Attempting to reimpose the ineffective one-handgun-per-month (gun rationing) restriction that Virginia repealed in 2012.It's obvious that McAuliffe and anti-gun leader Michael Bloomberg, his political patron, are clearly out of touch with the views and priorities of ordinary Americans on this issue. Last week's Pew Poll showed a majority of Americans believe owning a firearm makes you safer and it is more important to protect our firearm freedoms than to control the ownership of firearms. Gun rationing schemes are archaic and ineffective. Like every gun control law, one-gun-a-month restrictions only burden law-abiding citizens and do absolutely nothing to reduce violent crime. Purchasers of firearms are already subject to criminal records checks, and further and arbitrary control of these legal items does nothing but unfairly burden Virginia’s law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen.
Seeking to arbitrarily strip some 9,000 Virginia residents of their right to hold concealed handgun permits for falling behind on child-support payments and pursuing prohibitions for people convicted of certain misdemeanor crimes from possessing a firearm.Being behind on child-support payments is not relevant to your constitutional right to defend yourself and does not indicate that you are a violent person or a danger to others. In many cases, individuals who are behind on child support payments may have simply hit on hard financial times and making it more difficult for them to defend themselves will only compound their difficulties and offer no public safety benefit. Likewise, misdemeanor offenses should not warrant the permanent loss of Second Amendment rights. No other civil right is lost in the Commonwealth for conviction of misdemeanor offenses. McAuliffe clearly wishes to treat the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a second class civil right.
Attempting to expand background checks.Anyone engaged in the business of buying and selling firearms for livelihood and profit must be federally licensed as a firearm dealer (FFL) and thus there is no such thing as a “private vendor.” A gun dealer must maintain a record of every firearm received from, or transferred to, another person or dealer and any further expansions of the law will have no impact on criminal activity. Today, gun control activists like McAuliffe are trying to expand this system to all firearm transfers at gun shows, under the banner of “universal” background checks; an innocent sounding title for what should really be called “universal registration.” What they won’t tell you is that no background check system will ever be truly “universal” because criminals will not submit themselves to such system and therefore their anti-gun approach once again singles out individuals who are law-abiding citizens. The NRA opposes these misleading proposals and will work diligently to defeat this legislation.You can find your Delegate and State Senator by clicking here.
Gov. Terry McAuliffe on Monday will call for a package of gun restrictions in Virginia, including a renewal of the state’s one-a-month limit on handgun purchases and a requirement that buyers at gun shows undergo background checks.
McAuliffe will also propose keeping guns away from people convicted of crimes related to domestic violence and revoking concealed-handgun permits for parents who are behind on child-support payments.
McAuliffe (D) will unveil his plan during a speech in Arlington County the day after the two-year anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, according to a news release provided to The Washington Post.Gun ban proponents have pointed to McAuliffe, who changed course late in the 2013 statewide campaign to vocally support gun control, as proof that it can be a winning issue. At the time McAuliffe was enjoying a double digit lead in the polls. He ended up winning by about 2% and some Democrats complained that latching on to Michael Bloomberg and his gun ban agenda may have hurt McAuliffe more than it helped. Bloomberg dumped $1 million into advertising for McAuliffe late in the campaign.
McAuliffe also will propose giving move money to the State Police so that private owner that wants to conduct a background check on a prospective buyer at a gun show can do so. He may want to look to Colorado before ponying up new taxpayer money for this proposal. It turns out that the estimate of the number of background checks that would occur under the state's new so-called "universal background check" law were vastly over blown.
In any event, it's not likely that any of the proposals that will be unveiled today will gain much traction in the General Assembly. VSSA will be vigorously opposing all legislation aimed at restricting the rights of Virginia's gun owners.
I had the opportunity to discuss this with Cam Edwards of Sportsman Channel's NRANews Cam and Company on Monday afternoon.
Hat tip to BearingArms.com.
Angered by the news that American voters are now more supportive of the Second Amendment than they have been in two decades, the New York Daily News’s Mike Lupica used his weekend column to vent. Over the course of 900 words, Lupica lambasted the public for continuing “to protect gun nuts,” chided the “mouth-breathing” NRA for its murderous myopia, and contended emotively that “there are no words” available to describe the horror of “a recent poll that says a majority of Americans believe it is more important to protect the right to own guns than it is for the government to limit access to guns.”Cooke spoke with NRANews' Cam Edwards about the article and why the gun ban lobby uses lies to promote their cause.
