VA-ALERT: VCDL Update 12/31/12

1. CHP holder stops mass shooting in Oregon!
2. Elementary school shooting is a tragedy not a political platform
3. Media sets gun control narrative, shuts down mental health debate
4. CBS News gives slanted 'report' on history of gun control laws
5. Dem Rep: NRA 'Enablers of mass murder'
6. Bloomberg: Obama must take 'immediate action' against guns
7. Active shooters in schools: Should teachers be trained by police firearms instructors?
8. Thoughts on the Newtown CT school shootings
9. What guns do, and what they don't
10. Do legally-armed citizens prevent crime?
11. Casper Police: Nail salon customer packs heat, gunman leaves
12. Concealed carry: Court strikes down Illinois' ban
13. OpenCarry.org Co-Founder John Pierce discusses 7th Circuit decision on Huffington Post Live
14. More media coverage on the Yorktown AutoZone robbery
15. Autozone robbery in Georgia
16. Miller: Gun control dilemma
17. Ferrum college students robbed at gunpoint
18. Man charged in April hammer attacks
19. Who needs a gun on the Washington Metro?
20. Who needs a gun at home in Prince George County?
21. RTD OP: Gun control, ad infinitum
22. Mystery surrounding Illinois democrat facing felony gun charges deepens
23. Even knife control doesn't work
24. Spotsylvania County revisits shooting proposal
25. Goodyear Tire is anti-gun
26. Remington issues alert for Remington/UMC 38 Special +P packaging mix

**************************************************
1. CHP holder stops mass shooting in Oregon!
**************************************************

Dean Marky emailed me this:

--

From NWCN.com: http://tinyurl.com/bl8y2k4

By Mike Benner
December 14, 2012

PORTLAND, Ore - Nick Meli is emotionally drained. The 22-year-old was at Clackamas Town Center with a friend and her baby when a masked man opened fire.

"I heard three shots and turned and looked at Casey and said, 'are you serious?'"

The friend and baby hit the floor. Meli, who has a concealed carry permit, positioned himself behind a pillar.

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."

The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.

"As I was going down to pull I saw someone in the back of the charlotte move and I knew if I fired and missed I could hit them."

Meli took cover inside a nearby store. He never pulled the trigger. He stands by that decision.

"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."

The gunman was dead, but not before taking two innocent lives with him and taking the innocence of everyone else.

"I don't ever want to see anyone that way ever," said Meli. "It just bothers me."

**************************************************
2. Elementary school shooting is a tragedy not a political platform
**************************************************

Bill Watkins emailed me this:

From FOX News: http://tinyurl.com/d3f6fkr

By Mercedes Colwin
December 14, 2012

I had just finished a meeting with a client when I heard about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. As a parent of two, my first thought was how I couldn't wait to hug my children. My next thought turned to the victims and the parents who, due to the unfathomable actions of a monster, will not be able to do the same tonight. All I can think about are these children, their lost dreams and wasted futures. However, to my dismay this unspeakable tragedy has immediately become a springboard for gun-control advocates to lambast our gun laws. It disturbs me greatly that literally hours after one of the worst events in modern American history, media pundits and publications like, The New Yorker are politicizing the murder of kindergarten students to further their gun control agenda.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, when asked a question about gun control in the immediate aftermath of the massacre, responded by saying, "I think it's important, on a day like today, to view this -- as I know the president, as a father, does, and I as a father and others who are parents certainly do, which is to feel enormous sympathy for families.....There is, I am sure -- will be, rather -- a day for discussion of the usual Washington policy debates, but I do not think today is that day."

Alex Koppelman of The New Yorker criticized Carney by describing his statement as cowardly. "This is the way that we deal with such incidents in the U.S. - we acknowledge them; we briefly are shocked by them; then we term it impolite to discuss their implications, and to argue about them. At some point, we will have to stop putting it off, stop pretending that doing so is the proper, respectful thing. It's not either. Its cowardice," Koppelman writes.

What Koppelman fails to appreciate is that every school that faces such a tragedy is an individual isolated event that demands our respect and does not deserve to be desensitized into a political debate.

By grouping today's Sandy Hook massacre as just one of "such incidents in the U.S.," Koppelman shows zero respect to any of the victims and the families affected by immediately turning this tragedy into a debate on gun control.

As our nation mourns collectively, each of the parents and family members who lost loved ones Friday face a different level of individual sorrow. They deserve our respect. And they also deserve not to have their pain used as political equity.

Before we jump to conclusions and make this a debate about the second amendment, it appears that the shooter, Adam Lanza borrowed his mother's guns for his heinous acts of murder. The guns were purchased legally.

Make no mistake about it we have to do everything in our power to prevent a tragedy like this one from occurring again. Over the next few weeks we will learn about Lanza and whether he had any mental health issues that went ignored.

You will hear people mistakenly argue that no matter how big of a monster Lanza was, the *real* villains who entered Sandy Hook Friday morning were the guns in his hand.

Are we sure the absence of guns would have definitively prevented Lanza from killing? It didn't prevent Zheng Minsheng from walking into a classroom with a knife in Fugian Province on China's East Coast in 2010 and stabbing eight children to death. I am sure the parents of those eight children feel the same unimaginable pain that the parents in Connecticut feel today.

Killers find a way to kill.

Ultimately, what has me fuming as a parent is the fact that a person was able to enter a public school with a weapon, any weapon. My thoughts and prayers go out to everyone affected by Friday's tragedy.

**************************************************
3. Media sets gun control narrative, shuts down mental health debate
**************************************************

Walter Jackson emailed me this:

--

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/cf5h5a3

By John Nolte
December 15, 2012

As you'll see in the video below, through Soledad O'Brien, CNN is desperate to set the table for policies that will make us less safe by ensuring only bad guys have guns. This is what I call Narrative Setting, where the media decides what The Narrative (our national conversation) will be surrounding a particular story - in this case a heinous school shooting in Connecticut. And how this Narrative Setting is done, is exactly what CNN did to Rep. Mary Bono Mack this morning, every time she attempted to bring up any solution to mass shootings outside of unconstitutional gun-grabbing.

Not only are CNN and Soledad making sure Rep. Bono Mack pays a heavy price every time she brings up a solution inconvenient to their agenda (mental health, air marshals); they're also sending a not-too-subtle message to others that this is not what we are going to talk about. In other words, anyone who dares talk about anything other than gun control is going to get publicly whack-a-moled.

You've been warned, conservatives!

Like Rep. Nadler and every other leftist in the country, CNN wants to make our country less safe through the taking of guns, because the overall goal is the same: to make us less self-reliant and more dependent on the government for everything -- including our own personal safety and our ability to protect our loved ones.

But if the media's going to maximize their effectiveness in pursuing this goal, it simply must make sure that no other attractive ideas or policies are discussed or debated, other than gun control. The media must shut down debate and shape The Narrative in a way that makes it appear to the public as though there's only one consensus and solution to this problem -- their solution.

Furthermore, anyone who bristles against this idea will be treated with public contempt and hostility (like Rep. Bono Mack), and as though they're some kind of right-wing nut who doesn't care about people. We've seen the media do the same with other left-wing crusades; same-sex marriage, abortion, and Global Warming.

