Court's McDonald v. Chicago decision all but struck down laws that effectively banned handgun ownership. The ruling also opens the way to legal challenges against gun laws at every level of government. Among the more likely targets is Maryland, which regulates firearms more strictly than Virginia does.

James Purtilo, an assistant professor of computer science at the University of Maryland who writes the gun-rights blog Tripwire, said gun-rights advocates would welcome the opportunity to attack Maryland laws limiting handgun purchases to one a month or Maryland State Police handgun-licensing requirements that require applicants to open up their health records to prove that they are not mentally ill.

"Obviously, it opens the door," said John H. Josselyn, legislative vice president for the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore. "It also slams the door in the face of all those who said for years and years that [the Second Amendment] doesn't apply to the states."

But Casey Anderson, a spokesman for CeaseFire Maryland, said gun-control groups were heartened by language in both Supreme Court rulings emphasizing that Second Amendment rights are not absolute and can endure reasonable regulations, such as by prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from having guns or keeping weapons out of places such as schools. Regulations imposed by the D.C. Council after the Heller decision have already withstood a federal court challenge.

But, for the most part, the Supreme Court and Virginia's new gun-friendly governor have put gun-rights folks in a mood to party -- even if, at Champps, the average diner might not have known anything special was going on. Except for the unusual number of people openly toting guns and wearing blaze-orange "Guns Save Lives" stickers, members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League celebrated quietly, carving steaks, sipping iced tea and talking guns. Altogether more than 450 VCDL members celebrated in Reston and at similar parties in Norfolk, Richmond, Woodbridge, Vinton, Yorktown and Charlottesville.

Danyelle and Craig Davis -- he with a holstered Glock 9mm, she with a slightly smaller Glock of the same caliber -- took along their 10-month-old, Cathleen, to help celebrate. (It also happened to be Danyelle's 33rd birthday.)

The couple, who work with computers and live in Winchester, said Virginia's lenient gun laws played a part in their decision to relocate from Baltimore. Craig Davis, 32, likes being able to, say, go downtown, armed, to run errands without a fuss.

"If I was to do that in Maryland, I'd be arrested," he said.

A cheer rose from a couple of tables when Philip Van Cleave, the group's president, unveiled a chocolate-and-vanilla sheet cake with the VCDL logo and the words: "Rights Restored, Ban Repealed." He decided against a speech because the restaurant was noisy and crowded with many non-gun-toting customers glued to the soccer and baseball games on giant TV screens.

"Gun rights have been moving strongly in favor of less control. For us, this is a big step," Van Cleave said. He said his group has its sights on renewing efforts to repeal Virginia's law prohibiting the purchase of more than one handgun in a 30-day period and opening more places to unrestricted carrying of weapons.

"Honestly, the likelihood of using it is very slim," said Bill Clark, 34, of Springfield, who was discreetly carrying his Sig Sauer .380-caliber semiautomatic handgun tucked under his shirt. "But I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it."

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Projection

2010-07-03T18:04:13Z

As Uncle is prone to asking:Why are anti-gunners so violent?

In closing.... If you attempt to walk into my bar with a concealed weapon and for whatever reason you didn't conceal it enough.... You won't have enough time to draw your piece cowboy. Your face will already be on the pavement. I promise.

I realize that this is nothing more than blowhard bravado from someone with serious insecurity issues, but I'm thinking that if "his bar" (I gather he's an employee, not the owner) doesn't actually post "no guns" signs and he follows through with what he claims he will do, he'll end up an unemployed bartender in short order...not to mention behind bars for assault.

But, hey, WE'RE the violent ones right?

Hat Tip to Opencarry.org

Crossposted on Captain of a Crew of One

Update: Notably, his blog doesn't appear to permit comments. Another telltale sign of insecurity: can't tolerate dissenting opinions.

Sounds familiar doesn't it?

2010-07-01T17:18:38Z

In his most recent "study" published by the New England Journal of Medicine, anti-gun ~~shill~~ researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute* apparently strays from the approved anti-gun talking points and admits that the "gun show loophole" is fictional:

In fact, there is no gun-show loophole as such. Federal law is silent on the issue of gun shows and permits private-party gun sales to occur anywhere. As a result, such a limited measure might well have no detectable effect on the rates of firearm-related violent crime. Gun shows account for a small percentage of all gun sales in the United States — between 4 and 9%, according to the best estimates available.¹ Similarly, they account for just 3 to 8% of all private-party gun sales. Legislation to close the gun-show loophole would not affect the great majority of private-party sales, and motivated illicit buyers could simply find private sellers elsewhere. (In addition, closing the alleged loophole would not necessarily reduce, by more than a small amount, the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes. Most sales at gun shows — more than 80%, according to unpublished data³ — are made by licensed retailers, not private parties, and data from gun-trafficking investigations indicate that two thirds of the guns used in crimes that have been linked to gun shows were sold by licensed retailers.²)

Of course, his "solution" is not to drop the issue completely, but to expand the proposed prohibition to cover ALL private sales, no matter where they occur.

His blatant admission may seem like a slam-dunk win for our side, but I'm not so sure.

You see, Prior to Heller and McDonald, the anti-gunners felt that they had to mask their agenda and take it in baby steps in order to mislead the public about their true end goal.

This very well may be the first indication of a new tack. Helmke, Horowitz, Hennigan et. al. are singing the praises of the McDonald and Heller decisions because of the ramifications to the "slippery slope" argument.

Do they now feel safe to press ahead with their agenda more openly since the claim that their true end goal of total civilian disarmament is now ostensibly "off the table"?.

Well, I'm here to tell you, the danger is still here and it's still real.

When we have a population which seems convinced, through years of media and educational malfeasance, that rights are granted by government and can be taken away simply by amending the Constitution, that proverbial slope still has plenty of lubrication.

In the current climate, it may seem unrealistic to think that they could actually achieve a repeal of the Second Amendment, but what about decades or even generations from now?

If they are allowed to incrementally reduce the numbers of gun owners, the types, quantities and calibers of firearms we're "allowed" to own, to continually add to the list of "prohibited persons", to reduce the right to keep and bear arms to a licensed, taxed, and registered privilege for the rich and connected, how long will it be before they, with the full collusion of a willing media, after significantly reducing the numbers of gun owners and users, convince a majority of the remaining public that the Second Amendment is outmoded, archaic and should be repealed?

Wait! you say. It takes a three-fourths majority of the states to pass a Constitutional Amendment doesn't it? Why yes, yes it does...but it only takes 50.000000001 percent of the population of each state to convince that state to ratify. In other words, an amendment could easily pass with significantly less than 75% popular support. Theoretically, it could pass with 100% support from the states while only garnering the tiniest margin over 50% popular support among the people.