The amendments allow pneumatic guns to be shot outside of the county’s no-shooting zones. Under the changes, pneumatic guns including BB guns, paintball guns and pellet guns would be allowed at facilities approved for shooting ranges, properties where firearms can be shot and on private property with permission of the property owner as long as “reasonable care” is taken to prevent a projectile from crossing the property’s boundaries.
With the proposed changes, those under 16 wouldn’t be able to use pneumatic guns unless they are accompanied by an adult. Punishments for violators were relaxed under the proposed changes from a Class 2 misdemeanor to a Class 3 misdemeanor.Currently, pneumatic guns can’t be used in no-shooting zones, on public streets and in public places.One Supervisor questioned why 16 was chosen as the age that requires supervision by an adult. County staff noted that the Code of Virginia references the restriction and Sheriff Charles Jett said his office doesn’t have any statistical data that indicates that an air gun is more dangerous in the hands of a 14-year-old versus a 16-year-old.
The proposed changes to the archery ordinance was similar to the air gun change. Currently, the county allows arrows to be shot only by licensed hunters or at archery ranges. In line with state law related to shooting air guns, the proposed changes would allow property owners to have archery target practice on their land as long as the other properties aren’t impacted. Supervisors voted to place the matter with a county committee.
In 1993, Heisse was working in a high-rise building in San Francisco when failed businessman Gian Luigi Ferri opened fire, killing eight people before turning the gun on himself. Some of the victims included Heisse's colleagues.
"What I wasn't prepared for was walking through the aftermath of an event like that, and stepping over the body of a young law student that I had hired to work for me for the summer," he says.
Heisse says neither he nor other survivors of that tragedy believe a gun could have stopped the carnage.
"These scenes don't play out like they do in the movies," he says. "It's incredibly stressful. To think that the untrained, inexperienced person in that stressful situation will make all the right decisions is, I think, foolish."Again, the comments about "untrained" people carrying firearms. If all these people are so untrained, why don't you have over 8 million (the estimated number of people with concealed carry permits) people being locked up for shooting the wrong people?
A new survey out from Pew Research shows that support for gun ownership is now higher than public support for gun control. Dr. John Lott notes the results mirror other surveys showing more people believe owning a firearm makes them safer. But congressional Democrats want to push so called "universal background checks" in the new congress. Can you say tin ear?
The Fredericksburg Free Lance Star reports this morning that a hearing is scheduled for 1:00 pm today to decide rather to grant an injunction against a so-called "Gun Give Back" planned for this weekend.
Virginia Law requires any locality that wants to hold a "Gun Buy Back" event to pass an ordinance that specifically allows the event to take place. They also must put any firearm acquired by the event to be offered for sale to an FFL. Such schemes typically give the owner of the firearms gift cards or cash of around $100. Fredericksburg apparently thinks it can get around this requirement because instead of giving something to the gun owner, they found a benefactor to give small donations to one of four area charities.
VSSA made contact with the City Attorney last week after learning of the scheme. No surprisingly, Kathleen Dooley, the city attorney, told VSSA that we were interpreting the statute incorrectly and that the event in question is not covered by the law.
The injunction was filed on behalf of Patricia Webb, an FFL in the area. Dooley not only is asking that the request be denied but is also asking that the city be reimbursed for its cost in defending the action.
It seems that the Fredericksburg Police thinks it has found a unique loophole in the law by finding a benefactor to donate money to one of four charities. You see, "buy backs" usually involve something of value (money, gift card etc.) being given to the owner of the firearm in exchange for turning in the gun. In this case, the owner would not be given something but instead, a charity donation would be made by a benefactor identified as Dorris Buffet, thus, not triggering the second part of the legislation, or so the Fredericksburg Police must think:
The Fredericksburg Police Department will collect unwanted guns, no-questions-asked, Saturday, Dec. 13. Guns should be taken to the police headquarters, 2200 Cowan Boulevard, between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.
The police department’s sponsor, Dorris Buffett, will donate $100 for every turned-in gun to one of four charities: Empower House, Cops and Kids (shop with a cop), Micah Ministries and the Thurman Brisben Homeless Shelter. Those surrendering their weapon can choose which charity their donation will benefit.
All guns turned in to police during this time will be destroyed. Fredericksburg Police can ensure that the firearms will never be used to commit a crime.I'm not a lawyer but it could be argued that even though the owner of the firearm is not being given the $100, a donation to a charity could still be considered "something of value." In a lot of cases, compensated confiscation schemes usually end up taking in a lot of firearms that are not functional or widows who don't know of a way to dispose of the firearms left by their deceased spouse. They are turned in because of the allure of getting an easy $100 or so. It appears that Fredericksburg has not passed an ordinance allowing this to take place and it most certainly is not following the law by planning to destroy the firearms.
