Virginia Shooting Sports Association

If one was looking for coverage of yesterday's "forum" on H.R. 2324, the Closing the Gun Show Loophole Act, they would have to look pretty hard because the only coverage I could find was on the Washington Post's Virginia Politics Blog, this UPI wire report and a couple of TV stations that had a very brief mention of the meeting. The UPI story was more a rehash of the Brady press release issued the day before. One TV station did do a report but as you will see in the video below, the reporter could not even get her facts straight, attributing the so-called loophole to state law. It is actually federal law that allows individuals who are not FFLs to sell one or more firearms from their personal collection without requiring a background check.



The fact the only extended coverage that can be found in the print media is on a newspaper blog shows just how far the gun ban lobby has fallen in recent years.

It was basically an opportunity for Brady to play videos you can see on their web site of their activists using Brady money to purchase firearms at gun shows from unwary private sellers, all in an attempt to show how easy it is for a criminal to buy at gun shows. For his part, Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke was happy to have a little symbolism to get attention to his group's rallying point:

But it was also as much about symbolism as lawmaking, because the gathering was a forum, and not a full-blown hearing. ..."We're just happy to have this," Helmke said during a break. "The fact that they're giving it this much attention is a positive step."
The "forum" was put together by Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA3) and featured a number of the same folks that turn out at the Virginia General Assembly every year to push for the annual gun show bill.

Rep. Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-Va.) chaired the forum, and panelists included Gerald Massengill, former superintendent of the Virginia State Police, and Colin Goddard, a former Virginia Tech student who told of surviving four gunshots during the April 2007 mass shooting. Lori Haas, whose daughter also survived the Virginia Tech shooting, also attended.

Apparently only the anti-gun members of the committee attended. There were no reports of questions to the participants about the other side of the issue. Freddie Kunkle, who covered the forum and wrote the blog post, did offer this for the gun owners side however (likely based on his coverage of the General Assembly's gun show bills):

Gun-rights advocates who oppose requiring background checks at gun shows have argued that the checks are not necessary because only a tiny fraction of guns have been traced from crimes to private sales at gun shows. They also argue that there is no such loophole because non-dealers can still sell or transfer a firearm without conducting a background check on a stranger they met through a want ad or in some other way.

Above all, they fear that requiring such checks at gun shows would clear the way to requiring universal background checks for every firearms transfer, whether between friends or family -- and ultimately, to de facto registration.


I have spoken with Kunkle in the past on Virginia's gun rationing law. He seemed genuinely interested in giving both sides of the issue he is covering.

Update: This report was on a local Richmond TV station. Even these folks can't get it right. There must be a template for reporters to constantly repeat the term "unlicensed dealers."



At least this Tidewater station got it right when they correctly referred to private sellers instead of "dealers."



The video below is from the DC Fox TV station. It is an interview with Colin Goddard and Congressman Scott yesterday morning before the House Judiciary meeting was held. Scott refers to private individuals and "unregistered dealers." He even says you can buy "military assault weapons" at gun shows. His staff has done a good job of making sure he is sticking to the Brady talking points.

They load the panel with just one side of the argument. From Congressman Scott's web site announcing today's public forum on gun shows:

There are two systems for purchasing firearms in this country. One system involves those engaged in the business of selling firearms who obtain federal licenses and follow required procedures, including conducting background checks on firearms purchasers. The other system involves unlicensed individuals who claim not to sell guns as a business and who are, therefore, exempt from the procedures for licensees. Unlicensed individuals at gun shows can sell as many firearms as they wish without having to comply with the federal safeguards that apply to licensed firearms dealers and purchasers from them. They are not required to ask for identification, they cannot initiate a background check, there are no forms to fill out and no requirements to keep records of sales. This exemption of unlicensed sellers is called the "gun show loophole".

This Boston Globe story is good news for gun owners.

