VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 5/21/13

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

Not yet a VCDL member? Join VCDL at: http://www.vcdl.org/join

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

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

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

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

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

1. McCain, Schumer say gun control will get another vote this year

2. Harry Reid introduces bill for background checks on gunpowder

3. Senators quietly seeking new path on gun control

4. Why did the Democrats pour everything in Toomey's Amendment?

5. GOP Lawmakers hope to combat ammunition stockpiling 

6. Democrats plan campaign targeting lawmakers tied to NRA

7. Commentary: Congress in clutches of NRA

8. Wounded Warrior Project

9. Shared remarks regarding previous alert (April 25, 2013)

10. Volunteers pick up loads of trash from shooting range

11. LTE: Are guns at public meetings necessary?

12. LTE: Government should not take people's guns

13. Obama signs firearm and ammo killswitch

14. Smart Guns: Next part of gun control push

15. Occupy Fail: Stop the NRA protest draws Fluke-like crowd [PHOTOS]

16. 'Stop the NRA' march fizzles

17. Gun control advocates revel in Obama's economic war on guns

18. GE Capital cuts off lending to gun shops

19. Gun Shops rationing ammo

20. Some gun dealers balking at transfers

21. Colorado gun control advocates respond to critics with more bills

22. CA, when gun confiscation starts, don't let them in the door

23. Nothing like armed terrorists in a state that loves gun control

24. Even after murders, Newtown still prefers low taxes to more security

25. Anti-Social: assault weapons [VIDEO]

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

1. McCain, Schumer say gun control will get another vote this year

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

Be prepared - we will have another battle later this year.

Member Walter Jackson sent me this:

--

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/d8xu6d9

MCCAIN, SCHUMER SAY GUN CONTROL WILL GET ANOTHER VOTE THIS YEAR

by AWR Hawkins

April 25, 2013

In comments made on April 25, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) both said they were saddened gun control didn't pass on April 17 but assured reporters the measures would be brought up for another vote some time this year.

"I think we will bring the bill back before the end of the year... lots of Senators who thought it was safe to vote against it [on April 17] because of the intensity [pro-gun groups] are not so sure anymore," Schumer said.

Schumer said the intensity for gun control has increased since the failed vote for gun control legislation, and he thinks Americans are now "intense" in their desire for more gun control.

McCain concurred, saying, "I... agree with Chuck that I think the issue will come back." McCain supported the Manchin/Toomey gun control "compromise" the first time around; he said the toughest part of pushing it is that "Second Amendment defenders" are very active.

Contrary to claims that momentum has shifted in favor of more gun control, national polls show an ever-increasing drop in public support for gun laws. A recent USA Today poll showed that support for stricter gun control fell from 61% in February to 49% by April 21. 

Moreover, Democrat Senators in red states running for re-election in 2014 know their political well-being depends on defending the 2nd Amendment. 

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

2. Harry Reid introduces bill for background checks on gunpowder

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

And even gunpowder is under attack.

Steve Rouse sent me this:

--

From gunssavelives.net: http://tinyurl.com/axftwbe

BREAKING: Harry Reid Introduces Bill for Background Checks on Gunpowder – May Also Affect Ammo

APRIL 24 2013

Harry Reid has introduced a bill on behalf of fellow Democratic Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who has been out sick for much of the year, which would require background checks on any purchases of gunpowder.

All commercially available ammunition contains gunpowder, which can be fairly easily extracted, even if the process is a bit time consuming, from complete ammo cartridges. Due to this fact it is thought by some this bill could become a federal requirement on background checks for ammo sales.

This would grind our current background check system to a halt, pretty much destroy the online ammo industry, and raise the price of ammo exponentially.

Even if the bill contains an exemption for ammo (we’re waiting on the full text to be posted online), it is still bad news for ammo prices if one of the components used in ammo manufacture becomes more controlled.

The bill currently has no co-sponsors and is in the Judiciary committee.

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

3. Senators quietly seeking new path on gun control

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

Bill Watkins sent me this:

--

From nytimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/cr5bez8

Senators Quietly Seeking New Path on Gun Control

By Jeremy W. Peters

April 25, 2013

WASHINGTON — Talks to revive gun control legislation are quietly under way on Capitol Hill as a bipartisan group of senators seeks a way to bridge the differences that led to last week’s collapse of the most serious effort to overhaul the country’s gun laws in 20 years.

Drawing on the lessons from battles in the 1980s and ’90s over the Brady Bill, which failed in Congress several times before ultimately passing, gun control supporters believe they can prevail by working on a two-pronged strategy. First, they are identifying senators who might be willing to change their votes and support a background check system with fewer loopholes.

Second, they are looking to build a national campaign that would better harness overwhelming public support for universal background checks — which many national polls put at near 90 percent approval — to pressure lawmakers.

Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, have been talking in recent days about how they could persuade more senators to support their bill to expand background checks for gun buyers, which drew backing from only four Republicans last week.

“We’re going to work it hard,” Mr. Manchin said Thursday, adding that he was looking at tweaking the language of his bill in a way that he believed would satisfy senators who, for example, felt that background checks on person-to-person gun sales would be too onerous for people who live in rural areas far from a sporting goods store.

Those concerns were an issue for Alaska’s senators, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, and Mark Begich, a Democrat.

Meanwhile, a separate gun measure, an anti-trafficking bill, is the subject of talks between Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, and two Republican senators who voted no on the background check bill. The Republicans, Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, are discussing ways they might support the bill, which would criminalize the shipping or transfer of guns to someone who is barred from possessing a firearm.

While the bill on its own falls short of what the families of victims of mass shootings have been pushing Congress to enact — and is therefore less controversial — some Democrats believe it could be a good starting point to build a broader bipartisan compromise.

“I think trafficking can be the base of the bill, the rock on which everything else stands,” Ms. Gillibrand said. “I also think it’s complementary to background checks because, let’s be honest, criminals aren’t going to buy a gun and go through a background check. So if you really want to go after criminals, you have to have to do both.”

Ms. Ayotte said Thursday that she would continue talking with Ms. Gillibrand and was confident that some areas of agreement, on areas like expanding mental health care, could be reached.

“There’s a lot we have agreement on in terms of enforcing our current system,” she said. “And so I certainly think we should look for the common elements, including the mental health piece, which I support as well, and try to move as much of that as possible forward.”

Ms. Ayotte — the only one out of 22 senators on the East Coast north of Virginia who voted against strengthening background checks — has been the target lately of some of the most furious lobbying by gun control proponents, who have inundated local newspapers with letters to the editor denouncing her vote, run radio ads saying she “ignored the will of the people” and swamped her office with phone calls. On Thursday, two receptionists placed one call after another on hold as they politely listened to callers vent and replied, “Thank you for your message.”

Next week when Congress is in recess, gun control groups coordinating with the Obama committee Organizing for Action will be fanning out across the country in dozens of demonstrations at the offices of senators who voted down the background check bill.

As talks moved ahead on Capitol Hill, the White House was pressing on with its own efforts. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. summoned a group of gun control proponents to his office on Thursday — including representatives from Michael R. Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Gabrielle Giffords’s Americans for Responsible Solutions and the Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence — and reassured them that the issue had become his highest priority.