This may not be a real danger today, but if we become complacent. If we rest on our laurels. If we fail to take the threat seriously enough, will we be condemning our children, grand-children or great-grandchildren to lives of servitude and serfdom?

"We defend freedom here or it is gone. There is no place to run, only to make a stand. And if we fail, I think we face telling our children, and our children's children, what it was we found more precious than freedom. Because I am sure someday -- if we fail in this -- there will be a generation that will ask.""
--Ronald Reagan

The bottom line is: They will never rest...so neither can we.

Hat tip to Turk Turon

*Corrected the spelling of his name. Noticed the mistake thanks to Uncle's post and link.

Crossposted on Captain of a Crew of One

VA-ALERT: Celebration count so far: 448!

2010-07-01T05:00:19Z

From Philip Van Cleave

448 and counting! There is going to be a lot of gun owners at those seven restaurants statewide!

On behalf of myself, the VCDL Board of Directors, and VCDL's 61 Executive members, I would like to say this:

Our legislative agenda this year was dedicated to VCDL Board member and treasurer, Mack Elliott, who passed away late last year. :-(

I know that Mack would have been proud of VCDL's legislative successes this year. I think he knew that this would be the year for the restaurant ban repeal, but I still wish he could be here to attend one of the dinners on Thursday.

I take solace in knowing that Mack will absolutely be there in spirit.

I hope that as all of you are celebrating, you will take a minute to think of Mack and say a prayer for a good man and a friend.

Be sure to shake the hand of our hard-working Board members (Jim Snyder, Dennis O'Connor, Bruce Jackson, Al Steed Jr., John Fenter, and Dale Welch) and all of our Executive members - without the Board and Executive members none of what VCDL has accomplished would have been possible.

And I, personally, want to thank the most important people of all in the fight for our liberty here in Virginia: the 5,000 VCDL members and 14,000 VA-ALERT subscribers who, working as a HUGE voting and activism block, have made our organization one to be reckoned with!

Good job, VCDL - now let's celebrate!

--

There is a lot of media coverage of our celebration. I will be on channel 6 (CBS) news in Richmond tonight at 11 PM and probably in the morning. Jim Snyder will be on television in Northern Virginia tonight, too.

The Richmond Times Dispatch, the Daily Press, and the Washington Post are also covering the celebration.

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: We have a winner for Thursday! Media will be attending, too.

2010-06-30T01:09:48Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Here is the final RSVP count for Thursday's restaurant ban repeal celebrations across the state. And the winner of the hand-delivered celebratory cake is.... NORFOLK and by a big margin! Well done, guys and gals!

Actually everyone did pretty well, especially Richmond:

Norfolk: 115
Richmond: 82
Woodbridge: 65
Reston: 48
Vinton: 46
Yorktown: 45
Charlottesville: 29

I will be at the Reston location as we are expecting at least three different media organizations there: the Washington Post, Voice of America, and Nightline.

The celebrations will start at 7 PM at all of the various restaurants.:

Mona Lisa Pizza
9583 Shore Drive (East Beach Shoppes)
Norfolk
http://www.monalisaspizzaov.com/

O'Charley's
9927 Mayland Drive (intersection with Gaskins Road)
Richmond

Champps Americana
11694 Plaza America Drive
Reston 20190

Uncle Julio's
14900 Potomac Town Place
Suite 150
Woodbridge 22191
703.763.7322

County Grill
1215-a George Washington Hwy. Rt.17
Yorktown 23693
http://countygrill.net/

Topeka's
Pantops
1791 Richmond Road
Charlottesville 22911

Famous Anthony's
323 E. Virginia Ave.
Vinton (Roanoke/Salem area)

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Cautionary Tale

2010-06-28T21:22:00Z

One of the most important aspects to preparing oneself to use a defensive firearm in an encounter is regular practice.

It is often not practical to practice certain elements of defensive handgun use at the range. Many ranges won't permit presenting from concealment prior to shooting, moving and shooting etc. Ammo is expensive so having the gun go "bang" every time you practice sight alignment, breath control and trigger control can be cost prohibitive; but lots of practice is essential to burning the requisite motions into "muscle memory" and refining technique.

As a result, in my role as a firearms instructor I've often advised students to practice at home with an unloaded gun. Practicing the drawstroke from concealment, movement while drawing to gain space from an assailant, drawing while seeking cover or concealment, dry firing to practice sight alignment, trigger control etc. All these are legitimate training evolutions that can be safely and effectively performed at home...if done correctly.

When not done correctly, however, the results can be disastrous.

A combat veteran of three tours in Iraq accidentally killed his 9-month-old daughter earlier this year when he was practicing drawing his loaded handgun in their home.

The story is a little contradictory, as later on it says he was "dry firing" by drawing and aiming at candles on the wall. Based on the story, it sounds like he wasn't dry firing, but was just playing around drawing his loaded firearm and pointing it at the wall.

The story doesn't indicate if the child was in the same room or a different room and was hit through a wall, but it doesn't matter either way. This was a tragedy to be sure and my sympathies go out to the family and even to the person who so negligently killed their own child...as a father myself, I can't begin to imagine how devastating that must be...but the tragedy was completely preventable.

I think this would be a good opportunity to review the rules of gun safety as they pertain to practicing outside of a range environment.

The NRA rules for gun safety are:

1. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

2. Always keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.

3. Always keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.

Some prefer Jeff Cooper's 4 rules, but I disagree. Any set of rules where the very first one is demonstrably false is not a valid rule set. If rule number 1 MUST be broken sometimes (cleaning/maintenance, dry fire practice, etc) it is necessarily implied that all of the rules may be broken from time to time. You can fix rule one by saying "Always treat guns as if they are loaded unless you have personally and immediately verified otherwise", but that doesn't make for a very clean, concise bullet point so I just stick with the NRA rules.

I do like Jeff Cooper's rule number 4, however, and it is imminently applicable here:

4. Always be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

The NRA argues that this is covered by rule 1, keeping the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, but what is a safe direction when you're not on the range?

And that's one of the keys to safe dry fire practice in the home. You can't just look at the wall you're pointing at and decide that's a "safe direction". What's on the other side of that wall? What's on the other side of two or three walls? Is that TRULY a "safe direction"?

So, here are my detailed rules for dry fire practice in the home:

- Choose a location in your home that provides the safest area for your practice.

This location needs to have a safe "target area" for you to point at. I like to use corners as my target area because in a standard frame constructed house, the corners are typically formed from a relatively solid arrangement of 2x4 studs. If you can aim so that your sight line goes through two or three corners, that's even better. Your sight line should not be in direct line with nearby neighbor's houses and the best bet is to have a solid backstop at some point.

