To: Mark Seagraves, WTOP reporter (msegraves @ wtop.com)

Mark,

In reference to your story here: http://wtop.com/?nid=109&sid=2514785

I have a quick pop quiz:

1: If you or I were caught in D.C. with an unauthorized, unregistered firearm, what would be the charge?

2: If you or I fired that handgun (in D.C., while drunk 0.15 BAC) into a car with 3 occupants, what would be the charge?

3: Does shooting at transgendered citizens also constitute a “hate crime”?

The answers should be you would be charged with one count Carrying a Pistol Without a License, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) (2001); one count of Possession of an Unregistered Firearm, in violation of D.C. Code § 7-2502.01 (2001); one count of Possession of Unregistered Ammunition, in violation of  D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(3) (2001)  and multiple premeditated murder charges, one for every occupant in the vehicle  (in addition to DWI). But, when you are a cop working for the second most corrupt police force in the nation (after Chicago), and you have been specifically told you no longer have authorization to carry a gun in performance of your duties (this includes non-duty hours too) I guess it’s OK to get drunk, drive around town with your gun, and find some transgender folks to shoot at while drunk and standing on the hood of your car (a full 90 minutes after an altercation at CVS, that’s where the “premeditated murder” part comes in, Furr had to be out looking for these folks). You won’t be held fully accountable for your drunken attempted murder spree, at most you’ll be slapped with DWI and assault with a dangerous weapon charge. This is Lanier’s new management plan of “training trumps discipline“. Not being held fully accountable.

Some might say the cop shouldn’t be charged with the firearms charges, but once you lose the special police powers to carry a gun in D.C. you are no longer exempt from the same laws everyone else must follow. If you are not allowed to carry in the performance of your duties then any and all firearms and ammunition you possess outside the home in D.C. would NOT be legal, yes?

Mark, are you planning to follow up with DCMP to ask why this cop is receiving special treatment when you and I both know that someone NOT wearing a badge would also have these charges levied at them if they had done the same crime? Inquiring minds want to know!

Sincerely,

Ian Branson

Vienna, VA

Read: Lanier – Training trumps discipline for D.C. police

That’s what Chief Wiggums, err, I mean DC Metro POLICE Chief Lanier fetishizes when describing her POLICE department. She thinks her corrupt co-workers are a “paramilitary” force, HA! Let’s get one thing straight Cathy: your cadre of contemptible criminals you call cops (you know, the “Only Ones” in DC good enough and trusted enough to carry a firearm in self-defense) are not some elite seal team force protecting the streets of the capital. I’ve seen more police officers abuse the badge and authority in DC than any other place. That is if you can even get them to do their job when asked or arrest a criminal. Your department is a sad JOKE and you are the leader of this fail train. You even admit you don’t believe in administering discipline when your “paramilitary” coworkers get out of line. Shame on you, you’re a sad excuse for a cop, and an even worse example of a leader. You got your job under Marion Barry’s tenure, didn’t ya?

From: 11alive.com

STONE MOUNTAIN, GA — Every once in a while a hero steps into someone’s life. One stepped into Heather Kloer’s life on January 6th. It happened in the parking lot of an Office Depot on Memorial Drive in Stone Mountain. Kloer was walking to her car when she was approached by a man with a knife.

Link to full story above, another example of an armed citizen saving a life. Imagine if Rob Strickland had only had a cellphone to call 911 and not a handgun that night… do you feel the outcome might have been different?

Via Crooks and Liars:

Yesterday we had another act of violence by a right-wing extremist intent on attacking and harming the government, inflamed by far-right conspiracy theories about 9/11 and other supposed instances of government “tyranny”

Mr. Neiwert, I see you are quick to jump the gun, but not so quick to issue an apology. It is becoming increasingly clear that the Pentagon shooter was a mental case who could not be trusted to function in society without a custodian.

Bedell, who went by Patrick, had vigorously objected to the government’s role in the 1991 Persian Gulf War since high school, telling relatives that the United States was trying to enrich itself and oil companies, said his brother, 33-year-old Jeffrey Bedell.

But, in about 2002, after the breakup of a long-term relationship with a girlfriend, his skepticism began to turn to deep-rooted suspicion. And soon it became paranoia, his brother said.