Watch the video again and what you'll see is CNN using Soledad O'Brien to shut down debate as though she already has all the facts. One day after this country's worst tragedy in a decade, CNN is already drawing a line that says this is "settled science."

During the presidential election last month, we saw the media play this same whack-a-mole game with Libya. Whether it was Mitt Romney or anyone else, if you raised the subject of Libya in a way that was harmful to the media's agenda (reelecting Obama), you were pulverized.

Today the craven and opportunistic media sees an opportunity to further a different agenda.

But their fascist tactics remain the same.

**************************************************
4. CBS News gives slanted 'report' on history of gun control laws
**************************************************

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/c28lzgm

December 15, 2012

[SNIP]

CBS This Morning featured a blatantly biased report on gun control laws in America and how major events have inspired further restrictions to the 2nd Amendment. The report could easily be confused with an advocate group's infomercial.

Video at link above.

**************************************************
5. Dem Rep: NRA 'Enablers of mass murder'
**************************************************

More hatred from a "compassionate" person.

Walter Jackson emailed me this:

--

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/cc27dqr

December 15, 2012

[SNIP]

New York Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) appeared on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" and called for strict gun control measures in reaction to the Connecticut school massacre Friday.

Video at link above.

**************************************************
6. Bloomberg: Obama must take 'immediate action' against guns
**************************************************

This from Bloomberg, the tyrannical mayor of New York City, who is surrounded by men with guns. He even has his own "advance" team to clear areas where he will in attendance. But guns aren't needed by the peons.

--

From Breitbart.com: http://tinyurl.com/c7gypt9

By Ben Shapiro
December 14, 2012

Today, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an ardent gun control advocate, moved to politicize the monstrous school shooting in Connecticut, issuing the following statement:

With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it's still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their A,B,Cs are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever.

If Bloomberg's deepest sympathies were with the family, he wouldn't use this as an opportunity to get on his soapbox about gun control. We don't know all the facts of the case yet, Connecticut has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and it seems that the shooter obtained his guns legally.

**************************************************
7. Active shooters in schools: Should teachers be trained by police firearms instructors?
**************************************************

Dave Hicks emailed me this:

--

From PoliceOne: http://tinyurl.com/boczkkq

By Doug Wyllie
December 14, 2012

It is truly a dark day in America.

In a nightmarish attack, at least 20 elementary school children were slaughtered by a gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

My heart aches. Merely writing about this incident is difficult. I cannot even fathom the feelings of the families of the victims and first responders now gathered at the tragic scene. My heart truly aches.

Stopping Killers from Killing our Kids

In the aftermath of this incident, there will undoubtedly be a lot of pressure put on politicians at every level to propose and pass more stringent gun-control laws. That's inevitable, but in my opinion it's also missing the mark on a much more important issue.

I've written extensively on the subject of arming campus cops, which to me should be a no-brainer. Incidents such as the tragedy today at Sandy Hook make me wonder if we need to go even further, by training, certifying, and arming American school teachers.

Every school in the nation conducts two or three fire drills per year, despite the fact that not one single child has died from a school fire anywhere in North America in well over a half a century.

Yet, we almost universally ignore the threat which really is claiming the lives of our kids - active shooters like some 20-year-old asshole whose name merits no mention in this space.

Given the budget strain on most police departments, and given the fact that even those agencies which have lots of money and lots of cops are scaling back deployment of SROs, do you think that at least one teacher on every floor of every school in America be armed, trained, annually qualified, and ready/willing to end a deadly threat in their school?
I think it merits serious consideration.

Do you think that training should be conducted in conjunction with that jurisdiction's police academy?

I think it merits serious consideration.

I'm not alone in this thinking. I asked these questions of my dear friends and PoliceOne colleagues Dan Marcou, Dick Fairburn, and Ken Hardesty - each of whom has taught extensively the topic of active shooters.

Marcou was quick to reply, "Doug, I believe in facing modern threats with modern solutions. I believe in armed pilots, armed teachers, armed judges, and armed fill-in-the-blank. I believe we need good people - who are good shots - who are armed in today's world."

Fairburn added, "In my opinion, the answer is more guns and more trained sheepdogs. But some people in our country will immediately try to ban guns - inanimate objects, simple tools - rather than understand we need more people standing ready to KILL the sick bastards who would prey on our lambs!"
Fairburn wasn't done there.

"We don't have enough police officers to protect every school or school bus at our recession-degraded staffing levels," he added. "So, I vote for training/equipping volunteer sheepdogs to protect our lambs. How about a nationwide corps of retired cops? They're already trained/equipped and background checked."

Hardesty said, "Americans can no longer depend upon legislation to defend them from all who intend to do them harm."

Hardesty added that while he doesn't advocate in any way taking the law into one's own hands, he does advocate for people taking personal responsibility for their survival and well being.

"Robert A. Heinlein was correct in the statement, 'An armed society is a polite society.' Gun-free zones are an open invitation for homicidal maniacs. Armed civilians of any kind - teachers included - will no doubt be met with trepidation. I believe some of the fears can be assuaged through a comprehensive selection and training process. Individuals selected must be mature, motivated, and above all else, volunteers. Prior to arming them physically, they must be armed mentally and indoctrinated with not only up-to date use-of-force law, but also with the unwavering mindset that their immediate action in the face of evil is saving the lives of others," Hardesty concluded.

Let's Do Something About This

My friends, the tragedy in Newtown is the third active-shooter event in an American learning institution THIS YEAR.

In February, 17-year-old T.J. Lane murdered three students sitting at a cafeteria table before school. In April, a former nursing student named One L. Goh opened fire at Oikos University near the Oakland International Airport, killing seven people.

A college. A high school. And now, an elementary school. All in 2012.
Fifteen years ago (1998), the total number of child fatalities in American schools reached what was then an all-time high - 35 children died that year in gun- and non-gun related incidents.

The next year, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold murdered 12 classmates and one teacher (wounding 26 others) before killing themselves in the school's library. In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people (and himself) on Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia. The following year, it was Northern Illinois University.

Yes, my proposal is provocative, and I do not make it lightly. The selection process should be rigorous and ongoing (the adage "selection is a never-ending process" applies here), and perhaps in the same way we arm our airline pilots, those involved in the program would be vetted volunteers.

I ask you - should American law enforcement train and prepare civilian educators to take immediate action against armed attacks? Now that you have read the opinions of yours truly and some of my friends, add your voice to this discussion.

Perhaps in 2013 we can create enough momentum on this concept that something actually gets done.

**************************************************
8. Thoughts on the Newtown CT school shootings
**************************************************

There is an email going around saying that we protect our President with guns, our Vice-President with guns, Supreme Court Justices with guns, and so on, but we place the most precious, our children, in gun-free zones. Stupidity and hypocrisy on display.

Bryant Hopkins emailed me this:

--

Today's Washington Post has articles lauding the teachers for "shielding the children from the shooter." Heroes, yes, but the wrong tactics! The schools are "sanitized:" no guns. The shooter can murder the teacher, then murder the "protected" child. Consider the trained Marine. Mass rush the bad guy, and take him down! Sure, teachers would be shot, but fewer than if he continued his evil ways, undisturbed. May I be a bit cynical, and say that this would be a violent response, and we must never, ever, be violent?