The question is, how many people are going to be willing to participate if they aren't getting anything in their pocket in return. VSSA has contacted the City Attorney regarding this matter and is awaiting a response.
More ABC US news | ABC World News
Washington Spectator Editor Calls For Obama to Follow Action on Illegal Immigration With Same Move on Gun Control
Obama needs to change the context. He can do that by appointing a surgeon general.
Vivek Murthy is a doctor at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital with degrees from Harvard and Yale. He founded Doctors for America, researched AIDS in Africa and hoped, as Obama's pick for surgeon general, to focus on obesity. Senate Republicans filibustered him last spring, with assistance from five Southern and Western Democrats, because Murthy threatens the NRA's control of the gun debate. And he threatens the NRA's control of the gun debate because he believes guns are not an issue of constitutional liberty or natural law, but an issue of public health and safety. He is right. Eight people die every day in gun-related deaths, according to one study. The annual total of deaths will surpass vehicular deaths some time next year. The left (the Washington Spectator is a left leaning publication of The Public Concern Foundation) just won't let go of the Murthy thing. While Stoehr, focused on the NRA's opposition to Murthy in making his case for a recess appointment, there have been real concerns about rather this is just another appointment of a campaign supporter:
At the ripe old age of 36, Murthy would not even come close to being picked to run any medical department, in any academic medical center in this country. This is not because he is a bad doctor, but simply because he has not contributed enough, published enough or healed enough to qualify him to be a medical leader.
Since 2008, Murthy has dedicated his career to achieving a political agenda, forming groups like Doctors for America, which has lobbied heavily for ObamaCare. Miraculously enough, that political campaign seems to have now paid off and earned him this nomination.
To me, health care should be 80 percent science and 20 percent politics – not the other way around. I hope that the president reconsiders this nomination and instead chooses a doctor who better personifies the greatness of America’s medical and scientific achievements. After all, the healing power achieved in America’s hospitals is mimicked by hospitals around the world, and sought out by patients everywhere.The question is, does Obama want to use what little political capital he has left to take Stoehr's advice?
Their revised paper’s “preferred” results supposedly show violent crime rates increase after states pass right-to-carry laws. Among the problems:
— They rely, without explanation, on estimates Mr. Donohue has previously claimed were unreliable and misleading. Measuring simply the average crime rates before and after the law can miss an upward trend in crime before the law and drops afterwards.
— They focus on the period from 1999 to 2010. But later-adopting states were often reluctantly dragged into passing these laws. Their laws were more restrictive — higher fees, longer training requirements and more gun-free zones. The authors compare the drop in violent crime for these late adopters with other states — primarily earlier adopters who issued many more permits — who experienced larger drops in crime. But smaller drops for more restrictive states is exactly what the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis predicts.
— Even relying on these flawed estimates, Mr. Ingraham ignored that most of the authors’ results still provide no evidence that violent crime increases.On Monday, Lott spoke in more detail with Cam Edwards on NRANews' Cam and Company where he discussed not only the letter to the editor but the flaws in the Donohue paper.
By Friday afternoon, that figure had reached three checks per second, CNN reported, putting 2014 on track to blow past the prior Black Friday record of 144,758 FBI-processed gun transactions in a single day.Black Friday is usually one of the busiest days of the year for the FBI, which handles the large portion of firearm background checks. However, Virginia conducts its own checks throught the state police.
Now, Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis, extending it through 2010, and have concluded that the opposite of Lott and Mustard's original conclusion is true: more guns equal more crime.
"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, robbery, rape and murder, Donohue said in an interview with the Stanford Report. The evidence suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with an 8 percent increase in the incidence of aggravated assault, according to Donohue. He says this number is likely a floor, and that some statistical methods show an increase of 33 percent in aggravated assaults involving a firearm after the passage of right-to-carry laws.On Sunday, Lott's Crime Prevention Research Center had a post pointing out where Ingraham is wrong. The post notes that Lott had already used the additional data in his most recent updated edition of More Guns Less Crime:
There are many errors in Ingraham’s article. For example, “Stanford law professor John Donohue and his colleagues have added another full decade to the analysis.” Yet, the third edition of “More Guns, Less Crime” has data from 1977 to 2005. Moody, Marvell, Zimmerman, and Alemante have a new paper earlier this year that looked at data from 1977 to 2006. Gius (2014) looked at data up through 2009. Zimmerman (2014) looks at crime data up through 2010. Previously even in the Washington Post, Emily Badger’s misleading column also discussed an earlier version of Donohue’s paper with data through 2006 (7/29).And, CPRC even used a graph from the 3rd Edition of More Guns Less Crime that uses the very data that Donohue says should be used, the way they say it should be used.