Patrick would point skyward, convinced that “they” were watching him. He believed songs he heard on the radio were meant as warnings. Deeply concerned, the Bedell family and close friends tried to seek medical help for him, but Patrick refused, convinced that he was privy to information that warranted his mind-set.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Neiwert and his friends will gladly use any national tragedy to paint those who don’t think like them (liberals) as extremist threats to society. I just wish he would stick to the real right-wing wackos (there’s enough of ‘em) and not use crazy mental cases who go postal.

From The Associated Press:

Resentment of the U.S. government and suspicions over the 9/11 attacks have surfaced in writings by the Californian identified as the gunman who shot two Pentagon police officers before he was mortally wounded in a hail of return fire.

John Patrick Bedell, 36, of Hollister, Calif., was identified as the shooter. Officials said they’d found no immediate connection to terrorism but had not ruled it out.

Signs emerged that Bedell harbored ill feelings toward the government and the armed forces, and had questioned the circumstances behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

In an Internet posting, a user by the name JPatrickBedell wrote that he was “determined to see that justice is served” in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the backyard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a cover up.

The user named JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was “a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions.”

That same posting railed against the government’s enforcement of marijuana laws and included links to the author’s 2006 court case inOrange County, Calif., for cultivating marijuana and resisting a police officer. Court records available online show the date of birth on the case mentioned by the user JPatrickBedell matches that of the John Patrick Bedell suspected in the shooting.

There has been a public relations campaign lately promoting the idea of “right-wing extremism” foisted upon us by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center and David Niewert. I wonder how they will classify a liberal from California who grew pot, resisted authority, harbored 9/11 conspiracy theories, and tried to murder two police officers at the Pentagon a “right-winger”? I’m sure they will try, stay tuned.

By the way, what motivates the SPLC to create these crazy claims tying innocent folks to terror and extremism? Well, there is an old saying… Follow the money!

From NBC-4:

The investigation of a D.C. police detective (AKA an “Only One”) accused of pulling his gun during a December snowball fight is complete, and it looks like the detective will go back to work.

Watch the video below for the original incident. Take note of the attitude this public servant displays when the public demands his identification so a complaint can be made. He feels he should be able to anonymously threaten unarmed citizens with his handgun because his Hummer got a little snow on it, but you and I are kept defenseless against the criminal element in the same city.

And I do have one question for Chief Lanier: When are you going to charge Detective Baylor with reckless endangerment, brandishing, impeding traffic, etc? Or is “professional courtesy” being extended here?

I regularly read a liberal blog called “Crooks & Liars”, it’s on my link sidebar. The site interests me, has decent video clips of news items, and it gives me a feel for what the left is thinking. One point I regularly take away from that site is they (liberals)  HATE guns and are largely ignorant of the facts and issues behind gun ownership and usage. They simply focus on the negatives and call for more restrictions. Today the site owner, John Amato asks the question “Can corporations bear arms” in light of the supreme Court decision that corporations have 1st Amendment rights:

Since the Roberts Court has now ruled that corporations have the same rights as people and overturned decades of laws regulating their speech, I’m wondering: Do they now have the right to arm themselves by employing Blackwater-type mercenaries and post them all over their office buildings?

Will Wal-Mart post armed guards in their parking lots?

Seems like a natural consequence. If corporations can enjoy full First Amendment protections, wouldn’t they likewise get Second Amendment rights?

What John fails to understand, as he is blinded by his infantile views of firearm ownership is that corporations already have the right to bear arms, and those rights are even more liberal than the citizen’s individual right to own a gun. Case in point: It is far easier for a corporation to acquire fully automatic machine guns (the REAL kind, NOT an AR-15 which I’m sure John thinks is a machine gun) that a private citizen:

In areas where a person cannot acquire a Law Enforcement Signature because these people would rather violate your rights than let you own one of these items, there is another way. BATF allows Corporations and Trusts to acquire machine guns, silencers, etc. without having to complete the Law Enforcement Certification part of the form. If you have your own Corporation, or you are an Officer in a Corporation, the Corporation can acquire these items, and you, as a Corporate Officer, can keep the item at your home, take it to the range shooting, etc. just as if the item were registered to you. If the Corporation ever dissolves, the item must be transferred out of the Corporation to another individual or Corporation (or Dealer). Because a Corporation is not a person, an FBI fingerprint check is not required which reduces the transfer approval time to about 30 days.