Democratic candidates in key states are embracing gun owners’ rights, winning favor from the National Rifle Association, a lobby that has long been the target of disdain from the party faithful.It's good news because when gun owners don't have to worry about a candidate unfriendly to Second Amendment issues winning, then they can focus on other issues that may be important to them in the hope of getting the best candidate elected, not just the best candidate on gun rights.

Conservative gun owners who have expressed dismay that Harry Reid may receive the NRA endorsement should under stand that the NRA can disavow a candidate that has a good voting record. That is how much of their success has been achieved - having a rating system and endorsement that means something to candidates.

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, in a bruising campaign for reelection in Nevada, has conservative activists buzzing because the NRA is considering endorsing his reelection.In the Nevada race, Sharron Angle also has a very good record on gun issues as a state legislator. With the gun issue settled, those working to unseat Reid can concentrate on convincing voters that while Reid may be good on the gun issue, he is horrible on other issues that are taking the country in the wrong direction.

The same can be said here in Virginia's 9th District. Incumbent Congressman Rick Boucher has already received the NRA endorsement. He is running against the equally good, Delegate Morgan Griffith, who as the Virginia House of Delegates Majority Leader, received an A+ rating in his last state house campaign. Gun owners don't have to be concerned about losing a good vote on our issue if they decide the Griffith is better on other issues.

“I think there’s been a change in the country as a whole,’’ said Jon Delano, an independent political analyst associated with Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. “Unless you’re from an urban area, where gun violence is so intense that there’s a feeling you need to control these weapons, the vast majority across the country do not support gun control.’’

When both parties respect freedom, gun owners win. While the leadership of the Democratic Party may not be pro-gun, individual candidates certainly are in many areas. That is a good thing for the Republic, and for gun owners.

On Wednesday, July 14, at 2:00 PM, Congressman Robert “Bobby” Scott (D-VA), Congressman Mike Castle (R-DE), Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) and Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL) will be hosting a forum on H.R. 2324, the "Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009." The gun ban lobby, led by the Virginia Center for Public Safety and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, is promoting this forum as open to the public. That means we need to have a good show of pro-gun folks in attendance to counter the antis that are certain to attend.

The usual suspects will be in attendance and scheduled to speak:

• Mayor Larry Gilbert, Lewiston, Maine
• Kenneth E. Barnes, Sr., MS, Founder/CEO ROOT (Reaching Out to Others Together), Inc.
• Colonel Gerald Massengill, (Former Superintendent VA State Police, Chair of the Virginia Tech Review Panel, Sutherland, VA.
• Michael J. Carroll, President, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA
• Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, Professor and Co-Director, Center for Gun Policy and Research at John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore MD
• Tom Mauser, father of Daniel Mauser who was killed at the Columbine School shooting, Littleton, CO
• Gerry Nunziato, Youngstown, OH
• Colin Goddard, survivor of the Virginia Tech shootings, Richmond, VA

VSSA has a large number of members in the northern Virginia area so if you can be in Washington on Wednesday, your attendance would be appreciated.

What: Anti-gun Forum Attacking Gun Shows
Where: 2141 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC
When: June 14, 2010, 2:00PM

Today's Washington Examiner has a great Op/Ed pinned by Michael Barone that discusses Justice Thomas's opinion in McDonald vs. Chicago. Thomas took the "priviliages and immunities" route in his opinion while the other four justices took the more traveled "due process" route in finding Chicago had violated the rights of Otis McDonald. Barone believes the opinion is on a par with Justice Lewis Powell's decision in the Bakke Case, an opinion that no other justice joined but that decided a case - and an argument that has now been embraced by a majority of the court.
Thomas, writing separately, declined to apply the due process clause. Rather he argued that the Second Amendment applied to the states because the right to keep
and bear arms under the 14th Amendment's command that "no state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
Barone wrote that legal scholars have generally considered that the Supreme Court's decision in 1873 in the Slaughter-House Cases rendered the privileges and immunities clause null, but Thomas has a habit of declining to follow precedent he believes to be incorrect. In doing so, Barone (and Mark Levin on his radio program) said Thomas has argued persuasively that the privileges and immunities clause was the correct approach that adheres more closely to the intent of the founders. In his opinion, Thomas address the purposes of the original gun control laws - to keep freed blacks from owning guns.