The vice president recalled the long struggle to enact the Brady Bill, which established a five-day waiting period to buy a gun. And he told them gun control would become his new campaign to end the Iraq war, according to two participants in the meeting, comparing it to the issue he devoted much of his energy to during President Obama’s first term. The pressure campaign is evidently already starting to take its toll, the vice president added, because several senators have confided to him that they are feeling the backlash from constituents.

Those senators, he added, told him that they needed to be assured there was adequate support for expanded gun control to pass because they did not want to take such a great political risk on something that was doomed to fail. And some of them are already beginning to ask about what tweaks gun control proponents might entertain that could make the bills more palatable, the vice president said.

“It’s not a question of really changing their minds for or against this policy,” one of the meeting’s participants said. “It’s demonstrating that it’s safe to do the right thing and politically unsafe not to.”

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

4. Why did the Democrats pour everything in Toomey's Amendment?

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

From extranosalley.com: http://tinyurl.com/d2jfp23

Why Did The Democrats Pour Everything In Toomey’s Amendment?

by Stranger

April 27, 2013 

Someone from Pipestone, Minnesota, asked “why did the toomey amendment have all the democrats bills.”

Essentially, because the Democrats could. A persistent pattern of misspellings seen in bills introduced by long time anti-gun activist Chucky Schumer is also present in the “background check” part of S.AMDT.715. So the amendment was written by Schumer or his staff, and handed to Manchin to be filed. A hard line “false flag” Democrat, Manchin probably never looked at the Amendment – and would have approved it if he had. And of course Toomey had already been suckered signed on so he had no reason to actually look at what his name is on.

If the Amendment were voted up, it would be hailed as a great victory over the NRA and the forces of good. When it was voted down it was a huge loss for the forces of evil – but those forces have presented the loss as a loss for law and order.

And all this goes back to Saul Alinsky’s teaching Obama and the rest of the Partei to always demand more than you expect to get. The Democrats are desperate to get Obama a “legacy of gun control,” and are equally desperate to get that universal precursor to gun confiscation; the retention of sales records. They chose universal background checks, which would have to be done at a dealers, as the method.

Since gun dealers must keep sales records for life, that would soon provide the database for a universal gun owners registry. And in a year or so the penalty for creating a gun owners registry would be repealed, and the way would be clear for the United States to follow Russia, Austria, Cambodia, Venezuela and other places with a registry. Into totalitarianism.

So far, the Democratic Partei has not gotten its universal background checks. But they will continue to demand them, along with demands for anything else they think we would trade for those checks. Like background checks on gunpowder purchases.

When they and their captive media lie “high, wide, and handsome enough” they may find an issue that would hit us so hard we would trade universal background checks and perpetual record keeping to avoid something worse. So they will be back, time after time.

Unless of course we make it 1994 all over again. Going into ’94, with their “Assault Weapon Ban” fresh in memory and Hilary Clinton’s “bankrupt everyone” universal health care proposal in mind, the media was absolutely sure the Clintonistas were going to wipe the floor with Republicans. It did not happen that way.

It is time to make 2014 “1994 all over again.” Only better, with even greater losses for the Democrats. Who are, as a Partei, firmly committed to the end of private gun ownership in the former United States.

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

5. GOP Lawmakers hope to combat ammunition stockpiling 

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

Government is part of the problem with the ammunition shortage.  This might help.

Michael Chen sent me this:

--

From news.yahoo.com: http://tinyurl.com/d5umf9h

GOP Lawmakers Hope to Combat Ammunition Stockpiling by Gov’t Agencies With AMMO Act

By Jason Howerton | The Blaze

April 25, 2013

Republicans in the Senate and House are expected to introduce a joint bill Friday that would limit the amount of ammunition that federal agencies are allowed to buy and stockpile over the next six months, the Washington Free Beacon reports.

The bill, titled the Ammunition Management for More Accountability or "AMMO" Act, is being proposed after several lawmakers have voiced concerns about some federal agencies, like the Department of Homeland Security, seemingly stockpiling large quantities of ammo.

"DHS, for instance, has placed two-years worth of ammunition, or nearly 247 million rounds, in its inventory," the Free Beacon notes.

In a statement provided to the Washington Free Beacon, one of the bill's co-sponsors, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), said federal agencies must provide more "transparency and accountability" in regards to its "stockpiles of ammunition."

"President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans' access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights...One way the Obama administration is able to do this is by limiting what's available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition," the statement adds.

More from the Free Beacon:

[T]he legislation would prevent all government agencies except for the Defense Department from purchasing and storing what lawmakers say is an excess amount of ammunition.

The bill's reach would include DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), two agencies that have found themselves at the center of the ammo controversy.

"As the public learned in a House committee hearing this week, the Department of Homeland Security has two years worth of ammo on hand and allots nearly 1,000 more rounds of ammunition for DHS officers than is used on average by our Army officers," Inhofe said. "The AMMO Act of 2013 will enforce transparency and accountability of federal agencies' ammunition supply while also protecting law-abiding citizens access to these resources."

An agency covered by the legislation would not be permitted to purchase or store more ammunition than that agency retained on average between 2001 and 2009, according to an advance copy of the legislation provided to the Free Beacon.

Additionally, the AMMO Act would encourage the Government Accountability Office to audit federal agencies' ammo purchases.

"The Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to Congress a report regarding the purchasing of ammunition by agencies, which shall include an assessment of the effect of the purchasing of ammunition by agencies on the supply of ammunition available to the public," the bill reads, according to a copy reviewed by the Free Beacon.

There have been more concerns over reports of DHS's plan to purchase another 750 million rounds of ammunition over the next five years, despite having a two-year stockpile saved up. Meanwhile, gun shops across the country are reporting ammunition shortages.

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

6. Democrats plan campaign targeting lawmakers tied to NRA

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

From nydailynews.com: http://tinyurl.com/cduvl9b

--

Democrats plan campaign targeting lawmakers tied to NRA, plan to bring up new bill by summer

Sen. Chuck Schumer outlined a plan to bring up the new bill in the Senate, according to an aide. The plan also includes blitzing lawmakers allied with the National Rifle Association to break ties with the gun lobby.

By Dan Friedman / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

April 27, 2013

WASHINGTON — Shaking off a painful defeat in the Senate, top Democrats are reloading in the battle to enact new federal gun controls.

At a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill this week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) outlined a plan to bring up a new bill in the Senate “in the next three to four months,” a Senate aide said Friday.

The plan includes a public relations blitz aimed at convincing some lawmakers allied with the National Rifle Association to break with the gun lobby, the aide said.

The campaign to expand gun controls began in the wake of the Dec. 14 rampage that killed 20 students and six educators at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.

But the effort suffered a crushing defeat 10 days ago when a measure to dramatically expand background checks for gun purchasers failed to get enough votes in the Senate. President Obama called it “a pretty shameful day for Washington.”

But supporters of the background check bill are regrouping, hoping to tap into public anger to revive the measure.

Republicans question Democratic claims that they will return to the issue. “They are trying to make it look like they are doing something but they are not going to,” said one senior GOP aide.

But Schumer and a co-sponsor of the background check measure, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) say they have reason for optimism.

A group funded by Mayor Bloomberg, Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns, arranged for supporters to make 4,000 calls to Senate offices in the last week protesting the defeat of the background check measure.

A spokeswoman said the group is looking at advertising in Arizona and New Hampshire in an effort to sway Sens. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.).