So yes John, corporations CAN post armed guards in their office buildings. Have you never been to a bank before?

Ladies and Gentlemen, John Amato – liberal and clueless.

The final results for VA-35 are in:

Mark Keam (D)   12,588 (%50.65)

Jim Hyland (R)   12,242 (%49.25)

Write-in                      22 (%0.08)

Congratulations to Mark Keam, VA-35’s newest citizen legislator. Between the two candidates running, Keam’s campaign was better funded and a lot more organized. All of this is my subjective opinion but the facts back me up. Keam was visible; both on TV and in the mailbox. On the other hand, Jim Hyland was MIA months, and I only received one mailing from his campaign. Keam personally knocked on my door, taking a lesson learned from Chap Petersen’s winning strategy that has paid him big dividends. If Hyland did knock on my door he didn’t leave anything suggesting he’d been there.

What really amazes me is for all the hard work and money Keam (and the Democratic Party of Virginia) poured into this campaign it came down to 346 votes separating winner from loser. Keam spent lots of money, sent out colorful mailings, knocked on doors, appeared on TV, and had the backing of current “part time” Governor, err… I mean “full time” DNC chairman Tim Kaine, Senator Jim Webb, and former Governer (and current Senator) Mark Warner. Hyland may have done better had he put more personal investment (time and door knocking) into his campaign.

But… could he (Hyland) have done more? He lost by 346 votes, what could he have done to offset those votes? I have a suggestion: Show some principle, state what you support and believe in, and be willing to walk the walk. I explain below.

From day one Keam was very adamant about his desire to legislate more gun control. His stance was clear and unquestionable, just check out the mailings he sent to my mailbox on the issue:

Click this link to view larger images

Keam is clearly your man if you support gun control. Knowing that Keam has the gun control crowd locked in (and how could he not?) if I were Hyland (and I did not support gun control) I’d contrast myself… campaigning FOR gun rights. However, Hyland also appeared to be a supporter of gun control. According to the Fairfax Connection newspaper he stated he supports closing the “gun show loophole”, supports the “one-handgun-a-month” law, and he refused to return the Virginia citizens Defense League’s candidate gun rights survey. How do I know Hyland refused to return the survey? I ran into him Saturday night (Oct 31) and asked him about it, and his apparent lack of respect towards gun rights. What I was surprised to learn however was that Hyland claims to support gun rights in private but felt he had to take a pro gun control stance or else his Democrat opponent Keam would use gun control “as a wedge” against him! Talk about lack of principle! Good grief, Jim… grow a backbone already! How could you not know that you weren’t going to take any votes from Keam the “gun grabber“? Who was advising your campaign, that failure Jean Marie Devolites-Davis? If Hyland felt he had to kowtow to Keam how could we expect him to stand up for himself in the legislature as a freshman delegate? Over the course of our roughly 10 minute conversation I also explained to Hyland why requiring private citizens to run background checks through dealers wouldn’t work like he hoped, discussed Jean Marie Devolites-Davis’ loss to Chap Petersen due to her gun control ideas, and finished up by telling him that VCDL’s VA-Alert reaches over 12,000 Virginia voters; of which he could easily expect several HUNDRED VA-Alert subscribers to reside in his district (VCDL’s VA-Alert readership is more concentrated in the Northern VA, Richmond, and Hampton roads areas). I explained to Hyland that if he lost this election by “several hundred votes” he could lay it squarely on his refusal to return the VCDL Candidate Survey and his expressed public support for gun control. Gun activists are one of the MOST active voting block in Virginia, and Hyland stupidly shunned several hundred of them in his district. I cannot say if returning the survey would have helped him win, but what’s not debatable is he lost crucial votes from gun owners for not being principled, not contrasting his opposing position with a known gun grabber,  and allowing Mark Keam to manage a crucial campaign issue for him.