As Thomas pointed out, the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 to guarantee the rights of the newly freed slaves. The Slaughter-House Cases undercut that purpose and made possible the violent subjugation of American blacks that is one of the most regrettable episodes of our history.

And, as Thomas argues in vivid detail, one of the key rights black Americans were deprived of was the right to keep and bear arms. The wisdom of the Founders' inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is clear from the efforts black Americans made to exercise that right and from the efforts of white racists to deprive them of it.

It's a great read. The more people talk about the Thomas opinion, hopefully the more weight it will receive.

You can find a digital copy of a special McDonald Edition of the NRA's America's First Freedom Magazine here. There are articles as well as special video. The digital editions of the NRA magazines have a lot of special features so you may want to consider switching to the digital versions. I presume all members can access this special edition, not just members that subscribe to AFF.

CQ Politics is shares this via the New York Daily News morning that Justice Kennedy, who is 74, plans to stay on the court at least another three years.


"That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court's conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice."
Interesting that the NY Daily News headline was "Bad News for Obama: Conservative Justice Kennedy tells pals he's in no rush to leave Supreme Court."

Just one more sign pointing to the high stakes of the 2012 election. If you need a reminder, re-read Dave Kopel's article in last week's Washington Times.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters' assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity.
If ever there were a call to arms regarding what is at stake in the next presidential election, it is the make up of the Supreme Court and how a second Obama term could alter the current small originalist majority for a generation and almost overnight overturn the victories of the last three years.

As we go about this most special and important day celebrating our freedom with cookouts, enjoying a ballgame and fireworks, or maybe enjoying time at the range, let us not forget what the brave men and women who stood up to tyranny sacrificed, so that they, and future generations, might live in freedom.

Virginia 4th District Congressman Randy Forbes took the opportunity of Independence Day to email his record on Second Amendment issues. Congressman Forbes has been a steadfast supporter of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from his days in the Virginia House of Delegates. If you live in the 4th Congressional District and would like to receive email updates from Congressman Forbes on pending gun related issue in Congress, you can download his flyer here or just go to his web site and sign up for email alerts.

You can find the story here. I doubt it will make much difference to Senators Mark Warner and Jim Webb. They both voted for Sotomayor. But you should still contact them both and let them know your thoughts on the issue.

July 1st is the day that new laws take effect and no other new law has been more anticipated than repeal of the ban on carrying concealed in restaurants like Applebees and Olive Garden, which serve alcohol in edition to food. VSSA has been working hard to repeal the ban for 16 years and the election of Governor Bob McDonnell finally helped make our hard work pay off. Remember if you do carry in a restaurant, you are not allowed to consume alcohol while carrying concealed.

Also taking effect today is the renewal of Concealed Handgun Permits (CHPs) by mail, repeal of a little used law that allowed localities to impose a license tax on persons engaged in the business of selling pistols and revolvers as well as the record keeping requirement for such persons, a law allowing local schools to offer firearm safety education modeled on the Eddie Eagle Gun Safe program, and a law that allows non-CHP holders to store their firearm in a private motor vehicle or boat if the handgun is secured in a container or compartment.

VSSA had a very successful lobbying effort this year. While we were disappointed that the State Senate created a killing field special sub-committee in violation of Senate rules that killed repeal of handgun rationing as well as the full committee killing Castle Doctrine legislation, we had many successes. Now that the restaurant ban is repealed, VSSA will focus on passing Castle Doctrine and repealing one gun-a-month. You can help in this effort by sharing the news with your fellow gun owners about what VSSA does to protect and expand their gun rights and urging them to join VSSA.

The attorney hired by VSSA and the other state associations to write our amicus brief supporting McDonald, has provided some analysis of the ruling. Here are some of the high points that he shared.