The group is also eyeing an ad campaign against Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas who also opposed the bill and is up re-election next year, the spokeswoman said.

Democrats say they sense some movement already.

When Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) was seeking Republican backers in February for bill cracking down on gun trafficking, Ayotte's office declined to back the measure, Senate aides said. But Ayotte's staff this week grew "more interested" and began working with Gillibrand and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) on new version of the bill, an aide said.

A source familiar with Democratic plans said the White House and gun control groups still view expanding background checks as the key element of new gun violence legislation. There is some concern among the groups that allowing senators like Ayotte to use the lower-profile gun trafficking issue as a means to find political cover on gun control might damage the push for more background checks, the source said.

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

7. Commentary: Congress in clutches of NRA

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

More villainization of gun-rights organizations because we won't roll over on command.  The commentary below is all about political theater and nothing to do with lowering crime.

From connectionnewspapers.com: http://tinyurl.com/bw9loka

Commentary: Congress in Clutches of NRA

by Kenneth R. “Ken” Plum, State Delegate (D-36) 

April 23, 2013

Before I criticize the lack of action on the part of the U.S. Senate on modest gun measures last week, I will freely admit that the Virginia General Assembly is clearly in the clutches of the National Rifle Association (NRA). The last several years have seen a steady decline in Virginia’s attempt to reduce gun violence but without my support or vote. Most recently the General Assembly repealed the limitation on handgun purchases. The problem of gun violence is nationwide and appropriately should be addressed by the U.S. Congress. Opinion polls indicate overwhelming support for congressional action, especially as it relates to criminal background checks. At the same time, incidents involving gun violence continue to mount up.

With the strongest push by a president that has ever been seen on this issue, the U.S. Senate could not bring itself to act. Senator Tim Kaine, who has shown himself to be such a strong leader on this issue, spoke on the Senate floor last week on the sixth anniversary of the horrible shootings at Virginia Tech. He told the story of Professor Livin Librescu, who barricaded a classroom door with his body so that his students could escape to safety. While Professor Librescu had to be remarkably brave to do what he did, Senator Kaine told the senators they only needed to be brave enough to cast the right vote. To hear the senator’s strong speech, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf0sY2yYc5k.

In the end, the compromise bill to require checks for online sales and sales at gun shows, but not sales between neighbors and family members, failed by a vote of 54-46 with Senators Kaine and Warner voting for it. Senator Warner expressed his disappointment that the Senate “could not reach 60 votes for the reasonable, bipartisan legislation to strengthen background checks … while also upholding Second Amendment rights.” On the most controversial amendment to the bill, offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein to renew and strengthen a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, Senator Kaine voted in favor of it and Senator Warner voted no as they did respectively on limiting magazine sizes to 10 rounds. Senator Warner’s statement did not address these votes.

The votes were extremely disappointing to everyone, including the president, who denounced the inaction of the Senate in the harshest of terms, the thousands of Americans who lobbied very hard for the bill’s passage, and the local residents who have been so active in the Reston-Herndon Citizens Against Gun Violence.

The president said that the work must go on to pass the legislation or change the members of Congress. It was former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords who felt the trauma of gun violence so personally who summed it up best when she said that “Senators say they fear the NRA and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. … Mark my words: If we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s.”

Senators fell short of Senator Kaine’s plea that they be brave enough to cast the right vote. It’s time that we take back the Congress from the clutches of the NRA! And that means we take back some Senate seats!

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

8. Wounded Warrior Project

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

How stupid was it for the Wounded Warrior Project to get into the politics of gun-control and lose a big part of their base?  Oh, well.

Kenn McDermott sent me this:

--

Philip,

I wanted to let you know that based on your 4/20/13 Update I verified the information in item “24. Gun owners separate friends from foes” from several sources on the web regarding the Wounded Warrior Project. I had been donating monthly to that organization but today I cancelled that donation and diverted it to the Virginia Wounded Warrior Program – a component of the Virginia Veterans Services Foundation which was established by the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2008. The VWWP coordinates support services for veterans with stress-related and traumatic brain injuries resulting from service in a combat area. The program ensures that these veterans and their families receive timely assessment, treatment, and support. I spoke with Col. Jack Hilgers (USMC, Ret) at the Veterans Services Foundation. His contact information is: Jack.Hilgers@dvs.virginia.edu; (757) 481-4164 or (804) 382-3715 and donations can 

be sent to: Veterans Services Foundation - for VWWP, 6th Floor West, 900 East Main Street, Richmond, VA 23219-3510. The VWWP Donation Brochure can be found here:http://www.wearevirginiaveterans.org/images/Get-involve--donate/VWWP_Brochure_rev_110209.aspx.

Before I cancelled my WWP donation I called and spoke with several people, one of whom told me that WWP, Inc. is a tax-exempt 501(C)(3) nonprofit organization and as such cannot allow sponsorships by organizations related to alcohol, tobacco or firearms (or words to that affect). I told her I thought that as a non-profit that could create any type of rule as long as they didn’t violate IRS or state law. I wasn’t happy with her answers so I asked to speak to someone in authority and she said she would patch me to headquarters. I then got a voice-mail prompt and left a message – but so far have not heard back. I don’t believe non-profits generically have such a restriction.

In addition to the WWP’s questionable stand on issues “relating to firearms” I learned that their overhead and fund raising costs are pretty high with only 55% of their revenue going toward the expenses of programs they sponsor (according to Charity Navigator – www.charitynavigator.org). Although their programs have high visibility and are evidently helping many veterans, I don’t believe they are restricted as they stated and I have therefore put my money where I think it will do at least equally as well but without the negative implication of demonizing those who cherish the Second Amendment.

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

9. Shared remarks regarding previous alert (April 25, 2013 item 13)

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

Craig Faunce sent this to me:

--

"Can a terrorist currently buy a gun in this country? Yes. Can a felon? Yes. You go to a gun show and virtually no questions are asked," Feinstein claimed.

Joe Scarborough chimed in later in the segment to echo Feinstein's claim, asserting, "So now we have al Qaeda terrorists saying, 'Kill Americans, it's easy, just go to gun shows, get an assault weapon.'"

Yes, of course a felon can buy a gun. They can probably do it legally. Congress let them when they failed to allocate the funding necessary, and originally appropriated, to implement and enforce the existing background check system. Actually, there have been at least 77,000 instances (felons purchasing guns) of this since NICS came to be. The FBI has prosecuted about 75 of those instances. But expanded background checks will fix everything? She's gone full retard. I can't believe we elect people like this into office.

Also, when in recent history has a "terrorist" ever committed an attack with an assault rifle, on US soil? I really can't think of an instance. Box cutters, pressure cookers, and fertilizer, sure - but an "assault" rifle? Did I miss something? Really, I'm genuinely interested in knowing.

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

10. Volunteers pick up loads of trash from shooting range

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

Hats off to the volunteers who are cleaning up the public ranges in SW VA!

John Wilburn sent me this: 

--

From ourvalley.org: http://tinyurl.com/cfue3t8

Volunteers pick up loads of trash from shooting range

By Gwen Johnson

April 26, 2013

CRAIG COUNTY – About a dozen volunteers turned out to pick up Bobcat loads of trash at the popular Potts Slope Shooting Range. The range is located one-half mile off Rt. 311 in Craig County and the volunteers were helping with a quarterly clean-up day on April 9 scheduled by Eastern Divide District Ranger Cindy Schiffer.