Bryant Hopkins
Member

**************************************************
9. What guns do, and what they don't
**************************************************

Paul Henick emailed me this:

--

With several examples from "real life" Ms. McArdle delves into some of the reasons/excuses given for using/resorting to violence to resolve both real and imagined threats and slights. She clearly demonstrates that the mere presence/availability of a gun does not cause violence where it otherwise would not have existed. (Other than the anti-gun rights moonbats, did anyone ever think it did?)

But will this change the thoughts and behavior of the anti-gun rights moonbats? I say, resoundingly, "No!" Not because (although many have alleged so) that the anti-gun rights moonbats are incapable of accepting facts. It is because the anti-gun rights moonbats are not interested at all in rights - about guns or otherwise - but because they are interested in establishing control, and especially in establishing control over those who would assert their independence and freedom from the State as the provider of all things, from food/clothing/shelter to protection from violence. Over here on this side of the discussion are the folks who understand that the State cannot protect anything from violence and that the Supreme Court's many rulings that the State does not even have an obligation to protect an individual from violence are both logical and correct. At best, the State can react to violence and through the application of a greater amount of violence stop the original violence. Over on the other side are those who, for any of a variety of reasons, will not accept personal responsibility and liability for their own safety. It's sort of like the passenger of a sinking ship who capsizes the lifeboats because if he cannot be saved then nobody else ought to be saved.

From The Daily Beast: http://tinyurl.com/c7y386u

By Megan McArdle
December 10, 2012

[SNIP]

When various states debated "shall issue" concealed carry laws - essentially, rules making it legal for anyone who could pass a rudimentary background check to carry a concealed handgun - there were horrified predictions of the chaos that would ensue. Modern life gives us so many opportunities for frustration and rage, from bumper-to-bumper traffic to endless queues. Adding a handgun to this volatile mix was simply inviting mass disaster. And of course, anyone who meditates for a moment on their own dark heart can understand this fear. I'm pretty physically passive, and so squeamish that I find even very mild movie violence unbearable, but I too have fantasized about having a tank so that I could go after that testosterone-addled teenage jerk who just cut me off in traffic. God knows what's going through the brain of the testosterone-addled teenage jerk when it happens to him. It's so easy to imagine how putting a gun in peoples' hands could lead to a body in the road.

But our imaginations, it turns out, are not a good guide to reality. None of this happened. Homicides did not rise after we legalized concealed carry, or ended the "assault weapons" ban. To date, holders of concealed carry licenses have not been involved in any more crimes than you'd expect from a group of people law-abiding enough to pass a background check. As Mark Kleiman wrote
a few years ago, "Thereāˆ†s simply no evidence that keeping guns out of the hands of those currently eligible to own them under Federal law (adults with no felony convictions, no domestic-violence misdemeanors or restraining orders, and no history of involuntary commitment for mental illness) reduces the level of criminal violence. Nor is there evidence that allowing anyone who can pass a background check and a gun-safety course to carry a concealed weapon increases the level of criminal violence."

**************************************************
10. Do legally-armed citizens prevent crime?
**************************************************

Dave Hicks emailed me this:

--

From PoliceOne.com: http://tinyurl.com/btgoq5e

By Doug Wyllie
December 12, 2012

The only place where it has historically been harder to get a concealed carry permit than my adopted hometown of San Francisco is any city or town in the great state of Illinois.

In San Francisco, it's next to impossible. In Illinois, it's truly impossible. That is, until now.

Yesterday, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the statewide ban on civilians' carrying concealed weapons in the state, mandating that lawmakers write a new law that legalizes concealed carry within 180 days. And I say "good on that."

Mary Shepard, Sheepdog
In the court's majority opinion, Judge Richard Posner wrote that the United States Supreme Court "has decided that the [Second] Amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside."

The 7th Circuit decision addressed a couple of separate cases, but one in particular is telling.

Mary Shepard - an Illinois resident with no criminal record who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in two other states - was prohibited by Illinois law from carrying a firearm at the time she and an 83-year-old coworker were viciously attacked by a six-foot-three-inch, 245-pound man with a violent past and a criminal record.

She was lucky to survive. Her injuries required extensive surgery and physical therapy.

Judge Posner said in the majority decision, "One doesn't have to be a historian to realize that a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense in the eighteenth century could not rationally have been limited to the home... a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk than in his apartment on the 35th floor."

When she was attacked on September 28th, 2009, Mary Shepard was working at the Anna (Ill.) First Baptist Church.

According to the NRA, firearms are used for personal protection more than two million times a year, and that "the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances."

I'd bet a waist-high stack of green money that this statement is as accurate and reliable as Jerry Miculek himself.

CCW Good Guys Wear Holsters

A good friend and fellow shooter once told me, "Good guys wear holsters - assholes don't."

He's right.

As PoliceOne Columnist Ron Avery observed in his excellent column, Dealing with citizens legally carrying a concealed weapon, "Concealed carry folks and cops seem to go to the same tailor - generally speaking, most will not look like dirt bags... They don't generally have the crotch of their pants at knee height or wear their baseball hat cocked at a ridiculous angle."

CCW folks tend to buy top-quality, purpose-made, CCW apparel available from familiar companies like 5.11 Tactical, Blackhawk, and others. An expensive folding knife in one pocket and a Surefire flashlight in another may indicate the presence of a really nice Kydex holster on the strong-side hip.

CCW Good Guys Support Cops
While I suppose there are people who have obtained a CCW who don't like cops, everybody I've met who self-identifies as a legally-armed citizen strongly supports law enforcement.

Said simply, legally-armed citizens tend to consider themselves to be "good guys."

As part of my NRA Lifetime Membership, I receive America's First Freedom magazine to my home every month, and probably my favorite regular feature is "Armed Citizen." The monthly feature highlights incidents in which legally-armed citizens have protected the lives of themselves or others. I love it.

As Sir Robert Peel rightly said, "Police are the public and public are the police."

This is particularly true when you're struggling with a suspect and need a citizen's assistance. There are myriad examples of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to help a cop in trouble, but one such case merits mention here.

When Charles Ronald Conner, who had already fatally shot and killed David Michael House and Iris Valentini Calaci at the Peach House RV Park in Early, Texas, took aim on the first police officer arriving to the scene, Vic Stacy took action.

Stacy saw that the officer was pinned down behind his vehicle, taking fire from the homicidal gunman.

From about 150 feet away, Stacy steadied his .357 magnum, and fired at the suspect. In the video below, which has become an Internet sensation, Stacy describes his actions, and shuns being labeled a hero.

Touching the Third Rail
When I began working at PoliceOne four-and-a-half years ago, I was told outright that "gun control is one of those issues you're better off never touching."

While it's true that writing on this topic is tantamount to starting a food fight in the company cafeteria, the subject is important and cannot be ignored.

Some cops don't like armed citizens. I understand that fact and I respect their right to that opinion.

But the fact is, Illinois' total ban against any/all legally-armed citizens is unconstitutional. If I were to add to that fact my opinion, I'd say it's also irrational and illogical.

I'm entitled to my opinion, too.

Do legally-armed citizens prevent crime? I think so.

**************************************************
11. Casper Police: Nail salon customer packs heat, gunman leaves
**************************************************

Deborah Anderson emailed me this:

From Trib.com: http://tinyurl.com/cjy2ayg

By Megan Cassidy
December 11, 2012

A gunman retreated from a Casper nail salon last week after realizing one of its customers was packing heat.