I have a large brick fireplace in the family room. I practice in the living room, standing in a location where I can aim at a corner, but still pointing it at the fireplace. If the unthinkable occurs and I have a negligent discharge, the bullet will have to travel through the studs in the corner, another wall and will end up hitting the bricks of the fireplace.

Needless to say, choosing an aim point in direct line with your $2000 60 inch plasma TV probably isn't the wisest choice. Won't kill anyone should the worst happen, but may be hazardous to your bank account and marital stability.

Once you've chosen your location, always use the same location and get into a regimented habit of preparation.

- Always ensure that the gun you are practicing with is unloaded and that there is no ammunition in the room you are practicing in.

I keep ammo in an ammo locker. Before practicing, I lock the loaded magazines and the single round from the chamber in the locker with the rest of my ammo. I always check that the gun is unloaded at least three times: Once immediately after unloading and locking the ammo up. Once after I enter the room for practice, and once immediately prior to beginning the first practice drill. That's the minimum. I generally check several other random times whenever the mood strikes me.

Always check both the magazine and the chamber. This is especially important if you have a gun with a magazine disconnect safety, and that's the reason I won't own a carry gun with one. If the gun has a magazine disconnect safety, you can't dry fire it without magazine inserted. It is MUCH safer to dry fire a gun that allows you to do so with the component that holds the ammunition removed. I think magazine disconnect safeties are a solution in search of a problem and cause more safety issues than they solve. The only true safety is the one between your ears. Relying on mechanical do-dads to do your thinking for you is a recipe for disaster...but I digress. If you have a gun with a magazine disconnect safety, every place where I say "make sure the magazine is removed", change to "remove the magazine and make sure there are no rounds in it."

When ensuring that the gun is unloaded, don't just look, actually stick your finger into the magazine well and chamber. This physical act will slow you down and help prevent "perception errors". Just glancing at the bottom of the grip to see if there's a magazine there can be deceiving. We often see what we expect to see rather than what's really there. If you expect to see an empty magazine well, there's a good chance that that's what you'll see, whether it's true or not. Physically stick your finger in there just to make sure. The same goes when checking the chamber. Lock the slide back and physically stick your fingertip into the chamber. Don't just look.

- Always be sure you know where everyone (including the furry members of the family) in the house are located while you are practicing.

If you are home alone with the kids, that's not a good time to practice. Kids tend to wander, even when told to stay put. You don't want them wandering into an area that is in the line that you've chosen as "safe" for dry fire practice. If your kids are at home, they need to be under adult supervision so that they stay in a safe part of the house.

Be sure you tell the other people that are home that you are going to be practicing, tell them where the unsafe area is and get their agreement that they will stay away from that part of the house until you give them the "all clear".

Have the other people in the house verify that the gun is unloaded. This both serves to satisfy them that you are being safe as well as providing you with independent verification that your gun is unloaded.

Finally, if you have pets, secure them so that they can't wander into the "hot zone" where you'll be pointing your gun.

- Enter your practice area. Prepare in whatever way you want. You can post a target at your aim point, set up something to simulate cover or concealment, set up anything you need to facilitate your practice, but before beginning your first drill, check again to ensure that there is no live ammo in the room with you and re-verify that the gun you are using is unloaded.

- After finishing your practice, you're finished. Don't decide to try it "just one more time" after you've decided you're done and have started putting things away or have left your practice room. That break in routine can lead to deadly mistakes. Always have a defined starting routine and finishing routine and don't vary from them. That will help you get in the proper mindset and will prevent you from doing something silly like, say, reloading and holstering your gun, and then absent-mindedly deciding "I'll just try my draw from concealment one more time before I stop..."

-Finally, after you are finished and the gun is locked up or reloaded and snugly in your carry holster, let everyone in the house know that the firing line is cold and it's safe to go downrange...er...wander the house at will.

Practicing at home is not only permissible, but as far as I'm concerned, it's a requirement for proficiency, but it must be approached with all the seriousness and gravity that one would approach any potentially deadly task. With the proper precautions and care, it is a safe and effective means of gaining proficiency, but treating the use of any potentially hazardous tool in a nonchalant, lackadaisical manner can end in disaster.

Practice, practice practice...but lets be safe out there.

Crossposted on Captain of a Crew of One

McDonald v the People's Republik of Chicago

2010-06-28T22:33:00Z

As you are all probably aware by now, the Supreme court today announced it's 5-4 ruling that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States.

They applied the principle of "Equal Protection" rather than the "Privileges and Immunities" clause, so it wasn't a slam-dunk, but it was a win for freedom in any case.

The decision (including concurring and dissenting opinions) can be found here (pdf download).

A few choice snippets:

Re Chicago's claim that the Second Amendment should be treated differently than the rights that have already been incorporated by the Court because of the public safety implications:

"Municipal respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has disputed public safety implications." (page 42)

Re the claim in Justice Breyers' dissent that incorporation relies on some sort of public consensus that the right in question is fundamental:

"…we have never held that a provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the States only if there is a “popular consensus” that the right is fundamental, and we see no basis for such a rule. But in this case, as it turns out, there is evidence of such a consensus. An amicus brief submitted by 58 Members of the Senate and 251 Members of the House of Representatives urges us to hold that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental." (page 48)

And, the money quote:

"We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

It is so ordered." (page 51)

VA-ALERT: Supreme Court rules 2A applies to states!

2010-06-28T17:14:57Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

More Guns to Solve Gun Violence

2010-06-26T18:53:11Z

On Friday, John Stossel stopped by the set of America Live with one of my favorite Fox anchors, Megyn Kelly. The purpose? To discuss the notion that more "good guys" having firearms reduces crime.

For those of us who keep up with such firearm friendly documentaries, Stossel has been a fairly long time ally, going back to his days on ABC's 20/20.

What struck me about yesterday's segment was Megyn Kelly's testimonial regarding the epiphony she had when her own security was in jeapordy.

I'm having trouble embedding the video. Click here to view.

VA-ALERT: ACTION ITEM: Disclose Act passes the House

2010-06-25T04:57:43Z

From Philip Van Cleave

In a very narrow vote, the Disclose Act, which was revived a couple of days ago, passed the House.

The NRA carveout was left in.

Here are the Virginia Congressmen who voted to restrict the First Amendment, and by doing so, gun owner's voices to protect the Second Amendment:

Boucher (D), Connolly (D), Moran (D), Perriello (D), and Scott (D)

These Congressmen voted to correctly:

Nye (D), Cantor (R), Forbes (R), Goodlatte (R), Wittman (R), Wolf(R)

-

We must now try to stop it in the Senate.