“The folks who showed up really worked hard and the range really looks fantastic,” Schiffer said. “Now let’s hope it continues to stay that way and that people will start cleaning up after themselves.”

Volunteers who came were from Craig and surrounding areas. “Some of the same people who helped clean up the shooting range in Craig that Tuesday were also on hand that Monday to help clean the Blacksburg range,” Schiffer said.

Among the volunteers was John Wilburn, a VCDL Executive Member from Blacksburg. The Virginia Citizen’s Defense League became involved after a Craig County Board of Supervisors meeting back on Feb. 6 when Schiffer addressed the trash situation at the range. In addition to the allowed paper and cardboard targets left lying on the ground, other items are routinely left behind by individuals who bring them in to use as targets, then just leave them rather than putting them in trash cans.

“We got about 15-20 bucket loads of trash out of there via a skid-steer Bobcat,” Wilburn said. “It’s a great place to shoot and now has more natural scenery to match.” Some of the items picked up included everything from bowling balls to computers, he said. “The range is currently free to those who want to use it Schiffer said. “However, the more work we have to do the more it is going to end up costing.”

Schiffer told supervisors at the February meeting that the range was normally cleaned once a week but was not closed at the time of the cleaning so perhaps it didn’t get cleaned as thoroughly as it should.

She said she would address the issue by closing the range for a few hours on Tuesdays so the whole area could be cleaned. At the same time, she asked for volunteers to help with the clean-up.

Following the meeting several people volunteered to help; one of them was Phillip VanCleave from Richmond, President of the VCDL. VanCleave offered the Forest Service help with clean-up at the shooting range on a quarterly basis with no cost to rangers or the county. County leaders pointed out that Craig County has nothing to do with the range which is on National Forest property.

“I am meeting with some folks who are interested in being volunteer Range Masters,” Schiffer added. “Their primary goal will be to oversee that the range is kept safe and clean.”

The Potts Slope Shooting Range is closed every Tuesday morning around 9 a.m. for cleaning. Schiffer says anyone who would like to help is welcome.

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

11. LTE: Are guns at public meetings necessary?

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

Another person who is uncomfortable with someone else's liberty.

Jarrod Stringer sent me this:

--

From fredericksburg.com: http://tinyurl.com/d3lyjoe

Are guns at public meetings necessary? 

April 25, 2013

I wish to share a recent experience while attending the Stafford County Board of Supervisors public meeting on April 9 concerning the budget for Stafford schools.

The comments from the public prior to the board's deliberations were direct, forthright, and informative. However, I was concerned when one speaker in civilian clothes addressed the board while wearing a loaded pistol in the open. Whether the gentleman was an off-duty law enforcement officer or a citizen exercising his right to carry a weapon, it was, in my opinion, unnecessary, causing apprehension among others in the audience. There were two uniformed and armed Stafford County deputies present in the chamber who could have addressed any disturbance or "out of order" issues.

I was advised that Virginia state law supports the rights of citizens to openly wear firearms except on school grounds, in courts, and on federal property. While I respect individual rights of law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms, I earnestly believe that the open-wearing of firearms in any public forum or meeting is out of place and inappropriate. I urge our legislators and elected officials to carefully review the statutes and determine what modifications can be made for the commonwealth and the common good of all its residents.

George D. Paxson

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

12. LTE: Government should not take people's guns

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

EM Dave Hicks sent me this:

--

Well done, Billy W. Martin Sr.!  Succinctly written, point-on, very logical LTE.

From roanoke.com: http://tinyurl.com/d9dejj8

Government should not take people's guns

by Billy W. Martin Sr.

We keep seeing editorials and letters concerning gun control. The topic should not be gun control, but people control.

People misuse guns; guns do not misuse people. How do you take a gun away from the criminal who is not registered?

Those who want gun control are targeting the wrong people. Target the criminal, not the law-abiding citizen.

The prologue to a 1950 movie, "Colt 45," says it: "A gun, like any other source of power, is a force for either good or evil, being neither in itself, but dependent upon those who possess it".

If Michael Abraham doesn't want to own a gun, that is his prerogative ("Yes, the government should take your gun away," April 20 commentary). But he shouldn't tell me I can't own one to protect myself, my family or my property. That is my right.

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

13. Obama signs firearm and ammo killswitch

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

Here we go again.  While setting up to infringe on the Second Amendment, Obama's actions are only going to continue the ammunition buying frenzy.

Wayne B. Ericksen shared this on facebook:

--

From beforeitsnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/bgm3j26

Obama Signs Firearm And Ammo Killswitch

Before It's News

April 23, 2013

President Obama has side-stepped Congress by implementing portions of the UN Small Arms Trade Treaty through an executive order which can be used to ban the import of all firearms, ammunition and related supplies and accessories.

While patriots across the nation rejoiced when the US congress rejected flat on its face an attempt to force the United States into the UN Small Arms Treaty just weeks later a more sinister ulterior motive has been revealed.

Today, President Obama by passed congress and signed an executive which gives the federal government a power to completely ban the importation of guns, ammunition and even parts and accessories related to firearms.

While the UN Small Arms Treaty would have prevented the United States from both importing and exporting weapons, Obama has effectively signed on to the treaty with his new executive order while allowing the United States to export weapons of deaths to covertly funded clandestine operations in overseas nations where it seeks to further its imperialistic agenda.

At the same time, with nearly every other nation in the world signing on to the UN Small Arms treaty, other nations are now banned from doing the same which further leverages the United State’s power of shotgun diplomacy in nations that refuse to be puppets for the globalist elites that control America.

Back in the homeland Americans now face a dire situation.

With the United States government already having complete control over domestic corporations the power to ban all international imports effectively create what is nothing short of a firearm and ammunition killswitch.

At the same time, despite our elected representatives rejecting such legislation flat on its face, dictatorial executive orders continue to be enacted.

Not only are we being subject to international rules and regulations mandated by the UN, without any representation in the process, we also not longer are being represented in major political decisions being made at home.

This comes as the media has spent the last several days repeatedly selling the public on the notion that it is okay for the government to suspend the constitutional rights of a citizen at anytime and haul them off to a CIA blacksite to be tortured in the wake of the Boston Bombings.

In this video BeforeItsNews.com staff writer Alexander Higgins joins Arch Angel to discuss the newly signed executive order and how it has effectively set the stage for the government to completely suspend the constitution.

Obama To Ban Importation of Ammo, Magazines and Accessories Without Congressional Approval

Over the course of the last month, while Americans were distracted with the threat of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula and the devastation wrought by the Boston bombings, President Obama was quietly working behind the scenes to craft laws and regulations that will further erode the Second Amendment.

Congress, and thus We the People, may have unequivocally rejected federal legislation in March which aimed to outlaw most semi-automatic rifles, restrict magazine capacity, and force national registration, but that didn’t stop the President from ceding regulatory control over firearms importation to the United Nations just two weeks later. What the UN Arms Trade Treaty, passed without media fanfare by 154 counties, would do is to restrict the global trade of, among other things, small arms and light weapons. Opponents of the treaty argue that loopholes within the new international framework for global gun control may make it illegal for Americans to purchase and import firearms manufactured outside of the United States.

To further his gun-grabbing agenda, however, President Obama and his administration didn’t stop there.