So you tell me, do more guns equal more crime?
As Loudoun County grapples with a problematic population of white-tailed deer, the county’s Board of Supervisors recently signaled that it would support a legislative study of bait hunting, a controversial practice involving the use of bait to make deer easier targets for hunters.
The use of bait to attract deer is outlawed in Virginia. Bait-hunting supporters say that the method offers a more effective means to cull a herd. Opponents say that gathering deer in a concentrated area promotes the spread of disease, alters natural migration movements and might cause other health and environmental problems for the animals and their habitat.In Virginia, people who use mineral blocks and wildlife feeders must discontinue the use of both on or before September 1 each year and may not reintroduce them to the property until after the deer season has ended. It is legal however to continue "agronomic plantings" (including wildlife food plots). All those bags of deer corn and various attractants like "Acorn Crush" "C'Mere Deer" etc. that you see in Gander Mountain, Bass Pro, or Walmart during deer season are not legal to use here. You could however buy a bag or two and go across the border to North Carolina and use them.
I use minerals and a corn feeder during the spring and summer on the property I hunt to supplement the natural food source. I believe it is beneficial to the does that are nursing fawns during this time. It also gives me photos of what the herd is like in the area I hunt. Last year I had very few pictures of fawns in the area and also had photos of a coyote which told me there was likely the chance I had a predator problem. The owner of the property killed the canine critter this spring and my camera noted an uptick in the fawn population over the summer and into the fall.
It's obvious Virginians don't need "bait" to kill deer. Last year Virginia hunters killed 242,734 deer. We also know, thanks to the Post article, that Loudoun had 360 deer-related car crashes last year - the highest number of all jurisdictions in Virginia, and the county also has the highest rate of Lyme disease infection in Virginia. Should "baiting" be a local option so localities like Loudoun and Fairfax have the option of allowing hunting deer with "bait" to better control the herd? It would be interesting to see if those states that allow the use of food attractants have documented an increase in disease as DGIF claims would be the case if the practice was allowed in Virginia. That will only happen with a study. And because of that, The Virginia General Assembly should authorize DGIF to conduct a thorough study of the issue so that sound science can back up their regulations.
The first weekend of Virginia’s early muzzleloader season opened with a lot of smoke as the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries’ early harvest numbers for deer and turkey show nearly a 20 percent increase in deer taken compared to last year.Hunters were able to hunt on private land on Sunday this year, which certainly helped fuel the increase.DGIF Director Bob Duncan told the Star that he was very happy to see hunters taking advantage of the additional opportunities opened to them with the new Sunday hunting law and noted that the numbers from both the archery season and the first week of muzzleloader season look really promising for a great season this year.
Hat tip to Legalize Sunday Hunting for All.
Harris refused Wednesday to say what she will do. Gun advocates have only mildly opposed Harris' intervention. They believe the Peruta case is the best vehicle to persuade the Supreme Court to strike down restrictive open carry regulations throughout the country, and an appeal would move the case closer to the Supreme Court.
It has been thought that Peruta may be the best case on state issue of concealed carry permits for a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. If Peruta ends here, there is still another case involving Yolo County that could be heard en banc by the 9th Circuit. But for now, this is good news for California gun owners. Bob Owens over on Bearingarms.com estimates that an additional 2 million people in California may apply to carry concealed if yesterday's decision ends up being the last word in the Peruta case.
Bob Owens has the story at Bearing Arms. Gun owners intend to show enforcing the law that billionaires were successful in imposing on the state may not be so easy.
The poll also found that 42% of Americans report having a firearm in their home. Gallup notes this is a self-reported measure and it has fluctuated from survey to survey. Gallup has found that household gun ownership has ranged from a low of 34% in 1999 to a high of 51% in 1993. It is unknown how many gun owners refuse to say in a phone call if they own a firearm so it is possible that the 42% is significantly higher.
Frank Newport, editor-in-chief at Gallup, appeared on Sportsman Channel's NRANews Cam and Company on Friday to discuss the poll.