On behalf of VCDL, I have already contacted Senator Warner's office and will contact Senator Webb's office on Friday.

ACTION ITEM:

Send a web mail to Senator Warner and Senator Web by clicking on the links below:

Warner: http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Contact

Webb: http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm

For the topic or subject, choose "Campaign finance" for Warner and "Government issues" for Webb

Suggested message:

I urge you to vote "NO" on the DISCLOSE Act bills, HR 5175 and S 3295. These bills are a thinly veiled attack on the First Amendment and will interfere with the ability of most gun organizations to protect the rights of gun owners.

Both bills must be defeated.

Please let me know how you are going to vote on HR 5175 and S 3295.

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/23/10

2010-06-23T12:15:33Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/23/10"

VA-ALERT: Advanced training, #2 death walks into a convenience store

2010-06-22T01:29:03Z

From Philip Van Cleave

----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This is part two of a five part series on some lessons learned in an advanced tactical training force-on-force class I took at PFT in West Virginia back in May. Force-on-force uses Airsoft guns, paintball guns, or simunitions to make the training scenarios as real as possible.

In part one I was in a set up like a doctor's office waiting room and I knocked away the bad guy's handgun which he had pushed into my chest and drew my own concealed gun and shot him three times for a retention position (the butt of the handgun anchored to my right hip with my body twisted slightly right so the bad guy couldn't reach my handgun, but I could shoot him without the need to aim).

In part two we were in a simulated convenience store.

Room layout: There was one door into the room by a corner. I'll call that the front of the room. There was a table with a cash register between the door and the opposite wall at the front of the room. The "store clerk" was standing by the cash register. In the back of the room were three-levels of shelving that contained a sampling of products (a large package of toilet tissue, a case of beer, cleaners, and some other items and boxes). There were some closets on the side of the room where the door was, extending from the front of the room to the back of the room. That was about it.

In this scenario two "good guys" were armed: VCDL Board member Dennis O'Connor and I. There were about 8 other people in the room and we were all told to simply go about our business, looking at goods, talking to the clerk or to each other, whatever.

After milling about for a few minutes, I was in the back of the room and had my back to the door when I heard a person yell something to the effect of "This is a hold up!"

I froze and then slowly turned around to see someone standing about ten feet inside the door and about twenty feet from me brandishing a handgun in the general direction of the clerk. The room got as silent as a tomb. If that was all he was going to say and he was going to simply clean out the register and leave, I was not planning to take any action other than to stand still. That being said, I WAS moving my hand slowly toward my concealed firearm just in case.

Next, the bad guy yelled for everyone to lay down on the floor. THAT changed everything for me.

I had decided that I wasn't about to get into a position of complete helplessness, such as laying face down on the floor. That position is one that lends itself to the person on the floor being executed, which I had seen for real when I had watched the surveillance video of the Golden Market in Richmond being held up a couple of years ago. In that case the bad guy pointed his gun TWICE at a helpless, prostrated customer and was going to pull the trigger when a gun owner at the front of the convenience store fired at the bad guy and distracted him.

For me the question was when I would open fire. There was no where to hide, no real cover. For now the bad guy hadn't really been paying attention to me with all the other people in the store. As I feigned going down to a kneeling position, I noticed that almost everyone else was down on the floor.

I had a clean shot, with the other customers between me and the bad guy being out of my line of fire. Of course, the bad guy had a clean shot at me and his gun wasn't concealed in a holster. I was vulnerable - there was simply no practical cover or concealment available to me. If I tried to move, the chance of me tripping over a customer lying on the floor was just too high. I was frozen in place and in extreme danger.

I knew I had to make up my mind quickly, as I was one of the only customers not on the ground and was sticking out now. Once I opened fire, I knew that all hell would tear loose. I had to get that gun out of concealment and firing in a fast, smooth, and accurate manner before the bad guy knew what was happening. If I screwed this up, I would have a hail of bullets coming at me.

As I was getting ready to draw, I heard a series of rapid shots from my left! My peripheral vision was greatly reduced under the stress and my focus on the bad guy was so complete, I didn't see any movement from my left and didn't know anything was happening until I heard the shots.

I turned my head towards the sound. It was Dennis, who was off slightly to one side and behind the clerk. He had decided that he, too, was not going to lay on the ground, made up his mind faster than I did, and opened fire. He drew and had started firing while he was also feigning compliance.

Realizing that the bad guy might now open fire to retaliate, I turned my head back toward the bad guy, I drew like lightening and REALLY OPENED UP ON HIM, firing to slide-lock. I simply could not take the chance of the bad guy returning fire at all. He MUST be stopped.

Having received multiple lethal hits in a fast sequence from Dennis and me, the bad guy dropped to the floor without being able to get a single shot off. Someone ran up and kicked the bad guy's gun away from him.

I decided that this might be a good time to breath.

The total elapsed time from "This is a hold up!" to my breathing again, was probably less than 15 seconds.

Dennis and I had both survived the second shooting scenario unscathed.

THAT was about to change in a big way.

-

Next: Part 3: Danger on Steroids - clearing a room

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: July 1 celebration restaurants and free speech safe for now

2010-06-21T03:25:39Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: July 1 celebration restaurants and free speech safe for now"

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 5/18/10

2010-06-19T17:09:45Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 5/18/10"

VA-ALERT: Two more articles on NRA and HR 5175

2010-06-18T02:36:10Z

From Philip Van Cleave

This in the Washington Post by an NRA Board member nonetheless:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/16/AR2010061604221.html

NRA exemption shows campaign disclosure bill's cynical, fatal flaws

By Cleta Mitchell
Thursday, June 17, 2010
The cynical decision this week by House Democrats to exempt the National Rifle Association from the latest campaign finance regulatory scheme is itself a public disclosure. It reveals the true purpose of the perversely named Disclose Act (H.R. 5175): namely, to silence congressional critics in the 2010 elections.

The NRA "carve-out" reaffirms the wisdom of the First Amendment's precise language: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Congress can't help itself. Since 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, incumbent politicians have yearned for legal duct tape for their opponents' mouths. The Disclose Act is a doozy of a muzzle.

For its part, the NRA -- on whose board of directors I serve -- rather than holding steadfastly to its historic principles of defending the Constitution and continuing its noble fight against government regulation of political speech instead opted for a political deal borne of self-interest in exchange for "neutrality" from the legislation's requirements. In doing so, the NRA has, sadly, affirmed the notion held by congressional Democrats (and some Republicans), liberal activists, the media establishment and, at least for now, a minority on the Supreme Court that First Amendment protections are subject to negotiation. The Second Amendment surely cannot be far behind.