Now they’re taking another significant step against Americans’ right to bear arms – and they’re doing it through Presidential Executive Action, a strategy that, once again, bypasses Congressional oversight and the legislative process.

…it appears that the BHO Administration is taking executive action on firearms importation. Take a few minutes to read this: After Senate setback, Obama quietly moving forward with gun regulation. Here is the key portion of the article:

“The Importation of Defense Articles and Defense Services — U.S. Munitions Import List references executive orders, amends ATF regulations and clarifies Attorney General authority “to designate defense articles and defense services as part of the statutory USML for purposes of permanent import controls,” among other clauses specified in heavy legalese requiring commensurate analysis to identify just what the administration’s intentions are. Among the speculations of what this could enable are concerns that importing and International Traffic in Arms Regulations [ITAR] may go forward to reflect key elements within the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.”[Emphasis added.]

Depending on how it is implemented, the implications of this change could be huge. With the stroke a of a pen and without the consent of Congress, ATF bureaucrats could make ANY gun part or accessory (including magazines) or ammunition that were originally manufactured or perhaps even those designed for military use no longer legal for importation for civilian use. That might mean no more milsurp parts sets. No more milsurp magazines. No more milsurp ammo. No more milsurp optics. Perhaps not even spare firing pins. This could be ugly.

I strongly recommend that you stock up on magazines, ammunition and spare parts for any of your imported military pattern guns, as soon as possible! Once an import ban is implemented, prices will skyrocket.

Source: James Rawles’ Survival Blog via The Prepper Website

Just five days ago the President vowed to push forward on gun control without Congress and Nancy Pelosi argued that no matter what Congress says, gun control is inevitable.

This latest round of Executive Actions is what they meant.

A direct on attack on the Second Amendment is difficult if not impossible, so they are trying to slither their way in through the backdoor by restricting international trade so we can’t import new firearms, by restricting access to accessories and gun parts, by heavily taxing ammunition and gun purchases, by mandating policies like forcing gun owners to have liability insurance, and of course, by identifying potentially dangerous gun owners and simply taking their firearms because of public safety concerns.

The President recently suggested that the American people have spoken, and that they want guns to be restricted, banned and heavily regulated.

If that’s so, then how is that a bipartisan Congress overwhelmingly rejected the President’s bid to restrict and outlaw private ownership of millions of weapons and gun accessories?

Going through the United Nations and now implementing Executive Actions to bypass America’s Constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances is an act of desperation.

Those who would take our rights have been left with no choice but to try and force their agenda upon us through dictatorial means.

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

14. Smart Guns: Next part of gun control push

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

"Smart guns" = "Dumb idea"

Member Walter Jackson sent this:

--

We, as supporters of the right to keep arms, are going to have to educate those on the fence about firearms. Plus more law biding adults owning firearms. While building public support for the Second Amendment. In particular with women.

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/a2uz53b

SMART GUNS: NEXT PART OF GUN CONTROL PUSH

by AWR Hawkins

April 25, 2013

"Smart guns"--guns which will only fire when the trigger is pulled by the person who owns them--may be part of the next wave of gun control.

President Obama began talking about them just weeks after the Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting, and they were a central focus of Bill Clinton's gun control push in the 1990s. 

Moreover, in the wake of the recently defeated Senate gun control push, some Democrat Reps are preparing to introduce "smart gun" legislation.

Although these guns vary by design, the idea behind a smart gun is that it reads the fingerprints or the grip of its owner and will only fire when those fingers or that grip is on the gun. Other designs place a computer chip in the gun and a computer chip in a wristband or a watch that have to match up for the gun to fire--only the person wearing the band or watch could fire the gun.

Such guns faced strong opposition under Clinton, when their development was largely government sponsored. Now, two decades later, the guns are certain to face opposition although privately sponsored development has made them far more reliable. But like all means of gun control, they ultimately will not stop crime or criminal use of firearms.

As senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation Lawrence Keane has pointed out, in a setting like Adam Lanza's Newtown home, the problem wasn't the absence of "smart guns" but the accessibility of the firearms to begin with. Keane points out that even if Lanza's mother had a watch or wristband to make her guns operable, "[Adam Lanza] presumably would have had access to that."

Other problems with smart gun technology are cost based--How much would these guns cost versus guns people buy right now? Also, once these guns are mandated as a gun control statute by the government, will that mean the use of traditional, non-smart guns will be illegal? 

Lastly, what if a burglar kills the father of the home and the eldest son or daughter isn't able to pick up the father's gun and use it to defend the rest of the family because the gun will only fire in the father's hand?

Similar questions were asked two decades ago, and no one could answer them satisfactorily. 

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

15. Occupy Fail: Stop the NRA protest draws Fluke-like crowd [PHOTOS]

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

Few are buying the anti-gun lies.

James Durso sent me this:

--

From twitchy.com: http://tinyurl.com/bn6cgwr

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

16. 'Stop the NRA' march fizzles

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

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/cxsdwzo

'Stop the NRA' March Fizzles

by Debra Heine

April 25, 2013

A coalition of left-wing activists held a rally and march in DC,  Thursday afternoon, to "ride a wave of public anger" and "drag the lobbyists out of the shadows."

From their press release:

Riding a wave of public anger at the Senate’s failure to pass even minimal gun control legislation, a coalition of activists, advocates and campaign finance reformers will lead a march on Washington firearms lobbyists this Thursday, April 25 at NOON. The goal is to drag the lobbyists out of the shadows where they prefer to operate and expose exactly how the National Rifle Association subverts democracy.

The event will begin with a news conference in McPherson Square, where gun violence prevention leaders will lay out the web of influence controlled by the NRA and unveil a new anti-NRA artwork by Shepard Fairey, who produced the most memorable image of Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign.

The Washington Examiner's Charlie Spiering swung by to watch the protest and march, and take some pictures.

Participating organizations include Public Campaign, Occupy the NRA, CREDO, Every Child Matters, Moveon, United For Change, USA, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, The Other 98%, and We Act Radio.

He says a generous estimation of the crowd size would have been about 100 people, including the members of the media who were there to cover the march.

The new Shepard Fairey anti-NRA poster can be seen, here.

To see more pix from the march, head to: Five sad pictures from today’s anti-NRA March.

That's quite a wave of anger they're riding, there.

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

17. Gun control advocates revel in Obama's economic war on guns

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

From breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/d4hs3zc

GUN CONTROL ADVOCATES REVEL IN OBAMA'S ECONOMIC WAR ON GUNS

by AWR Hawkins

April 27, 2013 

As gun control advocates cheered GE Captial's decision to cease business with gun stores, President Obama's economic war on the gun industry came into full view.

While Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) supports legislation to dry up the supply of firearms in this country, Obama and company are working behind the scenes to dry up the capital needed to make firearms and operate firearms related businesses.

We began seeing this in January when Obama's right hand man, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, began pressuring Bank of America (BA) and TD Bank to quit doing business with gun manufacturers.

Band of America was so eager to comply that they froze the account of Arizona AR-15 manufacturer Spirit Arms before Emanuel even put his request in writing. 

Bank of America defended their action by pointing out that Spirit Arms allows customers to order guns over the internet without conducting a background check. BA missed the fact that the guns are not shipped to the customers directly but to a FFL near the customer, where a background check on the buyer is performed before the gun is handed to him or her.

