Categorized | News

VCDL Update 2/2/15

VA-ALERT is a project of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
(VCDL). VCDL is an all-volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization
dedicated to defending the human rights of all Virginians. The Right to
Keep and Bear Arms is a fundamental human right.

VCDL web page: []

  1. Cops cuff, detain man for having legal guns
  2. Gun offenders not a top deportation priority
  3. Letter on SIG brace calls into question legality of shoulder firing
  4. ‘No Control’ documentary explores layered absurdity of gun control debate
  5. We don’t all need to be Rambo – enemy at the gates
  6. The link between community mobbing and mass shootings
  7. Ending the .22LR ammo shortage
  8. Guidance for reducing access to lethal means through storage
  9. Trio of armed thugs get a surprise
  10. Harris Teeter to MDA bullies: Whatever
  11. The New York Times’ war on gun-owning rape victims
  12. [IN] Concealed carrier who shot criminal fears for their life [VIDEO]
  13. [OR] The numbers are in. Another embarrassment.
  14. Russians can now carry guns for ‘self-defense’

1. Cops cuff, detain man for having legal guns

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


‘Possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested without ever having committed a crime’
by Bob Unruh
November 15, 2014

A court case is developing in Virginia after a man was ordered at gunpoint to the ground, handcuffed, taken to a police station and detained – all for carrying two guns he owns.


A complaint has been filed in U.S. District Court in Richmond on behalf of Brandon Howard over “the unlawful arrest and detention” in violation of the First, Second, Fourth and 14th Amendments.

Howard was protesting Barack Obama’s presidency, calling for his impeachment, while legally carrying two guns, according to the complaint filed by the Rutherford Institute.

Hopewell, Virginia, officers surrounded him, ordered him to the ground, handcuffed him and took him to jail.

All for activities that are legal, according to his attorneys.

“The U.S. government has unfortunately adopted a ‘do what I say, not what I do’ mindset when it comes to Americans’ rights overall,”said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute and author of “A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State.”

“Nowhere is this double standard more evident than in the government’s attempts to arm itself to the teeth, all the while viewing as suspect anyone who dares to legally own a gun, let alone use one,” he said.

“Indeed, as this case shows, while it still technically remains legal to own a firearm in America, possessing one can now get you pulled over, searched, arrested, subjected to all manner of surveillance, treated as a suspect without ever having committed a crime, shot at and killed. This same rule does not apply to law enforcement officials, however, who are armed to the hilt and rarely given more than a slap on the wrist for using their weapons against unarmed individuals,” Whitehead said.

It was Aug. 26, 2013, when Howard arrived at an overpass above Interstate 295 in Hopewell, Rutherford said. He displayed a sign that read “Impeach Obama.”

He was legally carrying an AR-15 rifle over his shoulder and a pistol in a holster.

“Howard lawfully owned each firearm and did not point or brandish them at any time while engaged in his First Amendment protest activity on the overpass,” the organization reported.

After a short time, “a police officer pulled up to the area, remained in his car and observed Howard.”

“Thereafter, three to five additional police cruisers arrived at the scene with emergency lights engaged. Approximately eight officers exited these vehicles with their guns drawn and ordered Howard to drop his sign and get on the ground with his hands spread above his head. Howard complied with the officers’ orders,” the institute reported.

“Despite the fact that Howard at no time made any threatening action toward the officers or anyone else, one police officer allegedly asked Howard, ‘What do you think you are doing threatening people on my interstate?’ Howard explained that he had not threatened anyone but was simply exercising his First and Second amendment rights.”

The reply apparently prompted the handcuffs and trip to jail.

The lawsuit seeks nominal, compensatory and punitive damages because, for one thing, the department later admitted that one of the officers violated department policy and would be disciplined and sent to remedial training.

2. Gun offenders not a top deportation priority

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


Drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug and gun offenders not top deportation priorities
by Byron York
November 22, 2014

The Department of Homeland Security has just released new “Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants.” Designed to fill in the details after President Obama’s announcement that at least four million currently illegal immigrants will be given work permits, Social Security numbers and protection from deportation, the DHS guidelines are instructions for the nation’s immigration and border security officers as they administer the president’s directive.