Police say about 5:30 p.m. on Dec. 3, a man walked into Modern Nails at 2645 E. Second St. and asked a female employee if she wanted to buy some diamonds. The man walked toward the front desk area and the woman replied that she had no money to buy diamonds.

A witness said the man then reached into his coat pocket and began to take out a silver-colored pistol.

At that moment, a woman who was getting her nails done reached into her purse and got her own firearm. Police say the man never fully raised the gun and left the building after seeing the customer had her weapon out.

The man is described as black, early 40s, more than 6-foot-4, about 250 pounds and very muscular. A witness said he was well-dressed and wearing light-colored slacks.

Police declined to release the name of the woman, and employees at Modern Nail were unavailable for comment.

**************************************************
12. Concealed carry: Court strikes down Illinois' ban
**************************************************

Dale Hawley emailed me this:

--

From Chicago Tribune: http://tinyurl.com/bebhb8l

By Ray Long, Annie Sweeney & Monique Garcia
December 11, 2012

The state of Illinois would have to allow ordinary citizens to carry weapons under a federal appeals court ruling issued today, but the judges also gave lawmakers 180 days to put their own version of the law in place.

In a 2-1 decision that is a major victory for the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said the state's ban on carrying a weapon in public is unconstitutional.

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside," the judges ruled.

"The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense. Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden.

"The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment compelled the appeals court to rule the ban unconstitutional, the judges said. But the court gave 180 days to "allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public."
David Sigale, an attorney who represented the Second Amendment Foundation in the lawsuit, called the decision by the appeals court in Chicago "historic."
"What we are most pleased about is how the court has recognized that the Second Amendment is just as, if not at times more, important in public as it is in the home," he said. "The right of self-defense doesn't end at your front door."
In the opinion, Judge Richard Posner wrote that "a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower."
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, is taking time to examine the ruling before deciding whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented," said Natalie Bauer, Madigan's spokeswoman. "That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the legislature to consider whether it wants to take action."
Illinois is the only state in the nation not to have some form of conceal carry after Wisconsin recently approved law.

"The (Illinois) legislature, in the new session, will be forced to take up a statewide carry law," said NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde.

The lobbyist said prior attempts to reach a middle ground with opponents will no longer be necessary because "those compromises are going out the window."
House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, a longtime gun control advocate, said she hoped the state would appeal the ruling. But Currie also said lawmakers must "get cracking" on how to respond to the ruling and begin parsing its key points.
Currie, D-Chicago, said that "justices surely do not mean that we would have to have wide-open" laws in Illinois. She said Illinois must now look at what other states are doing, such as disallowing guns in day-care centers and other locations.

"If we need to change the law, let us at least craft a law that is very severely constrained and narrowly tailored so that we don't invite guns out of control on each of our city's streets," Currie said. "I don't want people out of control wandering the streets with guns that are out of control."

Rep. Brandon Phelps, who has repeatedly sponsored concealed weapons legislation, hailed the measure as a "mandate."

"The justices more or less said Illinois has a mandate to get something passed within 180 days... to pass a concealed-carry law in the state of Illinois," said Phelps, a Democrat from Downstate Harrisburg.

"I never thought we'd get a victory of that magnitude," Phelps said.
Phelps fought unsuccessfully in the House to pass concealed weapons legislation with a long set of restrictions, but he warned opponents of his legislation may regret they had not supported it when they had a chance. Now, he said, he "can't see us" going forward with legislation that has as many restrictions as the bill that failed.

The prior bill largely limited carrying weapons to when a person was in a car, walking into a house and out on a sidewalk, and it specifically disallowed guns to be carried in churches, schools, gymnasiums, sporting events, bars and businesses, Phelps said.

He said no decision has been made on which restrictions in his previous legislation would be removed in a new bill.

Phelps warned that gun control groups who might want to appeal the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court might put strict laws in other states in jeopardy. He said he would consult with the National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

A spokeswoman for Gov. Pat Quinn said the administration is reviewing the decision. The governor has previously said he was firmly opposed to any law allowing citizens to carry loaded guns in public. He threatened to veto previous attempts by lawmakers to pass legislation allowing concealed carry in Illinois.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel said through a spokesman that he was "disappointed with the court's decision." The city is reviewing the opinion and will work with others "to best protect the residents of Chicago and still meet constitutional restrictions," Bill McCaffrey added.

"As the mayor has said all along, the City of Chicago is committed to maintaining the fullest degree of lawful handgun restrictions possible while still respecting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, because maintaining common-sense restrictions is an issue of public safety."

Last March, Emanuel introduced a resolution passed by the City Council in opposition to state legislation that would have allowed people to carry firearms in public. Like former Mayor Richard Daley before him, Emanuel has long been a proponent of gun control.

Under Daley, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chicago's handgun ban. In mid-2010, the council enacted new gun-control measures, even as many aldermen conceded it would do little to quell crime. Those regulations require that Chicago handgun owners obtain a permit after undergoing mandatory firearms training and register their weapons.

Reaction to the decision is rolling in from City Hall to the Capitol.
Ald. Howard Brookins, 21st, chairman of the City Council black caucus, welcomed the decision, saying allowing Chicagoans to carry concealed weapons would help level the playing field in neighborhoods where law-abiding citizens feel like they need firearms to protect themselves.

"Certain people will have a sense of safety and peace of mind in the ability to do it," Brookins said of conceal-carry. "I know that even people, for example, just trying to see that their loved ones get homes safely are in technical violation of all sorts of weapons violations. If you just walk out to your garage and see that your wife is coming in the house safely, and you happen to have your gun on you, you're in technical violation of our ordinance. So I would hope all these ordinances would be consolidated so there's one set of rules and people would know where the bright line is to what they can and cannot do with respect to carrying a weapon."

Brookins said he's not worried doing away with the state ban would lead to an increase in gun violence as more people walk the streets with weapons. "I think those people have a gun now, they've just been made criminals because they can't legally have it," Brookins said. "And I think the gangbangers and thugs are going to have a gun regardless."

Sen. Bill Brady, the Bloomington Republican who supported concealed-carry in his failed 2010 bid for governor, hailed the court's ruling, saying it represents a "recognition that law-abiding citizens in Illinois have a right to defend and protect themselves, just as the citizens of the 49 other states do. In today's society, men and women should have an opportunity to be as safe on the streets as they are in their own homes."

Brady said he will work with fellow lawmakers to write a "responsible law that meets that goal as well as to provide for safe enforcement of it. I would hope that all Illinois officials use their energy to craft a concealed carry law with appropriate safeguards that will make Illinois the model for implementation of concealed carry laws, rather than using those resources to appeal today's ruling."

A gun control group urged Attorney General Madigan to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"As the dissenting opinion points out, the two judges who threw out Illinois' law did not take account of the danger to the public from stray bullets, and they ignored the Illinois legislature's determination that carrying weapons has been shown to escalate violence," said Lee Goodman, an organizer with the Stop Concealed Carry Coalition, in a statement. "The decision, contrary to fundamental legal principles, took away the people's right, through their state legislatures, to make laws to protect themselves that are relevant to the conditions present in each state."