Although BA was eventually shamed into reversing course, the impetus for their action was clear. Now that GE Capital has followed suit, gun control advocates are cheering their victory. 

But other businesses are feeling the pressure as Obama, Democrats, and gun-control advocates attempt to turn Smith & Wesson and Glock into the equivalent of Marlboro or Winston cigarette manufacturers. Comcast Cable, for example, announced a ban on all firearm and ammunition advertisers in March. 

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

18. GE Capital cuts off lending to gun shops

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

If you use GE Capital, it's time to stop doing so.  Be sure to tell them why as you cancel your accounts.

Reader J.M. Hancock sent me this:

--

From foxnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/ccly9tb

GE Capital cuts off lending to gun shops

The Wall Street Journal

April 25, 2013

General Electric is quietly cutting off lending to gun shops, as the company rethinks its relationship to firearms amid the fallout from the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.

This month, Glenn Duncan, owner of Duncan's Outdoor Store in Bay City, Mich., said he received a letter from GE Capital Retail Bank in which the lender said it had made "the difficult decision" to stop providing financing services to his store. Other gun dealers have received similar notices.

Rex McClanahan, co-owner of Buds Gun Shop in Lexington, Ky., remembered first meeting GE representatives at an outdoor trade show called Nation's Best Sports in Fort Worth, Texas.

GE is at least the second big financial firm to retreat from the gun business following the school shootings, which claimed the lives of 20 first-graders and six adults in December.

Days after the killings, private-equity firm Cerberus Capital Management LP said it would try to sell the gun company it owns—Freedom Group Inc.— which makes brands including Remington, Bushmaster, Marlin and H&R.

The moves highlight how companies, closely attuned to the concerns of investors and employees, have reacted to public horror caused by the attacks, even as complicated political considerations doomed new gun-control legislation in the Congress.

Since the American Revolution, when colonists went to war against Great Britain, the right to bear arms has been central to—and controversial in—American culture.

GE is based in Fairfield, Conn., and many of the GE's employees live around Newtown, and several have children in the Sandy Hook elementary school, where the shootings took place. Peter Lanza, the father of Sandy Hook gunman Adam Lanza, is an executive at GE Capital. GE Chief Executive Jeff Immelt held a town hall meeting with affected employees after the shooting, and the board has been updated on efforts to help staff, a person familiar with the matter said.

"Industry changes, new legislation and tragic events" led GE Capital to reexamine its policies on financing firearms, spokesman Russell Wilkerson said.

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

19. Gun Shops rationing ammo

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

From cnsnews.com: http://tinyurl.com/9w96rtv

Gun Shops Rationing Ammo: 'We Have Police Departments that are Scrambling'

by Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr.

April 25, 2013

Gun shops across the country are reporting ammunition shortages as many Americans continue to stock up on whatever they can get their hands on.

Jeff Dillard, who runs National Armory in Pompano, Florida says, "I have never seen ammo so impossible to get."

Bruce A. Pelletier, owner of Pelletier's Sports in Jaffrey, New Hampshire, says in his forty-four years in business, he's never seen the shortage this bad.

"Customers have been buying it all at once. We've been at the point to limiting it to one or two boxes per person, so at least that more than one of our customers can have some."

At Sam's Outdoor Outfitters, which has locations in both New Hampshire and Vermont, rationing isn't even an option.

"We haven't had any ammunition that we can limit," says owner Stanley Borofsky.

"People are calling on a daily basis...I've been here since 1957, and I've never seen the shortage this bad," he said.

Tyler Boucher of Highlander Arms in Chesterfield believes that the "prepper" movement and rumors of the government buying up large quantities has exacerbated the run on ammunition.

"I think one of the things that's interesting from a psychological standpoint is the prepper movement has become more widespread and somewhat of a cultural phenomenon nationally," he said.

"People go to one of two extremes: bury their heads in the sand or preparing for World War III. I think people need to remain level-headed and consistent."

In York, Pennsylvania, gun shops are reporting the same ammo shortages:

"People want ammunition more than ever.  It is the emotional turmoil in this country," said Wayne Shuler, manager at Deer Valley Sporting Goods in West Manchester Township.

"We have very, very little.  Normally, it's readily available," he said.

Scott Morris, president and manager of Freedom Armory in Springfield Township says that after the shooting in Newtown, his store was "cleaned out within three days."

Morris says this is a long-term problem for both civilians and law enforcement.

"Right now, we're rationing ammunition...we have police departments that are scrambling," he said.

Denny Thomas, owner of B&B Sporting Goods in Hines, Oregon says that the shortage is as bad as it's ever been.

"Right now there's a real shortage on rimfire ammo."

Manufacturers, he says, "can't even keep up with making the cardboard boxes to put the ammo in."

Doug Toelke, store manager at Snappy Sport Senter in Evergreen, MT said, "It's tough for the manufacturers and the distributors to fill orders.

"The whole pipeline is dried up."

Toelke says that when the shop does get ammunition in, it disappears immediately:

"We'll put it on our shelves and we'll limit it to five boxes per customer and it might last an afternoon."

At the Nashville Gun Shop, owner Demir Demirhisar says that all of his ammo shelves are bare.

As "Right Views" previously reported, gun shows across the nation continue to see record turnout with the majority of attendees seeking ammunition.

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

20. Some gun dealers balking at transfers

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

New York's new gun-control laws are kicking in..

From democratandchronicle.com: http://tinyurl.com/bo6jzqn

Some gun dealers balking at transfers

Two say it isn't worth time, potential liability

by Jessica Alaimo, Staff Writer

April 23, 2013

At least two gun dealers in the Rochester area say they will not facilitate transfers of firearms between two private parties. A third plans to charge more than what the law allows.

The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, the controversial new gun laws passed Jan. 15, requires all people selling a gun to someone else to conduct this process through a federally licensed firearms dealer. The only exception is for immediate family members. Dealers are not required to perform this service.

The dealer must run a background check and cannot charge more than $10. Dealers say the process is worth more than that.

“The store has to take the gun in, book it in, give you a receipt for selling it, give them a receipt for taking it, do a background check, book it out of our logbooks, save the background check forever in our records, and give them a lock with it, all for $10,” said Fred Calcagno, owner of American Sportsman in East Rochester. Calcagno said he has been turning away people who want to do the transfers.

In addition to the paperwork and the cost of the lock, which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosioves mandates he provide, there are also liability issues. If the gun malfunctions, he could get sued, Calcagno said.

“It puts us in the chain of liability,” Calcagno said. “Now the gun has been handled in my books, put into my books, and sent out from my books, I’m the person that sold that person the gun, basically, even though I had nothing to do with it for the $5 I might make. If that person shoots himself in the foot, the first place they sue along with the manufacturer is the store that gave it to them. Why would I get myself into that situation for $5?”

Paul Martin, owner of Pro-Gun Services in Victor, also is not facilitating transfers.

“It’s a lose-lose situation,” Martin said. “The amount of paperwork, labor, responsibility, liability, that’s not even reasonable.”

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office defends the regulation.

“The law is clear that dealers can voluntarily offer for private sales the same check that they already run for all retail firearm sales, and charge up to $10. We believe responsible dealers will provide this service because responsible gun dealers and owners know how important it is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the dangerously mentally ill,” spokesman Richard Azzopardi wrote in an email.