Since the court's January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations cannot be constitutionally prohibited from making independent candidate-related expenditures, Democrats have been hyperventilating at the notion that corporations might spend millions of dollars criticizing them. To foreclose that possibility, the Disclose Act would impose onerous and complicated "disclosure" restrictions on organizations that dare to engage in constitutionally protected political speech and on corporations that dare to contribute to such organizations.

Democrats would effectively neuter the court's decision by requiring the names of multiple donors to be recited in ads (thus shrinking the time spent on actual speech), requiring the CEO of a corporate donor to personally appear in campaign-related ads, expanding the coverage period to virtually the entire election year, and including myriad other rules that the NRA described last month as "byzantine" and an "arbitrary patchwork of reporting and disclosure requirements."
The NRA's wheel-squeaking bought it an exemption from those requirements. Tea Party organizations arising spontaneously since 2009? Out of luck. Online organizations with large e-mail followings but perhaps no formal dues structure? Forget it.

Receiving less attention than the NRA "carve-out" but no less cynical is the bill's sop to organized labor: Aggregate contributions of $600 or more would be disclosed. Why start at $600? Why not $200 or, say, $500? Because most union members' dues aggregate less than $600 in a calendar year and thus members' contributions to labor's campaign-related spending wouldn't need to be disclosed . . . even to the union members whose dues are spent for political purposes.

In Citizens United, the court held that the First Amendment doesn't permit Congress to treat different corporations differently; that the protections afforded political speech arise from the Constitution, not Congress. Otherwise, it would be tantamount to a congressional power to license the speech of some while denying it to others.

The NRA carve-out is a clear example of a congressional speech license.

The ostensible purpose of the legislation is benign "disclosure," upheld in Citizens United as permissible under the First Amendment. Even conservative Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed skepticism about the constitutional infirmity of disclosure requirements in another case argued this term; Scalia intoned in oral argument that "running a democracy takes a certain amount of civic courage."

That's true. Indeed, the law upheld in Citizens United requires all donors to candidate-related expenditures to be publicly disclosed to the FEC in a timely manner.

But the Disclose Act isn't really intended to elicit information not currently required by law. The act serves notice on certain speakers that their involvement in the political process will exact a high price of regulation, penalty and notoriety, using disclosure and reporting as a subterfuge to chill their political speech and association.

It is only disclosure, say the authors. And box-cutters are only handy household tools . . . until they are used by terrorists to crash airplanes.

This is not just "disclosure." It is a scheme hatched by political insiders to eradicate disfavored speech. There is no room under the First Amendment for Congress to make deals on political speech, whether with the NRA or anyone else.

The writer is a partner at Foley & Lardner who works in campaign finance law and is a member of the NRA's board of directors.

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

This by Dave Workman:

http://tinyurl.com/29r6lul

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

The latest NRA response:

We appreciate some NRA members' concerns about our position on H.R. 5175, the "DISCLOSE Act." Unfortunately, critics of our position have misstated or misunderstood the facts.

We have never said we would support any version of this bill [PVC: and VCDL didn't claim they supported the bill, only that they were turning a blind eye to it once they got their exemption]. To the contrary, we clearly stated NRA's strong opposition to the DISCLOSE Act (as introduced) in a letter sent to Members of Congress on May 26 [PVC: before they got their exemption].

Through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has consistently and strongly opposed any effort to restrict the rights of our four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide. The initial version of H.R. 5175 would effectively have put a gag order on the NRA during elections and threatened our members' freedom of association, by forcing us to turn our donor lists over to the federal government. We would also have been forced to list our top donors on all election-related television, radio and Internet ads and mailings-even mailings to our own members. We refuse to let this Congress impose those unconstitutional restrictions on our Association.

The NRA provides critical firearms training for our Armed Forces and law enforcement throughout the country. This bill would force us to choose between training our men and women in uniform and exercising our right to free political speech. We refuse to let this Congress force us to make that choice.

We didn't "sell out" to Nancy Pelosi or anyone else. We told Congress we opposed the bill. As a result, congressional leaders made a commitment to exempt us from its draconian restrictions on free speech. If that commitment is honored, we will not be involved in the final House debate. If that commitment is not fully honored, we will strongly oppose the bill.

Our position is based on principle and experience. During consideration of the previous campaign finance legislation passed in 2002, congressional leadership repeatedly refused to exempt the NRA from its provisions, promising that our concerns would be fixed somewhere down the line. That didn't happen; instead, the NRA had to live under those restrictions for seven years and spend millions of dollars on compliance costs and on legal fees to challenge the law. We will not go down that road again when we have an opportunity to protect our ability to speak. [PVC: I don't really know what to say about this line of thinking.]

There are those who say the NRA has a greater duty to principle than to gun rights. It's easy to say we should put the Second Amendment at risk over some so-called First Amendment principle - unless you have a sworn duty to protect the Second Amendment above all else, as we do.

The NRA is a bipartisan, single-issue organization made up of millions of individual members dedicated to the protection of the Second Amendment. We do not represent the interests of other organizations. That's their responsibility. Our responsibility is to protect and defend the interests of our members. And that we do without apology. [PVC: Throwing grassroots under the bus is hardly protecting NRA's member's interests.]

Should you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again at any time.

Sincerely,
Michael Land
NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: Nightline to be at VCDL meeting tonight

2010-06-17T17:46:37Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: Nightline to be at VCDL meeting tonight"

VA-ALERT: ACTION ITEM: NRA sells out grassroots to Congressional antis

2010-06-17T16:57:43Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: ACTION ITEM: NRA sells out grassroots to Congressional antis"

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/14/10

2010-06-17T05:28:08Z

[Obviously originally sent 6/14 - CK]
From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

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

Click here to start receiving
VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link
below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/14/10"

Score two for the good guys in Hampton

2010-06-16T12:21:34Z

I have a feeling there's more to this story than meets the eye, but ostensibly anyway, it appears that the bad guys went down by two in Hampton last night.

Police in Hampton say two men shot and killed last night were masked, armed intruders in a garage on Chapel Street.

A 17-year-old male injured in the confrontation was one of the people in the garage when the intruders appeared, according to the police report.

From our Friends at the Kentucky Coalition to Carry Concealed...

2010-06-14T22:07:07Z

...a story that vividly illustrates the media's bias against any gun related story that goes against the approved narrative:

Rory Vertigan, an apartment manager and part-time security guard, had been driving behind the officer. As he turned the corner, he saw the ambush taking place. He watched in horror as Atkinson's police cruiser careened across the street and plowed into a street lamp...When two of the suspects aimed their guns at him and opened fire, he grabbed his Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol.