**************************************************
13. OpenCarry.org Co-Founder John Pierce discusses 7th Circuit decision on HuffPo Live
**************************************************

From Opencarry.org: http://tinyurl.com/bt2uldp

**************************************************
14. More media coverage on the Yorktown AutoZone robbery
**************************************************

Dennis O'Connor emailed me this:

--

From an automotive columnist:

From American Spectator: http://tinyurl.com/c8nwmcm

By Eric Peters
December 10, 2012

If they won't respect our rights, maybe they'll pay more attention to our dollars. Or rather, the lack thereof - when we cease doing business with companies that don't respect our rights.

For instance, the auto parts retail giant AutoZone. The company recently fired one of its employees - a fellow named Devin McLean who worked at an AutoZone in York County, Virginia - for using his lawfully possessed handgun to thwart a robbery (and very possibly, thwart the murder of himself and his manager).

According to McLean, a thug burst into the store and "pulled a gun from his waistband and demanded me and my manager go back into the office." While the gunman was distracted, McLean managed to slip out to the parking lot, where he retrieved his Glock 40 handgun from his truck. The 23-year-old Air Force veteran ran back into the store and confronted the armed thug, ordering him to freeze and drop his weapon. The gunman took off instead - without either money or lives lost.

But McLean has lost his job.

Apparently, AutoZone has a "zero tolerance" policy for employees having weapons inside the store. McLean was fired because he violated this policy - even though he may have saved his life and the life of his manager. (York County police say the thug McLean chased off is suspected in at least 30 robberies. ) Instead, McLean should have been a good Clover - and done as told by an armed thug, supinely submitting and trusting to the thug's humanity that he wouldn't "pop a cap in his ass" to avoid any hassles with witnesses.
Or just for the sheer sick hell of it.

AutoZone - like Virginia Tech and other bastions of Cloverdom - has decreed that guns are bad and so has denied good people the right to possess them. The problem is bad people still have guns. Only now the good people are at the mercy of the bad ones.

AutoZone requires that its employees - and its customers - prostrate themselves before armed thugs. By having such a policy, AutoZone has done the equivalent of ringing the dinner bell for violent criminals. Come on down! You're assured of defenseless victims at our place.

York County Sheriff JD Diggs agrees, stating: "The company has now sent a message to every would-be robber out there - 'Hey we're open for business and unarmed. Come on in and take our money." And, quite possibly - the lives of innocent people rendered helpless by AutoZone.

Because when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

Of course, AutoZone has every right to set its terms and conditions. But customers have every right to set theirs, too. If AutoZone puts out the welcome mat for armed criminals, then potential victims ought to take their business elsewhere.

McLean, who was fired just before Thanksgiving, is reportedly about to become a father for the first time. He told news outlets he was thinking of his unborn child - that he might not live to see his unborn child - when he saw the thug pull his weapon: "We're having a little boy... I remember when the guy came in with that gun. My initial thought was, 'I want to make it home to my family. I want to have the opportunity to meet my son and for my son to meet his dad' ... And for someone to come in and shove a gun in your face?"
McLean did what any man would do. And more than that. He not only protected himself, he took the heroic (a much over-used appellation but absolutely accurate here) decision to protect others as well. "Never leave a man behind," he said. "I'm not going to leave my brother in a room with a guy with a gun - that's threatening his life."

This is the kind of man AutoZone fired.

What sort of men are we if we continue to patronize AutoZone?

Indeed, any business that has a "zero tolerance" policy of respecting its customers' (and its employees') rights. And there is no right more elemental - more necessary to all the others - than the right to defend one's life against those who would deprive one of it. Or threaten to. It is not up to us to divine the motives of thugs. Maybe he is only interested in the money. How are we to know? And more, what sort of topsy-turvy moral imbecility is it that gives armed thugs who point deadly weapons at innocent people the benefit of any doubt?

Devin McLean did the right thing.

And now, so should we.

Boycott AutoZone (see here) until AutoZone publicly repudiates its "zero tolerance" policy - and does right by Devin McLean. Take your business to NAPA or O'Reilly Auto Parts. Pep Boys. Anywhere.

Except "the zone."

Similarly, the reverse: Patronize those establishments that do respect your rights. For example, Starbucks. I like their coffee. But I really like that they "get it" when it comes to guns. That good people with guns are not the problem.

And that taking guns away from good people is.

---

Autozone Fires An Air Force Veteran, Devin McClean, For Foiling Robbery

From Guardian of Valor: http://tinyurl.com/c946hd6
December 4, 2012

[SNIP]

York County, Va.- Autozone fired one of its employee's, Devin McClean, an Air Force Veteran, after he foils a robbery.

Devin was working at the Autozone in York County, Va. When a criminal nicknamed "The Beard Bandit" walked into the store brandishing a weapon. This guy had already robbed the store once before, and was a suspect in 30 other robberies. The Air Force Veteran took action:

"I waited for him to go up toward the front, I ran out of the restroom, ran out to my truck where I keep my own personal weapon, grabbed my weapon, came back into the store and confronted the guy," says McClean.

"When I yelled "freeze" and I said "Stop, drop the weapon," he threw his hands up with his gun still in his hand he started running," says McClean. "I felt like it was my responsibility to step in."
Devin's manager is grateful.

"He was like "Thank you Devin, you really saved my life," says McClean.
Two days later, he was fired.

According to Autozone's corporate office, they have a new gun policy, and that is why he was fired. So Autozone, if the manager had been killed had Devin not acted, how would you have felt then? Devin is responsible citizen who acted to save others, and to protect your store from being robbed, and this is how you show gratitude?

McClean said "If I can save somebody's life, I put that way above a store policy". Devin, we agree, you did the right thing and we stand by you for what you did as a citizen with the right to bear arms.

Some are already voicing their opinions on Autozone's facebook page, if you would like to do the same here is the link. But remember we are Military and Veterans, keep it civil, no threats etc. But we feel this Veteran did the right thing and should not have lost his job for protecting others. I'm sure some will not agree he did the right thing, but we believe he did.

**************************************************
15. Autozone robbery in Georgia
**************************************************

Autozone has let criminals know that robbing their stores and endangering their employees is acceptable. Any surprises that they will be taken up on the offer?

John Wray emailed me this:

--

Here's a link to the robbery a few days ago at an Autozone in GA where no employee stood up to the robber:

From SouthCobbPatch.com: http://tinyurl.com/ca43euq

By Angela Chao
December 10, 2012

The Cobb County Police Department is investigating an armed robbery, which occurred Friday night at the AutoZone store on Veterans Memorial Highway in Austell.

Investigators say a male armed with a shotgun approached the employees at the cash register, and demanded money. After receiving an undisclosed amount of cash, the offender fled from the area in what was described as a dark color, newer model, four-door sedan.

The suspect is described as a 6-feet-tall black male who weighs 180-210 pounds, has a light complexion, and was last seen wearing a black "hoodie" and sunglasses, according to Cobb police.

**************************************************
16. Miller: Gun control dilemma
**************************************************

Jay Minsky emailed me this:

From The Washington Times: http://tinyurl.com/dy5xxvh

By Emily Miller
December 13, 2012

Anti-gun jurisdictions are in trouble. Tuesday's 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision striking down the Illinois ban on concealed carry has put in the crosshairs the reluctance of the District and Maryland to allow citizens to exercise their right to self-defense outside the home.