The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.

In the memo, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson says his department must develop “smart enforcement priorities” to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in order to best use his agency’s limited resources. Johnson establishes three enforcement priority levels to guide DHS officers as they decide whether to stop, hold, or prosecute an illegal immigrant.

Priority One is the “highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed,” the memo says. The category includes “aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security.” It also includes “aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States.” In addition, any illegal immigrant convicted of an offense involving a criminal street gang, or convicted of a felony — provided that immigration status was not an “essential element” of the charge — is targeted. Finally, any illegal immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony is included in Priority One.

The guidelines say Priority One aliens “must be prioritized” for deportation unless they qualify for asylum or unless there are “compelling and exceptional” factors that indicate the alien is not a threat.

Priority Two offenders, whose cases are less urgent than criminals in Priority One, include the following:

aliens convicted of a “significant misdemeanor,” which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence)

DHS further defines a “significant misdemeanor” as an offense for which the maximum term of imprisonment is one year or less, but greater than five days. In addition, the guidelines contain a possible out for illegal immigrants accused of domestic abuse. “Careful consideration should be given to whether the convicted alien was also the victim of domestic violence,” the guidelines say. “If so, this should be a mitigating factor.”

Priority Two also includes “aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic offenses or state or local offenses for which an essential element was the alien’s immigration status.” But there’s an important footnote to that. The three offenses must arise out of three separate incidents. If an illegal immigrant committed a single act that resulted in multiple misdemeanor charges, it would count as one charge for DHS counting purposes.

The guidelines say Priority Two aliens “should” be removed — not “must,” as with Priority One — unless they qualify for asylum or there are “factors” indicating the alien is not a threat. It’s a significantly lower standard than Priority One.

Finally, Priority Three includes those who have simply violated the nation’s immigration laws seriously enough to have been issued a final order of removal. The DHS memo describes them as the “lowest priority for apprehension and removal.” They can be allowed to stay not only if they qualify for asylum but also if, “in the judgment of an immigration officer, the alien is not a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or there are factors suggesting the alien should not be an enforcement priority.” In practice, that could prove a remarkably lenient standard.

So there they are: the rules that will guide implementation of President Obama’s new “prosecutorial discretion” policy. Illegal immigrants who are also terrorists are clearly a top priority, as they should be. Illegal immigrants who are drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders — not so much. In addition, an illegal immigrant can run up a significant number of misdemeanor convictions — not arrests, not charges, but convictions — and still fall short qualifying for deportation. The president’s new policies will likely make a number of illegal immigrants who are also criminals very happy.

3. Letter on SIG brace calls into question legality of shoulder firing

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


BREAKING: Recent ATF Letter on SIG Brace Calls Into Question Legality of Shoulder Firing
by Dan Cannon
November 19, 2014

A new letter issued by the ATF to a custom shotgun shop could signal a change in the way the SIG Brace is being treated by the ATF.

According to the letter, addressed to Black Aces Tactical, a custom shotgun shop, it appears to call into question the act of shouldering a firearm equipped with the brace.

The letter in question was specifically regarding a shotgun with an overall length greater than 26″ with a vertical grip attached as far as I can tell, so it’s not as if this letter negates the previously letter as best as I can tell.

Here is the letter, originally posted from (view link to see letter)

The ATF has previously ruled that the use of a vertical foregrip on a firearm that is over 26″ in length is legal as the firearm is no longer considered a pistol at that point. See the Franklin Armory XO-26 Approval Letter.

Here is the ATF approval letter to that made a splash earlier this year that declared it was legal to shoulder an AR-15 pistol equipped with the SIG Brace: (view link to see response)

It does seem like the ATF may have an issue with shoulder firing a 26″+ firearm equipped with both a VFG and a SIG Brace, something that has become very popular when you combine the brace and VFG decisions.