...

The Phoenix Police Department credited Vertigan with not only capturing one of the murderers, but of disabling the stolen car so they couldn't flee across the border.

There's a lot more, read the whole thing.

Hat tip to Of Arms and the Law

VA-ALERT: York County to address firearms ordinance Tuesday!

2010-06-14T07:17:22Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: York County to address firearms ordinance Tuesday!"

VA-ALERT: VCDL - Open Carry Revisited

2010-06-11T23:14:12Z

From Philip Van Cleave

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

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html

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

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html

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

Last week when I spoke at the Rivannah Rifle and Pistol Club near
Charlottesville (thanks, again, to RRPC for their hospitality!), I was
asked if I could address VCDL's position on open carry vs concealed
carry. It turned out that one person who might normally have come to
the meeting didn't do so because he apparently didn't like VCDL
promoting open carry.

I addressed the issue at the meeting, but the more I thought of it, the
more I thought it should be addressed on VA-ALERT, as it had been a
while since we have done so.

While VCDL's predecessor organization (NVCDL) was formed in 1994
specifically to push for concealed carry reform, VCDL does not promote
one form of carry over the other. In fact, at VCDL events we don't even
suggest that anyone carry at all. We have always felt that our members
can decide for themselves as to whether they want to carry at an event
openly or concealed, or even carry at all for that matter.

VCDL does not sponsor open carry or concealed carry events at all. We
may sponsor an event celebrating a legislative victory, such as the end
of the restaurant ban, but we leave the decision on whether or not to
carry and the carry method up to the individual.

We WILL remind you if the law requires a certain form of carry for those
that are carrying. For example, when we held some of our picnics in
State Parks, we reminded everyone that concealed carry is required by
law for those carrying. Same for open carrying in a restaurant that
serves alcohol hosting an event before July 1, 2010.

There are two camps of thought on open carry:

1. Open carry is a right that helps advance our visibility, educates
the public by disproving the TV & movie stereotypes that the only
people who carry guns are cops or bad guys, moves our rights forward,
and doesn't require government permission

2. Open carry is a right, but politically dangerous, is too much
"in-your-face," takes away tactical advantages, and could end up being
banned or hurting our gun rights

VCDL, as an organization, does not subscribe to camp #2's view of open
carry. While we don't encourage or discourage open carry, we have found
that it has been an avenue to showing the general public that everyday
people, including friends and neighbors, are gun owners and carry a gun
in a responsible manner for self-defense.

But this issue is more complicated, with each method of carry having
advantages and disadvantages:

Open carry is more comfortable, especially in the hot summertime. It
allows fast access to the handgun in an emergency. It can deter crime
by a criminal seeing the gun and deciding to not go forward with a
crime, keeping the gun owner from even having to draw the gun (lots of
such cases documented, including within VCDL membership). HOWEVER, you
had better know the gun laws and know if you are in a "no carry" zone.
Although quite rare, you might be asked to leave private property. IF
YOU ARE ask to leave, do NOT demand that the property be POSTED! Just
politely leave.

Concealed carry can allow a handgun to be presented in a way that is a
surprise to criminal who has begun an attack, which, although generally
slower than open carry, can be a tactical advantage in many cases
because it allows YOU to decide whether or not to present your firearm.
It is very handy if you have inadvertently wandered into a location
where you aren't supposed to have a gun. Since the gun is hidden, no
one knows that you goofed up. It also avoids the problem of carrying on
private property where open carry is prohibited.

The argument by camp #2 that makes me pull out what is left of my hair
is that if someone open carries, they could cause us to lose that right.

My response to that argument is simple:

1. If you are afraid to exercise a right because it might be taken
away, then you don't really have that right in the first place and

2. If you are not exercising a right and don't feel that others should
either, then what do you really care if that right is taken away or not?

VCDL will strongly fight to protect both methods of carry from any
attack in the General Assembly.

And the debate goes on... If you wish to comment on this alert, you can
do so on VCDL's blog site:

http://blog.vcdl.org

Click here to start receiving
VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/10/10 Part 1

2010-06-11T02:27:17Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

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

17. Attempted burglary in Fairfax County

18. Virginia governor gives NRA monopoly on teaching gun safety to kids

19. Va. Beach Sword-attack right by police substation

20. Ranger says: Violence is nothing new to the Blue Ridge Parkway

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the
Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/10/10 Part 1"

VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/10/10 Part 2

2010-06-11T02:23:24Z

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

21. Reader: Example of why I carry [VIDEO]

22. Chicago: 22 shot, 1 dead in different shootings on Saturday alone

23. Daley's gun ban emboldens thugs

24. Calif. man irked by Daley gun quip accused of threat

25. Mayor Daley comments on man who shot intruder

26. Chicago: cop's murder has some thinking of carrying a gun

27. Chicago could require gun owners get training, liability insurance
if handgun ban overturned

28. Is Connecticut's open carry movement a sign for the nation?

29. Who needs a gun in a National Park?

30. 79 year old goes on a rampage at an AT&T store

31. Washington Times Editorial: The U.N. gun grabber

32. ATF Redefines 40-Year-Old Law on Gun Transfers

33. Who needs a gun in a bar?

34. Attacks on Nat'l Park and Nat'l Forest employees rise in 2009

35. More guns equal more crime? Not in 2009, FBI crime report shows.

36. Columnist: Ban assault rifles to help Mexico

37. Satire: Deranged gunman opens fire on shooting range

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the
Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 6/10/10 Part 2"

VA-ALERT: Attorney General Cuccinelli responds

2010-06-10T16:59:01Z

From Philip Van Cleave

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

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html

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

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html

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

One of our members has just forwarded to me an email he received from
the Attorney General's office. The email addresses a previous VA-ALERT
("Et tu, Cuccinelli") from a couple of weeks ago.

In that alert I pointed out that the Attorney General's defense of the
GMU gun ban went overboard by drifting away from using legal arguments
and into gratuitous, emotion-laden, fabricated scenarios - such as a
child in the GMU library possibly getting hit by an accidental discharge
caused by a gun owner.

I had heard earlier through the grapevine that the Attorney General
wasn't going to respond to VCDL's complaint until after the litigation
between GMU and Rudy DiGiacinto was over, so I was surprised to receive
the email below, which is included in its entirety.

In the response, which VCDL promised to release as soon as we got one,
the Attorney General says his office is "...zealously representing our
client, George Mason University..."