Attorney Alan Gura, whom the Second Amendment Foundation hired to argue the Moore v. Madigan case in Illinois, has been distributing Judge Richard A. Posner's majority decision to other courts currently mulling over the meaning of the right to bear arms. Mr. Gura represents plaintiffs in several firearms cases in the country, including the Palmer v. D.C. in the District and the Woollard v. Sheridan case in Maryland.

The Palmer case was filed in August 2009 and remains pending. "We've been waiting a long time for a decision," said Mr. Gura in an interview with The Washington Times on Thursday. "Whoever loses will take it to appeal, so this is just the first step."

The 7th Circuit decision puts the District's attorney general in a legal pickle. The city made a big production out of Moore when the trial court sided with state law. Since Illinois had the same total prohibition on carry as Washington, it will be hard now for D.C. officials to ignore the clear application of the appellate court's reasoning.

"The city council needs to stop resisting the Constitution," said Mr. Gura. "The only question is how much of the taxpayers' money they are going to waste because the end result is going to be that people will have the Second Amendment respected here." Neither Mayor Vincent Gray nor City Council Chairman Phil Mendelson responded to repeated requests for comment.

Pro-gun activists are paying close attention to how the Illinois state legislature crafts its response to the latest ruling. The question is whether a new law allowing carry rights in the Prairie State will be "shall issue" or "may issue," which puts the burden on the carry permit applicant to come up with a good reason for needing a handgun. This backdoor approach to gun control might not last long.

Maryland in effect never issues such permits to law-abiding citizens who are just interested in protecting themselves or their family. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to decide the constitutionality of these policies in the Woollard case in the next few months.

"The language of Moore strongly suggested that the 'may issue' is not going to fly," said Mr. Gura. "It said that the right outside the home is just as important as inside." As Judge Posner wrote, "A Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower."

The fundamental constitutional right to self-defense is proving too strong for its enemies to destroy. It's time for politicians in Illinois, Maryland and the District to stop trying to dodge the inevitable. As the rest of the country has done, they should recognize the right of its citizens to bear arms in all reasonable cases.

**************************************************
17. Ferrum college students robbed at gunpoint
**************************************************

Who needs a gun on a college campus in Virginia?

John Pierce sent me this email:

--

From Opencarry.org: http://tinyurl.com/c2ba26o

By John Pierce
December 14, 2012

Students were robbed at gunpoint last night on the campus of Ferrum College in two separate incidents. Police say they are looking for two men, at least one of which was armed.

Why should we allow adult students, faculty, and staff to carry on campus? Maybe because criminals who prey upon them do not obey laws!

Read more at WBBJ 7 http://tinyurl.com/cda57nt

**************************************************
18. Man charged in April hammer attacks
**************************************************

A VCDL member emailed me this:

--

People don't kill people hammers do. A recent Washington Post article shows how dangerous it is to allow ordinary citizens to be in possession of hammers. See the below article.

As you can see from this article hammers are dangerous weapons and should be controlled by strict laws. The only persons who should be allowed to possess hammers are people such as carpenters. However even carpenters should undergo background checks, extensive training and be licensed.

The removal of hammers off our streets will prevent more attacks such as the one written about in this article. There are an enormous numbers of injuries that hammers cause every year by people not trained in their use. Hammers are causing injuries and deaths to innocent people every day in this country and something needs to be done. Congress should enact hammer control laws that will take these dangerous weapons out of the hands of criminals and ordinary citizens. We must all rise up and demand Congress and our state legislatures enact laws prohibiting the use and possession of hammers.

From The Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/cdv8qre

By Keith L. Alexander
December 5, 2012

Doctors at St. Elizabeths Hospital say the District man charged in a string of hammer attacks in April is competent to stand trial but should remain in the hospital for tests, a judge said Wednesday.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin called the report from doctors at the District's mental hospital "complicated" and "unusual" during a hearing Wednesday.

In Tuesday's report, doctors declared Michael Davis, 19, mentally competent to stand trial, saying he is capable of helping his attorneys prepare his defense. Doctors also said they were concerned that Davis's mental issues - he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and other mental disorders - could return or worsen.

Doctors want Davis to remain at St. Elizabeths for continued treatment and monitoring, Morin said. That's unusual because when the hospital declares a patient charged with a crime competent, the person is usually discharged, Morin said.

Davis has been a patient of St. Elizabeths since May, weeks after he was arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the death of Denver tourist Gary Dederichs and the assault of two other people.

Police and prosecutors say Davis would sneak up behind people in Northwest Washington's Petworth neighborhood and strike them in the head with a hammer.
Relatives told doctors that Davis's illness was detected when he was about 9, then worsened about 18 months ago, the report said. The hospital declared Davis incompetent this summer, but doctors said then that they believed Davis's condition would improve with medication and treatment.

At Wednesday's hearing, Davis stood next to his attorneys from the District's Public Defender Service. He stared ahead, his eyes half shut and his mouth agape.

Davis's attorneys disagreed with the hospital's latest findings. They said they planned to have Davis evaluated by their psychiatrists. Prosecutors also said they expect their psychiatrists to examine Davis.

Prosecutors said Wednesday that they expect a grand jury to return an indictment against Davis by February. Defense attorney Dana Page said Davis would not be able to enter a plea - he could plead guilty, not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity - before Morin rules him competent. The judge agreed, and a competency hearing was scheduled for April 22.

Page then requested that Davis be released from the hospital into a shelter or halfway house so he could finish school. Morin denied that request.

Davis comes from a family of prominent athletes; two of his brothers play in the National Football League. Vernon Davis is a tight end for the San Francisco 49ers, and Vontae Davis is a cornerback with the Miami Dolphins. All three grew up in a Northwest rowhouse with their grandmother.

**************************************************
19. Who needs a gun on the Washington Metro?
**************************************************

Craig Smith emailed me this:

--

From WND.com: http://tinyurl.com/aerf66f

By Colin Flaherty
December 12, 2012

No one knows what the two white women were doing on that Metro in that part of Washington, D.C.

They "did not want any trouble," they said on the video. To the black mob that confronted them, threatened them, beat them and robbed them, it was no trouble at all.

So they grabbed their iPhones, but not before the girls fought back to retrieve them. Unsuccessfully.

All the while one of the members of the crew was rolling video.
Members of this mob call themselves the 44th Street Crew in Southeast Washington. For those not familiar with the different sections of Washington, that is not the lobbyist/media/functionary dinner-party part of town.
Reporters at the Fox affiliate in Washington seemed surprised at the mob violence. But to people who ride the Metro, it was just another day.
Metro police have seen so much of it they are ready with instructions for riders who encounter it: Resistance is futile:

"There's nothing worth fighting over and getting assaulted for," said Deputy Chief Ron Pavlik of the two women defending themselves. "There are lot better ways to fight back."

Some people devote entire newsletters to the lawless Metro, where black mob violence is often seen, but seldom reported. According to UnsuckDCMetro, here's a "Harrowing Account of Yet More Metro Violence" that never made the Washington Post:

I have never been more disgusted or shocked by what I witnessed Saturday night at the Anacostia Metro. I went to pick up a family member at the Metro, and just as she was telling me about the fights (Yes, plural!) that happened on the Green Line train [between L'Enfant and Anacostia], we witnessed a group of 6 to 8 young black teenagers kick, stomp, punch and push a lone teenage girl.
I could not believe my eyes! I also could not believe there was not an officer in sight.