• It is a strong opinion in our favor.
• An unequivocal opinion that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States. (Remember that this was the only question presented to the Supreme Court in this case.)
• Vigorous reinforcement of the principle that individual self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right.
• A holding that the Second Amendment right is "fully applicable to the States." Both the opponents at oral argument and the dissenters appeared to favor applying only a watered-down version of the Second Amendment right to the states. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment right should be applied equally to both the States and the federal government.
• The Court recognized that the Second Amendment right may be even more important to women than to men. We raised this issue on pages 17-19 of our brief, where we noted that it would be no more proper to effectively limit the fundamental right to self defense to young males with above-average strength and skills than it would be to effectively limit the right to vote to those who could timely complete a grueling obstacle course.
• The dissenters appear to have lost their stomach for trumpeting the merits of Cruikshank and Presser. We devoted pages 4-9 of our brief to discussing the distasteful legacy of those early anti-rights cases. As you may recall, Justice Stevens extolled the virtues of those opinions at length in his dissent in Heller, and each of the other dissenters joined in that opinion. This time, Justice Stevens mentioned Cruikshank and Presser only in a single footnote. Further, he attempted to distance himself from those opinions (while still proclaiming that they "correctly resolved" the incorporation issue). Additionally, none of the other dissenters joined in his opinion this time around and they made no mention of either Cruikshank or Presser in their separate dissent.
• None of the dissenters were able to rebut our discussion (on pages 14-16 of our brief) of previous Supreme Court cases affirming the right to self-defense, including the right to use a deadly weapon in self-defense. We cited four such cases in our brief, in addition to Heller. The dissenters never even acknowledged those cases, much less tried to explain them away. Plausible deniability on this subject is no longer viable.
• All in all, this is a tremendous victory and vindication of fundamental rights for the citizens of the United States of America.

Addendum - Some opponents of the right to keep and bear arms may make doomsday proclamations regarding this opinion. Two excerpts from the Court's opinion may be useful in response.

First, the Court reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose."

Second, the Court also reiterated that its holding does not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

There is a sobering point reinforced by comments Second Amendment Scholar Dave Kopel has made, both on NRANews.com and in this podcast talking about the ruling. That concern is that the minority opinion continued to express a strong view that Heller was wrongly decided. With that mindset being so ingrained in the four justice minority, we have to be very concerned about the real possibility a second Obama term could mean one of the justices in the majority that is over the age of 70 could retire and Obama would be able to reshape the court and open an opportunity that Heller could be overturned. Monday's victory was not the end of the war, but just the end of the beginning. Expect more court cases in the very near future.

The Roanoke Times story can be found here. Basically, it appears from the article that the women and her husband had been promised that the killer, Douglas Albert Jaccard, would not be released on bond after having been arrested on indecent liberties charges. The suit claims that the intake magistrate noted Jaccard was:
angry and paranoid and likely to attempt to obstruct justice or threaten, injure or intimidate a witness, juror or victim.
It appears the magistrate presumed correctly. Joseph Bane, and Jerry Covey were shot by Jaccard, a neighbor on Dyer Road in the Barren Springs community in Wythe County in 2008, two days before he was scheduled for a hearing on the indecent liberties charges. After he shot Bane and Covey, Jaccard burned down the Banes' house. During the manhunt, he shot at deputies.

Jaccard was originally held without bond based on the magistrate's note but later, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Frank Slavin, who is named in the lawsuit, agreed to a $10,000 bond in August of 2008. Banes' widow claims they were not notified and that the Commomwealth's Attorney's office did not take proper precautions or impose sufficient conditions when granting the bond.

This is a sad story that is repeated far to often in large cities around the country. A repeat offender is given bond, or worse, given light sentences only to create more mayhem. It is not a story you hear as often in small towns in rural America like Wytheville or Wythe County.