This is the first time the ATF has implied that the way you use a firearm influences its legality. Now, keep in mind, this letter only applies to the specific shotgun asked about in this letter.

4. ‘No Control’ documentary explores layered absurdity of gun control debate

A lot to give a logical person a headache in the trailer for this documentary alone.  Implying that we haven’t tried “gun control” is pure baloney.  We have 20,000 gun laws on the books and none if it makes any difference to criminals.

We’ve tried gun control, lots of it, and it doesn’t work.

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


‘No Control’ Documentary Explores Layered Absurdity Of The Gun Control Debate
by James Thilman
November 14, 2014

In “No Control,” an arresting documentary debuting at DOC NYC, director Jessica Solce aims her camera at a contentious debate roaring in America. Solce explores the murky waters of gun rights, giving voice to advocates from both sides.

“‘No Control’ is about carving out a moment to listen to all ideas, ideas that we’d never encounter,” Solce explained to The Huffington Post. “It’s about providing a place to step outside our immediate environment and thought circles.”

On one side, Shaina Harrison, director of youth programming for New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, dismantles the argument that gun control laws only serve to inconvenience law-abiding gun owners.

“All illegal guns were once legal,” she said. “We already know that these guns are coming from states where they have very lax gun laws and are coming down this iron pipeline and being littered upon these communities that can’t afford the violence.”

A staunch advocate of background checks, she’s seeking accountability amongst legal firearm owners. “When those guns end up on 125th Street in Harlem, guess what? Now [they] have to explain how those guns got from [them] to Harlem. Somebody’s accountable,” Harrison said.

On another side, Solce’s interviews with Cody Wilson, who is working to make 3D-printed semi-automatic weapons readily available to the general public, provide some of the most provocative footage, punctuated by gunfire on a range in the background. Wilson, director of Defense Distributed and self-described crypto-anarchist, would like you to be able to create guns in your living room with ease.

“Everything has the capacity for abuse,” he said, citing the public’s “massive intolerance” of risk. “If I represent any kind of danger, it’s just in thought practice.”

“What I want is to participate in this ongoing debate by highlighting the grayness of it, by providing fair portraits and therefore showing that this isn’t about a homogenized rant,” said Solce. “Where’s this grayness and what do we need to listen to in order to close the door on this debate, if that’s even possible.”

Threaded neatly throughout the film, the development of graphic artist Greg Boker’s installation “Erase” examines a unique approach to the gun control debate. His 20-foot pencil drawing of an AR-15 rifle gave viewers an opportunity to destroy the work using erasers stamped with the name of a gun-violence victim. “I drew it to be erased,” said Boker. “To me, the finished piece is an erased drawing.”

“Nobody wants death. Nobody,” said Solce, in an attempt to find common ground. “If we’re all fighting against violence, what does that mean? I don’t think the movie is meant to provide an answer, but to ask more questions and create an open framework for debate.”

In an exclusive clip from the documentary, Victor Head, a plumber who helped to spearhead the recall of Colorado Sens. Angela Giron and John Morse, explains what he sees as the arbitrary serial number requirements for firearms: (video clip)

5. We don’t all need to be Rambo – enemy at the gates


We Don’t All Need To Be Rambo – Enemy At The Gates (permalink)
by Claire Wolfe
in the October 2014 issue

I own guns. I’ve had some decent training, but it was a while back. I don’t practice frequently. When I do, it tends to be with a favored few firearms. I haven’t rehearsed clearing a room or firing while “moving in a highly dynamic manner” in ages. Nor do I regularly practice things like shooting with partially obscured vision or slippery hands.

According to certain persons (self-styled experts), this makes me an “irresponsible and incompetent” gun owner.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m not opposed to great training or steady practice. On the contrary. If you have the time, money, need or inclination to train like a pro (and given that we’re meeting here in S.W.A.T. Magazine, there’s a good chance you do), more power to you. We need people like you.