When the family member arrived, she had her own story as well:
When she got on the train toward Anacostia, a group of teenagers proceeded to verbally and physically assault a group of young women. One of the boys threw a bottle and another threw the contents of a bottle in one of the woman's face. The assaults got so out of hand that some people landed on a woman and her baby.

The attacking group had the doors to the train blocked so people couldn't get off the train. My cousin told me she was so scared that she hid behind some seats and pulled out the box cutter she used for work.
Every story like this prompts readers to tell their own stories, in this case, dozens of them. This is typical:

I was leaving a friend's place around 11 p.m. on a Saturday a few weeks ago and groups of teenagers were harassing everyone at the top of the escalator on the north-bound side of Eisenhower station. I could see it getting bad fairly quickly and was lucky to catch a train after only about 2 mins of being on the platform.

Over at DCist.com, they are also not in any danger of running out of material from the Metro violence beat. Whether it is a "huge fight" of 100 black people, or violence on a more modest scale, they got the goods.

"Stunning is the sheer number of participants in this fight," said DCist. The site does not report the race of the participants.

TBD.com also reports on the Metro. The big story last year featured Allen Heywood. A black mob attacked Heywood as he was reading a book waiting for a train. As they beat and taunted him, Heywood begged for mercy:
Haywood repeatedly asked the girl why she was attacking him, pleading with her to end it. "Stop it! Stop it! G-- it! You stop this s- right now! I did nothing to you!"

That got a good laugh from other members of the mob, who "egged her on." They left him dazed and bleeding and so upset that no one helped him that he stood outside the station holding a sign:

"I WAS ATTACKED AT L'ENFANT METRO SUNDAY AT 7:15 PM. NO ONE HELPED. PLEASE BE CAREFUL."

One spectator who took the above video offered the video to Heywood to use as evidence against his attackers. But only if he paid for it.

This next episode comes from TheGrio.com: "Our lives ... Our World ...Our stories," the black web site from MSNBC.

Robert Joy lost a few front teeth and took a few stitches when he tried to stop a black mob from beating someone at a Metro station.

The headline pretty much tells the story: Teen mob kicks and punches man at metro station.

Only they actually got a few people that day. And others on other days.

**************************************************
20. Who needs a gun at home in Prince George County?
**************************************************

From WTVR.com: http://tinyurl.com/c426ggb

By Alix Bryan
December 13, 2012

PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, Va. (WTVR) A woman was home alone Wednesday morning when an intruder, apparently expecting the house to be empty, slipped inside.

She was making breakfast when someone broke through her back door.
"I heard a noise at the back door - made it down the hallway and the door ripped open," said the woman who wants CBS 6 to hide her identity.

"He had a knife, he grabbed my shirt and then cut me," she said.

She was cut three cuts on her left arm and then the suspect fled on foot towards the Food Lion distribution center.

Police say if he made a getaway by scaling a 10 foot chain-linked fence with barbed wire at the top, the wire at the top cut.

The victim refused medical treatment. The police recovered evidence, including the knife that slashed her.

Still, police don't have much to work with, they said.

The victim who lives in this community with her teenage daughter said she's struggling with whether to stay or live with other family members for awhile
"I think he was surprised to see someone was home i think he thought the place was empty," she said.

Her sanctuary and security have also been slashed and she hopes police can solve the crime.

**************************************************
21. RTD OP: Gun control, ad infinitum
**************************************************

Roy Scherer emailed me this:

--

The gist of it is that while we repeatedly hear calls for "honest discussion" of gun-law issues, and complaints that the issue is ignored, in point of fact we have been repeatedly having such discussions. The problem, for anti-gun people, is that they keep losing those debates. They'd like a "serious discussion" in which they win!

From Richmond Times-Dispatch: http://tinyurl.com/cqn9crg

By A. Barton Hinkle
December 12, 2012

Gun control, according to a recent blog post by Timothy Egan of The New York Times, is "the issue that dare not speak its name." Egan is upset that people who do not like gun control recently said mean things about sportscaster Bob Costas, who does. This proved to Egan that "you cannot talk" about guns in America.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg agrees. Thanking Costas for speaking up, he tweeted: "A frank discussion about gun laws and gun violence is a discussion we need to have."

Bloomberg has an ally in NPR's Neal Conan. In a "Talk of the Nation" segment in March titled "Trayvon Martin Story Sparks Difficult Conversations," Conan lamented: "I feel we're missing the opportunity to also have a discussion about guns."

Liberals aren't alone in talking about how nobody's talking about gun control. "This country needs an honest debate" about the issue, says Juan Williams of Fox News. "The issue should be debated as a matter of public safety. But anti-free speech forces have prevented this debate from happening."

Williams is absolutely right. Remember the movie-theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., this year? After that horrible crime, there was no discussion of gun control whatsoever - at least if you don't count the several thousand news stories, such as "Gun Debate Reignited by Aurora Shooting" (Chicago Tribune) and "Aurora Shooting Highlights Gun Debate" (MSNBC) and "Aurora Shooting Sparks Gun Debate" (AP) and so on.

Yet, despite those stories, plenty of gun-control advocates thought enough wasn't being said.

"I think it's time there was a serious debate about guns in the U.S.," tweeted Piers Morgan of CNN. Calif. Sen. Dianne Feinstein said she wanted "a sane national conversation about guns." "Can We Please Have an Honest Debate About Guns Now?" asked Amy Sullivan in The New Republic.

"Why Can't We Talk About Guns?" asked the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. "There needs to be a serious discussion" about guns, the paper said, quoting New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg's concurring view that "the silence is almost deafening." Rep. Peter King, a Republican who favors an assault-rifle ban, agreed that America's gun culture is "almost something not debated. It is just accepted."

It was the same story when Jared Lee Loughner shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in January 2011. "Tucson Shooting Fires Up Gun Debate," reported the Los Angeles Times. Nevertheless, Derrick Jackson of The Boston Globe doubted that "even an assassination attempt on a member of Congress is going to spur America into a fresh debate about guns." Blogging at WNYC.com, Justin Krebs took the view that "we have not had a mature discussion about guns in our culture." Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign said he hoped the shooting would "start a discussion" about gun control. Writing in The Arizona Republic, Ronald Hansen observed that many people hoped the shooting "would spark a new debate about guns in America."

What's wrong with the old debate? Search The Washington Post's website, and you'll find the term "gun control" shows up more than 3,700 times in just the past seven years. The New York Times' site, whose archives go back considerably further, turns up nearly 30,000 mentions.

Every year, hundreds of gun-control measures are introduced in Congress and state legislatures. Some of them pass; a lot don't. In recent years, lawmakers also have passed - after much furious debate - measures allowing concealed-carry, guns in bars, and so forth. The Supreme Court has handed down a brace of landmark decisions upholding an individual right to own firearms. There was more than a little debate about those cases, too, if memory serves.

As should be laughably obvious by this point, gun control is something Americans almost never stop talking about. The trouble - from the liberal perspective - is that the discussion keeps going the wrong way. Despite the horror at Virginia Tech, in Tucson and Aurora and too many other places to list, Americans consistently decline to adopt sweeping gun-control measures. Just a week after the Tucson shooting, 69 percent of survey respondents told CNN the episode had not changed their views on gun control.

