In a post a few weeks ago, we wrote about how the “documentary” produced by Katie Couric and directed by Stephanie Soechtig was less than honest in the editing of an interview with the Virginia Citizen’s Defense League (VCDL). In the movie “Under the Gun,” the members of the VCDL seemed to be confused as to the question that Couric asks of the members of the VCDL when in fact they had answers which stumped and confused Couric.
Couric initially declined to apologize and said the edit making the VLDL’s people was there for dramatic effect. (After all, nothing says “drama” in a documentary like deception.) Couric has now issued an “apology,” but the “apology” shows the depth of the deception as well.
As Executive Producer of “Under the Gun,” a documentary film that explores the epidemic of gun violence, I take responsibility for a decision that misrepresented an exchange I had with members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL). My question to
the VCDL regarding the ability of convicted felons and those on the terror watch list to legally obtain a gun, was followed by an extended pause, making the participants appear to be speechless.
When I screened an early version of the film with the director, Stephanie Soechtig, I questioned her and the editor about the pause and was told that a “beat” was added for, as she described it, “dramatic effect,” to give the audience a moment to consider the question. When VCDL members recently pointed out that they had in fact immediately answered this question, I went back and reviewed it and agree that those eight seconds do not accurately represent their response.
VCDL members have a right for their answers to be shared and so we have posted a transcript of their responses here. I regret that those eight seconds were misleading and that I did not raise my initial concerns more vigorously.
I hope we can continue to have an important conversation about reducing gun deaths in America, a goal I believe we can all agree on.
Right off the bat we want to say that this is an ad from the National Rifle Association (NRA.) We are not members of the NRA but support them in their programs for safe, legal gun ownership as well as support them in their fight against the creeping of forces looking to end the right of people to defend themselves, their loved ones and their property.
I was born in Greece in 1939.
Nazi war planes bombed us unmercifully.
Executions in the streets were common.
I saw horror you could never imagine.
Human beings became animals, starving and desperate. (more…)
When 72 year old Gordon VanGilder was pulled over by a New Jersey policeman for a minor traffic infraction, he probably never would have dreamed the encounter with the officer would end with VanGilder facing 10 years in jail, 3 1/2 of which must be served with no chance of parole.
VanGilder was pulled over and the deputy sheriff used the ol’ tactic of “you don’t mind if I search your car, do you? If you have nothing to hide, it shouldn’t be a problem.” The officer threatened to get a dog to search the vehicle if necessary.
VanGilder, a retired school teacher, thought he didn’t have anything illegal in the car but did tell the cop about a 225 year old unloaded flintlock pistol he was transporting that was in the glove compartment.
Because the flintlock is such a dangerous, scary looking weapon, the following day four deputy sheriffs arrived at VanGilder’s home and arrested him.
We generally respect laws and think the way to change them is to work through the legislative process. However, when you have legislatures and an executive branch that signs such ridiculous laws into effect with no thought to the God given and natural rights of people, the only way to deal with these situations is to tell the government to take a long walk off a short pier.
In this case, the legislators, the governor, the sheriff’s department and the prosecutor are not worthy of being in the public sector and in a position where they are to be serving and protecting the people of the state of New Jersey.
Bill Whittle is one of the favorite authors and bloggers of some of the staff here at Raised on Hoecakes. Here, Widdle takes on the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Tired of listening to Progressives tell you that the Second Amendment only allows people in militias to keep and bear arms? Or that the Founders would have never intended the Second Amendment to apply to modern weapons? In his latest FIREWALL Bill recounts a remarkable conversation about the precise wording of the Second Amendment, and sums up why the document says what it means and means what it says.
Taylor Woolrich is a 20 year old California resident who is attending Dartmouth. The Dartmouth junior has been the subject of a stalker since she was 16 years old.
Richard James Bennett and Woolrich met when she was working in a coffee shop in California. After serving the 67 year old Bennett, he began to return to the coffee shop just to watch her. He began stalking her. He attacked her boyfriend and showed up on the doorstep of her home.
In doing so, Bennett violated at least three restraining orders, the last violation has landed him in jail where bail has been set at $300,000.
Quite simply the guy won’t give up.
Even moving across the country to attend Dartmouth has not stopped Bennett from stalking Woolrich. Woolrich found her at Dartmouth and started sending her messages there, saying that he would be coming to visit her.
Understandably, Woolrich is worried about her safety and did what any person would do – she sought to protect herself.
Woolrich asked Dartmouth for permission to carry a handgun on campus.
Dartmouth declined basically saying they make no exceptions to their “no handgun policy” on campus. The fact that a student attending the school is in jeopardy makes no difference to the school.
Perhaps Dartmouth was worried about the danger of a handgun on campus. That would make sense except the facts don’t support their fears: (more…)
A few days ago we posted how a court had struck down handgun laws in Washington, D.C. because they effectively banned weapons and therefore were contrary to the Second Amendment and previous Supreme Court rulings.
After the ruling, the City sought a 180 day stay of the decision which would allow them to craft new regulations on weapons in D.C. The lawyers for the opposing party agreed to a 90 day stay and eventually, that is what a judge agreed to as well.
So for now, the old, un-Constitutional rules are still in effect until the DC City Council can figure out what they can do next to try and deprive citizens of their rights.
As lawmakers get to work, D.C. police returned to past arrest practices. Ten minutes after the judge granted the reprieve at 1:20 p.m., Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier rescinded orders hurriedly issued Sunday night and told 4,000 officers that “all laws related to firearms regulations and crimes remain in effect.”
But the chief also reminded officers to handle firearms cases “with caution,” noting that the public may not be aware that the old gun laws are at least temporarily back in force.
Yesterday we posted how the Department of Justice was suing the Pennsylvania State Police over the physical testing standards used to applicants to the Police.
On Saturday, a District Court for Washington DC handed down its decision in a case called “Palmer v. D.C.”
The opinion invalidated as unConstitutional laws having the effect of banning the carrying handguns in the District of Columbia.
From the decision:
D.C. Code § 7-2502.01(a) provides that “no persons or organization in the District shall possess or control
any firearm, unless the persons or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the firearm.”
D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) provides that individuals who are not retired police officers may only register a handgun “for use in self-defense within that person’s home.”
Defendants require gun registration applicants to submit “[p]roof of residency in the District of Columbia (e.g., a valid DC operator’s permit, DC vehicle registration card, lease agreement for a residence in the District, the deed to your home or other legal document showing DC residency.”
A first violation of the District of Columbia’s ban on the ownership or possession of unregistered handguns is punishable as a misdemeanor by a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment of up to five years, or both. See D. C. Code § 7-2507.06. D.C. Code § 22-4504(a) provides that “[n]o person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law, or any deadly or dangerous weapon capable of being so concealed.” The first violation of this section by a non-felon is punishable by a fine up to $5,000
and imprisonment of up to five years. (more…)