One person who Martin turned away was David Koeberle, president of Reynolds Auction Company, which is based in Palmyra but does business in Rochester. He said he checked with several gun dealers, all of whom said they could not do the transfer. Instead he turned to his competitors — other auctioneers who have a Federal Firearms Dealer license — to complete the sale.

He doesn’t sell a lot of guns, but he is now going to get his own Federal Firearms Dealer license. He said he had been thinking about it anyway.

“Every gun dealer I spoke with said they couldn’t do it,” he said. “It has made the process very difficult.”

One dealer who will still facilitate the transfers is Kordell Jackson, owner of Jackson Guns and Ammo in Henrietta and Scottsville. However, he said he is charging $35.

Compliance with the new gun law continues to be a headache for dealers, who are still unclear on many of the provisions.

“It’s been kind of unsettling,” he said. “A lot of people don’t know what’s happening.”

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

21. Colorado gun control advocates respond to critics with more bills

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

Rather than backing off after passing massive gun-control legislation in Colorado, the government is doubling-down!   This could be our future if gun owners don't get the polls in November and vote out the tyrants.

Bill Hine sent me this:

--

From washingtontimes.com: http://tinyurl.com/cxcpy67

Colorado gun control advocates respond to critics with more bills

By Valerie Richardson-The Washington Times

April 24, 2013

DENVER — Colorado Democrats, facing electoral recalls and tourism boycotts, have a response for those outraged by their ambitious gun control agenda: more gun bills.

The state legislature moved two more gun control bills to the governor’s desk this week, and a third is expected to join them before the end of the session May 8. Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper signed three bills restricting firearms access in March, prompting a congratulatory visit from President Obama.

Colorado Democrats have certainly had more success in promoting gun-control measures than their political kin in Washington, where federal firearms bills have run aground. The difference is that in Colorado, Democrats hold the governor’s office and both houses of the legislature.

“This has by far been the biggest attack on gun ownership in our state’s history,” said Joe Neville, political director for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which has fought the measures. “They’ve gone above and beyond anything we’ve seen before.”

The latest bills would require domestic-violence offenders to surrender their firearms, create a task force to study ways to prevent those with mental health problems from obtaining guns, and ban gun owners from obtaining a concealed-carry permit via an online class.

Republicans say the domestic-violence bill will result in court-ordered gun confiscation. Federal law bans such offenders from possessing firearms, but provides no mechanism for courts to remove the guns.

“That’s really what this bill is about: It’s gun confiscation. That’s the difference between this and what we have in current law,” Republican state Rep. Lori Saine said during Friday’s floor debate.

Democrats argued that other states have approved similar measures in order to protect victims of abuse and their children from further violence. Three states — California, Hawaii and Massachusetts — require those under temporary protective orders to turn over their guns. Several others also mandate the surrender of firearms under certain circumstances.

Last year, 13 people in Colorado were killed after gaining court protective orders against abusers, said Democratic state Rep. Beth McCann.

“The objective is to get the guns out of the home,” said state Rep. Rhonda Fields, a Democrat. “When you combine domestic violence and guns, that is a lethal combo. Those two things do not mix.”

House Minority Leader Mark Waller said the measure amounted to feel-good legislation that would make abuse victims no safer while potentially depriving law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights.

“This bill is ripe for abuse, it’s ripe for confiscation of personal private property, it’s ripe for asserting that guns are the problem in society and not the people who use them,” said Senate Minority Leader Bill Cadman.

The legislature is also considering a bill that would create a task force to study how to prevent the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms. That measure was approved by a House committee last week on a 6-5 party-line vote.

The latest flurry of gun bills was unaccompanied by the massive shows of protest by gun rights supporters, who flooded the state Capitol in February and March to testify against the measures. Foes of gun control are still out there, said Mr. Neville, but their focus has switched to defeating Democratic legislators instead of trying to change their minds.

“You might not see the dog-and-pony show like we had before, but people are still out there,” said Mr. Neville. “We’re still hearing from them. They’re just more involved now at the local level.”

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

22. CA, when gun confiscation starts, don't let them in the door

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

From freedomoutpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/c8l7sjg

California, When Gun Confiscation Starts, Don’t Let Them In The Door

by Dean Garrison

April 26, 2013

California inched closer to passing a gun confiscation bill last week. The bill returns to the Senate for some “non-controversial” amendments and then goes to the desk of Governor Brown. What the people of California need to realize is that this is all a formality. The gun confiscation is already happening and will continue. This legislation would only provide more money to expedite the process. 

With all of the major news stories this legislation has been largely unnoticed in the media. What I want all of our readers to understand is that what is happening in California, and will continue to happen, is only happening because people do not know and understand their rights.

The thing that you must understand is that this bill deals with a type of gun confiscation that happens without warrants. Let me quote a Huffington Post article which appeared late last week:

“California is the only U.S. state where law enforcement officials confiscate guns from the homes of individuals not legally permitted to own them. Because gun-confiscating agents do not obtain search warrants, their job involves convincing people to let them into their homes and hand over their guns. If an individual does turn over a gun, he or she can be arrested on suspicion of illegally owning a firearm.”

Really? Is this one of the craziest things you have ever heard in your life? This paragraph shocked me.

Your 4th Amendment rights protect you from unreasonable search and seizure. Here is the text of the 4th Amendment:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

We don’t even have to talk about the 2nd Amendment and “shall not be infringed” to understand that the 4th Amendment is also in play here. If they don’t produce a warrant, you are not required to let them in the door. Period.

If you do decide to let them in, and you do decide to hand over a gun to them then you may be giving up your own protection under the 5th amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

I have added emphasis to key parts of the 5th amendment text that I want you to look at. I am not a constitutional attorney so you will get a layman’s explanation here. If you let these gun grabbers in your home and give them what they are asking for, then you have given up your right to due process in my opinion. They have not produced a warrant that has been signed by a judge and you have given them what they wanted in spite of that. Also, in a way, you have just been forced to witness against yourself. If the situation were different I wouldn’t bring that up, but according to the Huffington Post if you comply then you might be arrested.

How’s that for justice? You accommodate the officers that come to your door. You hand over what they ask for. Then they might arrest you for being cooperative.

So what do you do if one of these gun grabbers shows up at your door? Tell them to wait outside while you call your attorney. Or tell them to come back when they can produce a warrant. This goes far beyond the 2nd Amendment. It may loosely relate to the 5th Amendment but as already discussed the 4th Amendment is definitely in play.

This California Legislation is a joke. It’s not only in the way it’s applied but in the way it came to be. Do you know where the money is coming from? I am again quoting the Huffington Post article below:

“Assemblyman Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he voted against the measure because the fees that make up the DROS funds are intended to cover the cost of background checks — not confiscations.

‘For example, if you go to the DMV and pay for a driver’s license, that fee is for processing the driver’s license, not for setting up sting operations for catching drunk drivers,’ he said.

‘If the legislature wants to raise extra funds for the DOJ, it would have to impose a tax on firearm sales, which requires a two-thirds vote,’ he added.”

>From the Federal Government all the way to the California Legislature…they continue to use the back door. They will find a way.

We read this stuff almost every day and one of our first responses tends to be something like…that’s in California. Just a couple of weeks ago there were probably people in California saying…that’s in New York.