Boy, that's an understatement! It's like an attorney publicly
slandering his best friend in order to win an otherwise indefensible
case. Gun owners were painted as dangerous, unstable, and irresponsible
people who put the public at risk.

If the Attorney General feels he has a duty to defend GMU, fine. But
why did that defense HAVE to include impugning gun owners?

In defending himself for saying at a VCDL meeting that GMU did not have
the legal authority to ban guns, Cuccinelli says, "I understand how my
misstatement about the pre-emption law created expectations inconsistent
with any regulation of firearms whatsoever other than by the General
Assembly."

Cuccinelli's comments about the GMU gun ban can be seen at 5 minutes and
30 seconds into

http://www.youtube.com/user/vaguninfo#p/u/20/3bx1ZIusXiU

With all respect to the Attorney General, this is NOT, nor has it ever
been, about local preemption (which I agree doesn't apply, as GMU is not
a locality). Two of Cuccinelli's predecessors, Bob McDonnell and Jerry
Kilgore, wrote Attorney General opinions on State Parks saying that the
agency did not have the power to regulate carry, transport, and
possession of firearms because the General Assembly has preempted the
entire field of firearms and has not given State Parks any such
authority.

I think the situation is clear: GMU, which is just another state
agency, also has no special firearms regulatory dispensation, and would
similarly not be able to control firearms beyond state law.

Finally, in the email below, Cuccinelli writes, "As much as I might wish
to discuss the present case and its policy implications for future
legislation in some level of detail, I cannot at this time because the
lawsuit is still ongoing. However, at the conclusion of the case, I
look forward to the opportunity to address its policy implications and
those of the anticipated ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the
McDonald case with the VCDL and other Second Amendment supporters."

Once the case has been heard, VCDL will be happy to invite the Attorney
General to present the policy implications at a VCDL meeting. This is
an important issue for gun owners statewide and we will need to know
exactly where we stand.

-----------

Thank you for contacting the office of Attorney General Cuccinelli.
Please find a note that the attorney general asked me to share with
you:

Dear friend:

My office recently filed a brief in DiGiacinto v. The Rector and
Visitors of George Mason University, a case that has been ongoing since
November 2008. My friends at the Virginia Citizens Defense League and
other Second Amendment supporters have taken issue with that brief and –
based on the language used in it – have challenged my longstanding
commitment to the right to keep and bear arms.

The Office of the Attorney General files briefs like this on a regular
basis, defending our clients (agencies, colleges, and universities of
the commonwealth) in litigation in both state and federal courts. As a
matter of process, I don’t wordsmith each and every brief filed by my
staff, nor did I in this case. However, I have reviewed the brief and
the legal arguments contained therein, and acknowledge that the OAG is
zealously representing our client, GeorgeMason University. So long as a
Virginia law is validly enacted and not apparently repugnant to the
Constitution, I have a duty to defend it.

If the 2005 pre-emption law that I had strongly supported as a state
senator had been applicable to state government entities (as I
incorrectly recalled in 2008) and not merely to local government
entities, then there would be no DiGiacinto case. I understand how my
misstatement about the pre-emption law created expectations inconsistent
with any regulation of firearms whatsoever other than by the General
Assembly.

I, and the Office of the Attorney General, defend the rule of law. In
this case, we are defending a validly enacted regulation, and we must do
so zealously with every legal argument available to us. While I may
not always agree with a particular policy position, I will defend
Virginia laws and regulations as well as the constitutions of
Virginiaand the United States. To do otherwise would validate my
opponent’s accusations during the campaign that I would bend the law to
suit my personal views. I have not. I have issued legal opinions that
are contrary to my policy views because they are based on the law as it
is and not the law as I might like it to be. Laws, and not politics,
dictate legal outcomes.

As much as I might wish to discuss the present case and its policy
implications for future legislation in some level of detail, I cannot at
this time because the lawsuit is still ongoing. However, at the
conclusion of the case, I look forward to the opportunity to address its
policy implications and those of the anticipated ruling of the U.S.
Supreme Court in the McDonald case with the VCDL and other Second
Amendment supporters.

Sincerely,

Ken

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

2010-06-09T20:29:14Z

From Jim Snyder

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

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: Update on Republican Primary in 5 Congressional Districts

2010-06-08T13:11:53Z

From Jim Snyder

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

Click here
to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

2010-06-08T13:10:05Z

From Philip Van Cleave

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

Click here
to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

VA-ALERT: Fwd: Republican Primary in 5 Congressional Districts

2010-06-07T19:30:35Z

From Jim Snyder

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

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

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html

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

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html

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

Tomorrow, Tuesday, June 8, there will be a Primary to select the
Republican candidate for Congress in five Congressional Districts -- the
1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, & 11th. (The Democrats have either already
selected their candidate or are conducting candidate selection
activities other than a primary.)

The VCDL 2010 Federal Candidate Survey was mailed to all 19 Republican
candidates running for their party's nomination in these five
Congressional Districts. Unfortunately, not all answered the survey.

Failure to return a completed survey frequently indicates indifference,
if not outright hostility, toward the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

If if any of the candidates are afraid to take a public stand on these
issues now, before the election, then they are unlikely to be very
responsive to your views after the election. There is absolutely NO
reason why they should not answer this survey!

If you reside in the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 8th, or 11th Congressional District,
please contact all the candidates in YOUR Congressional District.

Below is the contact information I have for the Republican candidates
running in the June 8 Republican Primary.

Those with asterisks (**) before their name answered the VCDL candidate
survey. All but Jessica Sandlin answered the survey 100% in support of
your gun rights. Sandlin (2nd Congressional District) fell down on one
question -- she supports ending private sales at gun shows.

Please contact the candidates who answered the VCDL Candidate survey and
THANK THEM for responding pro gun. Contact those who have not answered
and urge them to answer the VCDL Survey. Don't accept vague
generalizations such as "the candidate supports the 2nd Amendment".