Jaccard was sentenced to in March to five life terms and 48 years in prison -- one life term each for first-degree murder, burglary, arson and two counts of attempted capital murder; 20 years for malicious wounding; three years for each of four counts of using a firearm in the commission of a felony; five years for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon; five years for possessing explosive materials as a convicted felon; and three years each for two counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor for propositioning a teenage boy.

A review of the commentary by some of the most ardent supporters of liberty and the Constitution yesterday revealed this - a deep concern that only five of the nine justices - the slimmest of majorities - sided with liberty. They believe while gun owners had much to celebrate, there was also much with which to be concerned. Take this from Rush Limbaugh:

"Supreme Court justices vote on the Constitution, they determine whether something is constitutional or not. They voted on the Second Amendment today, and it squeaked by 5-4, after having been ratified centuries ago. I can think of no more powerful way to put this." Sean Hannity said much the same thing in opening his program. Mark Levin referenced the decision in the opening hour of his program, and noted, as did Rush, that Justice Thomas' opinion held more closely to the original intent of the founders than the opinion authored by Justice Alito. Levin's comments were similar to George Mason University Professor Nelson Lund, who wrote on Scotusblog:

The most interesting aspect of the decision is Justice Thomas’ concurrence, which rejects the plurality’s reliance on the judicial fiction of substantive due process. Thomas relies instead on the original meaning of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. His opinion is scholarly and judicious, and it cements his standing as the only Justice who is more than a half-hearted originalist. Thomas confines himself to the issue presented, which involves only the right to keep and bear arms, and explains why stare decisis should not foreclose an originalist approach in this case. With appropriate judicial restraint, he declines to decide in advance exactly what implications his analysis may carry with respect to substantive due process precedents involving other provisions of
the Bill of Rights. Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald coincided with an LA Times Op/Ed on Thomas that appeared in Sunday's edition. The article discussed how Thomas relies on history to shape his opinions (as Lund alluded to) rather than inventing ways to find consensus as his conservative colleagues seem to do.

Lund was not taken with the approach in the Alito opinion, in part because of it's reaffirmation of various gun regulations in the Heller decision.


Heller endorsed bans on the carrying of concealed weapons, but said nothing about a right to carry weapons openly. Because the Second Amendment expressly protects the right to “bear” arms, as well as the right to “keep” arms, the text of the Constitution seems inconsistent with allowing the government to forbid both open and concealed carry of weapons. Such a ban would also be inconsistent with Heller’s emphasis on self-defense as the core of the Second Amendment right: most people are in much more danger of encountering dangerous criminals outside their homes than within them. But the issue remains open in the courts.

Similarly, Heller endorsed bans on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” but articulated no test for identifying such locations, beyond a mention of government buildings and schools. McDonald reaffirms this dictum but offers no further guidance, so the lower courts will for now apparently have to develop a “sensitivity jurisprudence” on their own. Is a university campus more “sensitive” than a shopping mall across the street? Is a government-owned cabin in a national forest more “sensitive” than a privately owned hotel on a busy urban street? These and countless similar questions will be open to litigation.The danger with the approach taken by the four Justices in the Alito opinion is that it is this very approach that gives Paul Helmke his talking points asserting that the Court approves of the type of gun control they push.

Which brings me to what yesterday's ruling means for gun owners and why state associations like VSSA are important in protecting the right to keep and bear arms. At the same time the McDonald opinion was being announced yesterday, the confirmation hearings for Elana Kagan were beginning.

We know very little about Kagan except what are in the various papers from her previous positions in the Clinton Administration. Based on this little bit of information, it is probably safe to say that Kagan likely supports gun control laws as a policy matter. She would likely be with the Court’s left on the question. I have no doubt that Obama nominated her because she shares his world view. This means that future cases on this subject will likely also be decided by the narrow 5-4 margin we saw in Heller and McDonald.

We cannot let yesterday's ruling lull us into the false belief that our work is done any more than we could with the Heller decision. We have already seen what Washington D.C. has done in response to Heller - setting up a regulatory system where the costs of registration in some cases exceed the cost of a firearm - thus discouraging gun ownership. I have no doubt that Chicago will try this approach.