What we don’t need are so-called experts who set the bar so high that they discourage decent, responsible people from possessing guns. One such bloviator recently wrote, “Get professional training. Then get more professional training. And do it again. Practice on your own. Every week. With each of your weapons. If you’re not going to train with your guns, don’t buy guns for self defense.”

Don’t buy firearms for self defense. Period. Do as he says or you’re too “irresponsible and incompetent” to own firearms.

Yet nearly every gun owner I know is more like me than Mr. Operator up there. We received elementary training (or more). We religiously observe safety procedures. We practice a few times a year. We clean and check our firearms periodically. We rarely slip into Condition White unless we’re asleep. But mostly, our guns remain tucked away. We may lack prowess, but we’re hardly menaces to ourselves or society.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an increasing trend to assume that every gun owner needs to be trained like a Navy SEAL or a member of Delta Force. It’s great that such options exist, but it’s terrible if elitism (and after all, those are by definition elite groups) scares ordinary people away.

My friend and sometime co-writer, Joel Simon, answers these “experts” in an article titled Thank You, Rambo:

“If you’re interested in self-defense with a firearm, it definitely isn’t enough to just go out and buy a gun. A basic familiarization course won’t give you any level of justified confidence in your ability to defend yourself with the weapon. Sometimes you can do it yourself and sometimes you need professional help, but you should train. No argument there.”

Nope. No argument. But….

Joel continues, “It’s all very well to be a trained operator, operating operationally in an operational area. Aggressive dominance of any potential battlespace. And all that…. Sure. Whatever.

“When I was young and single, I would have pumped my fist and yelled ‘Amen!’ I did all that stuff. I got professional training, and then I got more professional training. I practiced several times weekly. I competed with battle rifle and handgun. It was easy then—I was young and strong and undistracted. It was what I did. It was pretty much all I did. If I do say so myself, I was pretty hot stuff for a while.

“Then I got married. Got serious about a career. Got a kid, got a mortgage. Got a lot more things to spend money and time on than gear and travel and classes. Had I suggested I spend my vacation time and hundreds or thousands of dollars on a shooting class … well,

I didn’t make any such suggestion, so I don’t know what would have happened.

“Did I then become unworthy to carry a gun for self-defense?”

Joel admits his proficiency with firearms promptly went down the tubes. And now, with worsening eyesight, he’s probably even less proficient for reasons beyond his control.

But incompetent? Irresponsible? Unworthy? I’d trust my safety to Joel (who frequently needs to dispatch varmints around his desert lair) over some theoretically brilliant “operator” who’s never had to make real-world decisions.

I’ve personally seen Joel put the fear of … well, fear of heavily armed desert hermits … into strangers who are where they ought not to be, doing what they ought not to do. And every time, he’s done it simply by being his polite, well-armed self. He hasn’t even needed to draw a weapon, let alone “move in a highly dynamic manner” (something a 60-year-old guy with one leg isn’t likely to be great at).

Again, don’t think that I (or Joel) would ever say that training and practice aren’t good things. Obviously, the world is dangerous and unpredictable. At some time, any one of us might need to move like the dickens while shooting or being shot at. Someday any of us might need to keep our presence of mind while blood is running into our eyes or making that gun in our hands as slippery as a greased carnival pig.

Yes, our lives could one day depend on knowing the difference between concealment and cover. At such a moment, we might desperately wish we’d built up good habits and better muscle memory.

For an average, cautious person who is not a cop or soldier and who doesn’t go seeking (or carelessly stumbling into) trouble, the chance of such an adrenaline-soaked moment is probably greater than the chance of being struck by lightning. But how much greater?

Great enough that millions of us must devote a significant portion of our lives and budgets preparing for the possibility—or be entirely unfit to bear arms? Sorry, that’s just a way (whether the “expert” intends it or not) of discouraging ordinary people from buying guns and learning the basics of safety and self-defense.

There’s a video online, taken from surveillance tapes, of a pair of thugs thundering into an Internet cafe in Florida. One wields a gun, the other a bat with which he proceeds to smash a computer. Though the video is silent, you can see from the reactions of the customers that the thugs are barking orders and scaring the bejabbers out of everybody present.