Not sure which Congressional District you're in? You can find out at: http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html

District Candidate Phone Email

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

1 ** Catherine Crabill catherine@catherinecrabill.com

1 Robert Wittman 804-493-0508 rwittman@verizon.net

2 ** Ben Loyola 757-831-9581 ben@benloyola.com

2 ** Ed Maulbeck 757-333-7930 edward.maulbeck@cox.net

2 Bert Mizusawa 757-633-7059 bert@bertforcongress.com

2 E. Scott Rigell 757-802-9936 info@scottrigell.com

2 ** Jessica Sandlin jessica@sandlinforcongress.com

2 Scott Taylor 757-422-4060 scott@scotttaylorforcongress.com

5 ** Kenneth Boyd 434-326-3522 ken@kenboydforcongress.com

5 ** Ron Ferrin 434-609-4110 ron@ronferrinforcongress.org

5 Robert Hurt info@roberthurtforcongress.com

5 ** Mike McPadden 434-295-3910 mike@mcpaddenforcongress.com

5 ** James McKelvey 540-719-0061 jim@mckelveyforcongress.com

5 ** Feda Kidd Morton 866-486-3332 fedamorton@gmail.com

5 ** Laurence Verga 434-971-1503 info@vergaforcongress.com

8 Matthew Berry berry@berry2010.com

8 ** Patrick Murray 703-888-6625 murrayforcongress@gmail.com

11 Keith Fimian 703-621-7169 kfimian@fimian2010.com

11 Patrick Herrity 703-451-5515 pat@patherrity.com

Click here to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the
Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

VA-ALERT: Republican Primary in 5 Congressional Districts

2010-06-03T19:21:22Z

From Jim Snyder

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

Click here
to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

VA-ALERT: VCDL mini-update 6/1/10

2010-06-03T19:13:49Z

[Originally emailed June 1 - CK]

From Philip Van Cleave

Table of Contents

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

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html

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

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html

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

VCDL mini-update 6/1/10

1. Reminder: VCDL meeting in Charlottesville on Thursday

2. Time to RSVP for July 1st celebrations!

3. Gun shows and events

Click here
to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.

Click the Continue Reading link below to read this VA-ALERT in its entirety.

Continue reading "VA-ALERT: VCDL mini-update 6/1/10"

VCDL in the news

2010-05-28T12:14:29Z

WTVR story, including snippets of an interview with Phillip, regarding the AG Ken Cuccinelli's Brief on the George Mason University gun ban.

Not from Virginia, but worthy of note.

2010-05-27T15:27:20Z

A great article from Philadelphia about the diversity of people who own and carry guns in the modern world.

Dan Pehrson rolls up to 1 Shot Coffee, a cafe in Northern Liberties, on two wheels, much like many of his environmentally conscious urban peers. He’s just the type of patron this establishment is accustomed to serving. The 28-year-old computer programmer is cool, calm and collected. And his look—blazer, jeans, sneakers, black-rimmed eyeglasses, hair tussled and neat at the same time—say hipster all the way. Pehrson, who lives in the Art Museum area, appears and acts much like everyone else at the coffeehouse. The fact that there’s a deadly weapon under his shirt seems to have no bearing on the way he carries himself. Truth be told, he wears his gun about as well as he rocks his navy blue blazer.

RTWT

VA-ALERT: ACTION ITEM: Et Tu, Cuccinelli?

2010-05-27T03:38:48Z

From Philip Van Cleave

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

VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html

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

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html

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

Here is an open letter that I have sent to Attorney General Cuccinelli.
If he would like to respond and defend himself, I will be glad to share
his response with all 14,000 of you:

Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,

I am very disappointed in your brief filed with the Supreme Court in
reference to DiGiacinto v the Rector and Visitors of George Mason
University, which challenges GMU's gun ban in their library and other
buildings, especially as it applies to a non-student.

Since GMU is a state entity, I understand that the Virginia Attorney
General's office has to defend against this lawsuit.

As a candidate for Attorney General you said at a VCDL meeting on
December 18th, 2008 that GMU's gun ban was indefensible. (A link to
the video and a transcript are at the end of this letter.)

But what is really indefensible is the gratuitous, fear mongering aimed
at gun owners in that brief.

I can understand making your argument that the GMU ban is valid based on
some legal theory, since you are stuck defending GMU. The brief does
some of that, BUT the brief then goes clean off the reservation into a
gratuitous attack on gun owners, with a heavy does of fear mongering and
even squeezes in a Clintonesque "for the children" emotional argument:

"Without the regulation [banning guns], the University community's
safety is seriously compromised. Unquestionably, the vast majority of
gun owners are law-abiding citizens. Nevertheless, a rejected student
applicant could walk into the Dean of Admissions office with an openly
visible sidearm to discuss why the university rejected his application.
An expelled student could do the same while he met with the Dean of
Students to discuss his appeal of his expulsion. A disgruntled
ex-boyfriend armed with a large hunting knife mounted on his side could
enter the student residences to speak to his former girlfriend where she
lived. Finally, any person who wishes to enter Fenwick Library with a
sidearm, could not only frighten students and minors, such as
preschoolers, but also expose them to unnecessary risks, such as an
accidental discharge"

That looks like something that Sarah Brady would write!

While you might not feel that you can win his case based on legal
merits, using made up, emotional scenarios to influence the Supreme
Court is unconscionable.

You ran a campaign on putting principles first. But all that fear
mongering in this brief has nothing to do with principles and everything
to do with winning the case AT ALL COSTS.

You were right the first time, Mr. Attorney General: principles DO
matter and that brief has thrown those principles in the trash.

Finally, the argument in the brief that colleges and universities are
"sensitive places" is not tenable. Truly sensitive places would be
guarded like a fortress - higher education schools are not, with the
public having easy access to them.

Here is the brief (the offensive language is on the bottom of page 7 and
top of page 8):

http://www.virginia1774.org/RVGMUBrief.pdf

Your statement that GMU's ban is indefensible can be seen and heard by
skipping forward 5 minutes and 30 seconds into this video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/vaguninfo#p/u/20/3bx1ZIusXiU

Here is a transcript of your comments in the video:

"I heard the college question - you know, ***they don't have the legal
authority to pass the regulations they are passing that trump what the
General Assembly has said.*** Now one way to deal with that is for an
individual to simply challenge it in court and say, 'Hey, I want to go
walk at George Mason and this blocks me, so I have standing.' But, the
problem with doing it at the legislative level is that you have got to
succeed. Because, and I say, and it sounds funny, but if you don't you
end up setting the reverse precedent that the courts will interpret as
meaning taking the side of the university. That's the danger we have in
that area."

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

VCDL ACTION ITEM

Let's contact the Attorney General's office and POLITELY let him know
that fear mongering against gun owners is not a principle that he should
be standing on. Click here to go to his web mail address:

http://www.vaag.com/ContactUsForm/ContactForm.aspx

Suggested subject: Stick to the law and do not smear gun owners!

Suggested message:

Dear Attorney General Cuccinelli,

I am very disappointed that your brief on DiGiacinto v the Rector and
Visitors of George Mason University contains gratuitous fear mongering
against gun owners, even going so far as to say that preschoolers would
be at RISK from gun owners carrying at a public university! I would
expect such a low blow from the Brady Campaign, but not an Attorney
General who ran on principles and being pro-liberty.

Click here
to start receiving VA-ALERTS in your email.