State firearm associations like VSSA are to gun owners what the NRA is at the federal level. While NRA has state and local legislative staff, they cover multiple states and cannot to be all places at all times. That is where the state associations and their members come in. State associations are in a better position to react when a locality proposes a gun control ordinance. We notify our members to contact city council or board of supervisor members, then turn out at meetings to voice their position on the proposal.

If you are not a member of your state association, join today. The battle is not over. We have only just begun. Yesterday was a good day for gun owners, but it was just one more skirmish won in a larger battle to protect liberty and freedom.

Just in time for the new Supreme Court ruling protecting law abiding Americans from most state regulation of the right to keep and bear arms, the all new VSSA online store is open for business with lots of VSSA logo items for sale. A portion of each sale supports Virginia's oldest gun rights organization.















VSSA Polo White from Zazzle.com

Justice Alito announced the decision in McDonald v. Chicago. On a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed the 7th Circuit decision in the case and remanded the case back to the 7th Circuit. The opinion concludes that the 14th Amendment does incorporate the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller to keep and bear arms in self defense.

Scotusblog reports that the majority seems divided.

...presumably on the precise standard. The majority Justices do not support all parts of the Alito opinion, but all five agree that the 2d Amendment applies to state and local government. Alito, in the part of the opinion joined by three Justices, concludes that the 2d Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. Thomas thinks the Amendment is incorporated, but not under Due Process. He appears to base incorporation on Privileges or Immunities.

The text of the Opinion is here.

The Supreme Court issued seven opinions today but did not issue an opinion in the McDonald case. Monday looks like the day we will learn whether the Chicago handgun ban is overturned.

Will the Supreme Court issue its opinion in McDonald vs. Chicago today or will we have to wait until Monday? I will be watching SCOTUS Blog this morning and will post immediately if the Court issues an opinion.

The Wall Street Journal has a piece on the Disclose Act and the NRA's exemption from the bill.



There is some talk now that the "carve out" for the NRA may have doomed the bill and even if it does pass in the House the fate is uncertain in the Senate. It was pulled from the House Calendar over the weekend and added back late yesterday for this week. Newsmax reports that the Democrats believe they are close to having the votes to pass the bill.

On Monday, the NRA reaffirmed they do not support the bill - that they just protected their members should (as has happened already this year) a bill thought to be dead ends up passing.

This morning's CQ Politics features an article on a couple of competitive races that demonstrate the challenging environment in which the Democrats find themselves this year. One of the races featured is the 9th Congressional District race between Morgan Griffith and incumbent Rick Boucher.

CQ Politics previously rated this race as Likely Democratic. They now rate is as Leans Democratic. They explain the change this way:

The movement of Boucher, who has represented his southwestern Virginia district for 28 years, isn't due to any specific poll but more the result of a general drift toward a more competitive race.

State Del. Morgan Griffith (R), who has served in the state Legislature for over 15 years, is a solid recruit who is expected to give Boucher his toughest challenge in years. The current Majority Leader of the Virginia House of Delegates should prove to be a solid fundraiser. He brought in over $100,000 in two weeks in March before his first federal filing deadline. But Griffith's next fundraising report (due to be filed by July 15) will be highly anticipated, since both parties will be watching to see if he's made any substantial headway in closing the huge financial disparity that he faced in early May. At that point, Griffith showed just $110,000 in his campaign account, compared to Boucher's more than $1,9 million warchest.

Knocking off an incumbent is difficult, especially one with a large warchest. But money does not always translate into victory. If Griffith can raise a credible amount of money, and puts together a great ground game to turn out voters in this sprawling rural district, he can give Boucher a run for his money.

Boucher is endorsed by the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) but Griffith has been a consistent "A" rated legislator in the House of Delegates, including introducing legislation to expand the rights of gun owners. The gun issue may be a wash in this race so it is likely that the election be decided on other issues important in the district. McCain won the district by 19 points in 2008.