If you don’t know what I am talking about… check out a previous D.C. Clothesline article entitled New York Gun Confiscation Starts: May Set National Precedent

How many places does freedom have to fall before we come to the aid of our fellow Americans?

If the 2nd Amendment continues to crumble, no other rights will matter. This is the people’s power of enforcement. We keep hearing the rhetoric that they are only taking guns from the bad guys and every day we read stories that are quite contrary to government propaganda.

The gun grab is on and has been for a while…

Molon Labe!

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

23. Nothing like armed terrorists in a state that loves gun control

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

From freedomoutpost.com: http://tinyurl.com/cg5ed3x

Nothing Like Armed Terrorists In A State That Loves Gun Control

by Tim Brown

April 24, 2013

It is reported that two of the suspects in the Boston marathon bombing were in possession of 2 handguns and an “M4 carbine” and yet they were both residents of Massachusetts, a state with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country. On top of that we can look to the laws that Massachusetts legislators have imposed upon its citizens and see how difficult it is for law abiding citizens in Massachusetts to legally obtain firearms. Now if you are a liberal or some other form of Socialist, Communist or Utopian you would think this makes the state safer. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it became quite apparent this week that you don’t have to have a gun in Massachusetts to be deadly and even those who are suspected of using bombs had firearms and neither of the Tsarvaev brothers had a state issued license to purchase a firearm, yet they had them because, well that’s what criminals do; they break the law.

However, Mike Sweeney at the Daily Caller exposes four facts about gun laws in Massachusetts and how they applied to the bombing suspects, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev. He writes:

Fact 1.  Neither of the Tsarnaev brothers was legally able to be in possession of the firearms used during the shootouts and following attempted escape. 

…

Fact 2.  The “M4 carbine” that they were allegedly in possession of is illegal to possess in Massachusetts.  IF, and this is a big IF this was a newly manufactured Colt M4 carbine as the NYT reports, and it wasn’t modified after leaving the factory, it would be classified an “Assault Weapon” by the state of MA C. 140: S. 121 applies to the definition and C. 140: S. 131M applies to the possession.  Without going into great detail, the only way a MA resident can legally possess an AR style semi automatic rifle is to have an LTC in good standing and for the rifle to meet strict standards as to which cosmetic features it has; otherwise it is considered an “assault rifle” by the state, possession of which is a felony.

Fact 3.  Just as it was illegal for them to be in possession of the M4 carbine, it was illegal for them to be in possession of any type of handgun.  Possession of a handgun in MA requires the same LTC license in good standing as issued by the state.  Once again neither of the Tsarnaev brothers was eligible nor met the state’s requirements to be issued an LTC.

Fact 4:  The MGL’s of the state of MA were completely disregarded by the Tsarnaev brothers.  On every level and at every step the laws on our books did nothing to deter their criminal actions.

Another law would have done nothing to stop these men from obtaining these arms. It would not have stopped them from obtaining pressure cookers or the materials to build the bombs. Stopping them from immigrating the the United States would have!

Understand something though. Thousands of citizens were living in fear of two men. They were told to stay inside their homes and not go out if they didn’t have to till these guys were apprehended. Then they were placed in full lockdown and as you can see in a previous video, they were having their Fourth Amendment rights violated right along with their Second Amendment rights.

I must say that the people of Massachusetts are receiving the fruits of what they are allowing. Some will call me insensitive. That’s OK. I don’t mean my statements to be insensitive to victims who have lost their lives or those injured in the bombings. I’m referencing as a whole, people who have allowed their government to virtually disarm them, cause them to cower in fear and then be subjected to warrantless searches that wound make the Founders roll over in their graves.

The Second Amendment exists for a specific reason and that reason is contained in the Amendment itself. The specific part I reference is the little section that reads, “being necessary to the security of a free state.”

Did anyone think they were looking at a “free state” in Boston this past week? Hmmm? Neither did I. I can tell you though that if something like that would have taken place in my neck of the woods and a suspected bomber was on the loose, he would have either been shot and killed or at the very least been held up by a law abiding citizen with a gun or three.

You didn’t see anything of the sort in Boston and friends this leads me to say that terrorism comes in many forms. How many families had dozens of guns pointed at them as their homes were illegally raided? How many officers took oaths not to engage in such things and yet engaged in them anyway?

When it comes to liberty, no US citizen should be denied the access to arms, for when they are, the only people that have them are law enforcement (which are responders, not preventers) and criminals. We see how this worked out this past week in Boston and yet we are still being told that we need more gun control by the same Socialists who welcome Islam into our White House and into our nation.

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

24. Even after murders, Newtown still prefers low taxes to more security

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

The media blew the tragedy in Connecticut out of proportion, even for those who live in Connecticut.

EM Dave Knight sent me this:

--

From godfatherpolitics.com: http://tinyurl.com/cvpewve

Even After Murders, Newtown Still Prefers Low Taxes To More Security

by Mark Horne 

April 26, 2013 

The other day I was in the car listening to NPR and heard seemingly mystified reporters tell me about the vote over the Newtown budget and the Newtown education budget (which are proposed separately). As soon as I got home I searched for the story.

“Parents’ widespread desire for better security in the wake of the Dec. 14 mass shootings that killed 20 first-graders and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School was the overriding issue throughout the process leading up to the vote. But none of that prevented voters from rejecting the proposal, kicking the education budget to the curb by a 482-vote margin, 1,994 in favor versus 2,476 opposed.  Voters rejected the town budget by a 66-vote margin, 2,207 in favor versus 2,273 opposed. Both budgets now go back to the Legislative Council for revisions. In the advisory questions about whether each budget was too low, voters in both cases overwhelmingly said the budgets were not too low. The vote on the town budget was 299 to 3,926. The vote on the education budget was 605 to 3,650.”

This is just common sense.

First, what might happen is not as important as what will happen. Higher taxes mean less money for residents or a financial crisis in the future. The voters compared that to the odds that the schools would have another shooter. Consumers make that kind of decision all the time. I remember a salesman offering my wife and I a superior fire alarm system complete with testimonials from people whose lives had been saved. We didn’t buy it because we simply didn’t have the money. So far, both we and our children have not burned up in a fire.

Secondly, if there was a shooter, increased law enforcement might not help. What if the shooter eliminates the guard right away with his first shot? Or what if the next shooter is someone who manages to take out a guard and get his weapon. All sorts of futures are possible. It is not self-evident that increasing security will fix them.

Third, freak anomalies in the past do not reveal the future to us. Adam Lanza cause many deaths. What if the next school disaster in Newtown involves a plane that crashes into a building by accident? No matter how much someone has suffered in going through such an ordeal, that event doesn’t mean that future events of the same kind are more likely.

Fourth, being poor is usually less safe than not being as poor. Maybe the Newtown homeowners have invested in a firearm and now realize they can’t afford the budget.

It is interesting how this vote was a surprise based on previous feedback. It sounds to me like the city government got some idea of what people wanted. But until you put a price tag on a service, you can’t be sure how much people want it. Yes, they would all take increased security for free, but once they realize what it costs, they have to then think about what they are giving up in return for the service.

The residents of Newtown were just being smart.

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

25. Anti-Social: assault weapons [VIDEO]

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

Tony Johnson sent me this:

--

From theblaze.com: http://tinyurl.com/cm5qzln

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

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

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.

(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization

dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to

Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: http://www.vcdl.org [http://www.vcdl.org/]

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