Gun-rights advocates are being disingenuous when they say the aftermath of a shooting is not an appropriate time to talk about gun control. Nonsense - it's the most appropriate time. Nobody ever says, "Let's not talk about airline safety right now" after a plane crash.

But gun-control advocates are being just as disingenuous. When Egan and Williams gripe that you can't talk about gun control, what they really mean is you can't talk about it without other people talking back. And when other gun-control advocates say they want a "candid" debate about guns - or an "honest," "sane," "serious," "fresh," "mature" or "new" debate - what they really mean is: a debate we actually win.

Saying what they really mean would be the candid and honest thing to do. Wouldn't it?

**************************************************
22. Mystery surrounding Illinois democrat facing felony gun charges deepens
**************************************************

James Durso emailed me this:

--

From PJ Media: http://tinyurl.com/chos8bv

By Bryan Preston
December 10, 2012

Last week we reported on Democratic Illinois state Sen. Donne Trotter, who faces felony gun charges after attempting to take a handgun onto an aircraft. Trotter's troubles bring the number of Illinois Democrats facing serious charges to three, and the mystery around Trotter himself has deepened.

After his arrest, 62-year-old Trotter claimed that he had the gun, a .25 caliber Berretta, due to his second job as a security guard. His job as state senator pays $67,000 per year plus lucrative per diem when the Illinois Senate is in session.

Trotter has been in the Illinois Assembly for 24 years. But while the company he claims employs him as a security guard, All Points Security and Detective Company, lists him as an employee, he never disclosed this employment on any of his campaign finance records. He is not answering questions about the second job. Neither is All Points.

But All Points has large government contracts. Trotter's mysterious employment with the company, plus his failure to disclose said employment as the law requires on his campaign finance documents, raises the possibility that his security guard job is a payoff scheme.

Trotter is among the Democrats vying for the US House seat recently vacated by Jesse Jackson Jr.

**************************************************
23. Even knife control doesn't work
**************************************************

Last I heard, 7 children and adults were killed. Believe it or not, they actually have "knife control" in China (see story). Worked great, didn't it?

Only guns can kill lots of helpless children in a school? Yeah, right.

Tom Pike emailed me this:

--

From CNN: http://tinyurl.com/cpud5eq
December 14, 2012

Beijing (CNN) -- Twenty-two primary school children were wounded in a knife attack Friday in central China, authorities said.

The attack took place at the entrance to the Chenpeng Village Primary School in Henan province, according to the public information department of Guangshan county, the area where the school is located. An adult was also wounded, it said.

Several of the children are in critical condition, the state-run website Chinanews.com said, citing local authorities.

Police say they have detained a suspect, a 36-year-old man from the village, state media reported.

Initial assessments suggest the man is mentally ill, Chinanews.com said, citing Guangshan authorities.

China was hit by a spate of knife and cleaver attacks that targeted school children in 2010.

A number of measures were introduced at the time, including increased security at schools across the country and a regulation requiring people to register with their national ID cards when buying large knives.

**************************************************
24. Spotsylvania County revisits shooting proposal
**************************************************

Theron Keller emailed me this:

--

From Fredericksburg.com: http://tinyurl.com/cnhbpqh
By Jeff Branscome

Spotsylvania County has scaled back its plan to allow residents to fire guns in subdivisions.

The county Board of Supervisors in May voted to consider an ordinance that would allow people to shoot on their property if they live on more than 1 acre.

But Supervisors Chairwoman Ann Heidig said residents had safety concerns with that proposal. So the board recently increased the proposed minimum lot size required to fire guns from more than 1 acre to more than 5 acres.

A public hearing is scheduled for Jan. 8.

"We had a lot of citizen input and many felt that 1 acre was too small," said Heidig. She said the gun ordinance was brought to the county's attention after a rural landowner accused a neighbor of shooting onto his property.
It's currently illegal to fire guns in subdivisions regardless of lot size, based on county code. But Heidig said that ordinance may not be enforceable because it doesn't define what a subdivision is.

The proposed ordinance says a subdivision is any housing development that has a plat on file with the Circuit Court. That wouldn't include a lot that has been subdivided by a property owner to sell or give to an immediate family member.

The proposal doesn't include pneumatic weapons-such as BB and paint ball guns-in its definition of a firearm. The county has another ordinance for those guns, which are not banned in subdivisions.

Supervisor David Ross said he doesn't expect people to oppose the proposal since the current code is more restrictive.

"We're lessening the restrictions overall by quite a bit," he said.
Spotsylvania has also added language to the proposed law that would allow owners of at least 50 parcels in a subdivision to petition the county for a shooting-prohibited area-even if some of the lots are more than 5 acres.
At least 55 percent of the owners-as well as owners of 55 percent of the acreage-would have to favor the shooting ban, and a public hearing would be required. Supervisors would have to determine that the proposed shooting-free area "is so heavily populated as to make the discharge of a firearm dangerous."

**************************************************
25. Goodyear Tire is anti-gun
**************************************************

Michael Formica emailed me this:

--

Goodyear Tire is anti gun (you may have known this. I didn't). See the email they just sent me. Upset I spent any money there. Will never buy Goodyear tires again.

--

Thank you for contacting our web site and for voicing your concerns. In an effort to ensure the safety and security of our associates and customers, we have a clear company policy regarding weapons in the workplace. The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. prohibits all persons who enter Company property from carrying a handgun, firearm, or prohibited weapon of any kind onto the property regardless of whether the person is licensed to carry the weapon or not. Exceptions apply to on-duty law enforcement personnel.

This policy applies to all Company employees, visitors, customers, and contractors on Company property -- including our Company-owned stores. All Company properties have received a decal or sign referencing this policy, and have been instructed to post it.

Jennifer - Consumer Relations

--

To: goodyear_cr@goodyear.com
Subject: Contact Us request from www.goodyear.com

Message:
I just brought a tire in for repair in Mclean, VA and was talking to the sales staff about replacing all 4 tires. Walking out, I noticed a sign indicating that no concealed weapons were allowed and the store was hostile to both my basic civil and constitutional right to protect myself. Is this the policy of just this individual store? Or Goodyear corporate policy generally?

**************************************************
26. Remington issues alert for Remington/UMC 38 Special +P packaging mix
**************************************************

Jay Minsky emailed me this:

From The Daily Caller: http://tinyurl.com/d9n2vz3
December 10, 2012

Remington has announced that a specific lot code of 100-round boxes of .38 Spl. +P 125-grain semi-jacketed hollow point ammunition may contain .357 Mag. ammunition.

This packaging mix pertains to lot number P24UA18R, and should not be used as firing .357 Mag. ammunition in .38 Spl. firearms can result in firearm damage and personal injury

Do not use Remington/UMC .38 Spl. +P 125-grain semi-jacketed hollow point ammunition with lot number P24UA18R. Lot numbers are stenciled on the outside of ammunition cases and stamped on the inside flap of boxes.

If you have any of this ammunition lot, discontinue use and contact the Remington Consumer Service Department at (800) 243-9700, prompt No. 4, and Remington will arrange return of the ammunition and send replacement ammunition at no cost.