Except for one fat old guy, 71 years old, out of shape, and clearly not thinking “operationally.” Nope. That old guy, Samuel Williams, just charges straight at those criminal invaders, handgun extended in two thick paws. He blasts away at the younger, stronger, bigger men as they panic, stumble, skid—and get out of there as quickly as they can scamper. (He wounded both and they were later arrested.)

You could make a long, long list of what Samuel Williams didn’t know—or knew but forgot to do because he hadn’t practiced enough. But he won. Decisively.

Could he have gotten himself killed? Of course. “Operators” can die too. But as Joel noted, “He had aggressiveness and audacity, a willingness to attack, to bring the fight to the bad guys. They weren’t there to fight and die: All they had in mind was fleecing some helpless sheep. Suddenly they found themselves in a gunfight, and it freaked them right the hell out.”

Yet according to some, that clumsy old hero was unfit to be a gun owner. Therefore, he should have just stood by and allowed himself and the other innocents in the place to be robbed. Or even killed if that’s what the thugs chose to do. He and millions more like him—just because they don’t spend every Saturday practicing El Presidente drills.

Some of the elitists who’d rather see us dead than armed hang out with Michael Bloomberg and his gun-banning mayors and “Moms.” Others, so it appears, write gun blogs and promote elite firearms training.

6. The link between community mobbing and mass shootings

Member Rich Norwood emailed me this:


The Link Between Community Mobbing and Mass Shootings
April 10, 2013

This website is dedicated to analyzing WHY there has been a dramatic rise in rampage murders on the college campus, in the workplace, and elsewhere.

While the scope of the problem has been identified by the mainstream media, its analysis is largely superficial:

“Of the 12 deadliest shootings in U.S. history, six have taken place since 2007…David Brooks highlighted this discrepancy back in July. For much of the 20th century there were, on average, a handful of mass killings per decade. But that number spiked in 1980, and kept rising thereafter. This has happened even as the nation’s overall violent crime and homicide rates have been dropping.”

The NYPD Active Shooter Manual found 271 active shooter cases between 1966 and December 21, 2012. The NYPD study reveals that more than half, or 153 of the active shooter events, happened since 2000. See page 9, Table C and page 11, Table D of the NYPD Active Shooter Manual linked below:

“Most of the people who go postal, however, in academic as in other workplaces, have been mobbed there in preceding months or years.”-Dr. Kenneth Westhues

The mobbing which Dr. Westhues has described has found its way to our communities and can be linked to the dramatic increase in mass shootings.  Dr. Westhues confirms this fact in his communications with Keith Labella, Esq., as recounted below.

Dr. Kenneth Westhues on Mobbing and Mass Shootings
Doctor Kenneth Westhues, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Waterloo in Canada, is also a notable author, published in over a dozen languages.  Westhues has written numerous books and articles on the subject of workplace and academic mobbing. He has proven a direct link between mobbing and mass shootings.

From Wikipedia:

Mobbing in the context of human beings means bullying of an individual by a group in any context, such as a family, school, workplace, neighborhood, or community.

When it occurs as emotional abuse in the workplace, such as “ganging up” by co-workers, subordinates or superiors, to force someone out of the workplace through rumor, innuendo, intimidation, humiliation, discrediting, and isolation, it is also referred to as malicious, nonsexual, nonracial, general harassment.

In the following email correspondence with a licensed attorney from New York, Dr. Westhues clearly states his opinion that community mobbing (also known as gang stalking) is responsible, in his opinion, for about ONE-THIRD, or HALF, of all mass shootings!

Mobbing represents a significant public health and safety risk, and is currently being systematically ignored by our elected officials, law enforcement, and the media.

Email Exchanges between Dr. Westhues and Keith Labella, Esq.

In the following series of email exchanges between Dr. Westhues and Keith Labella, Esq., Westhues specifically acknowledges his awareness of gang stalking. Westhues also opines that Christopher Dorner was likely a victim of mobbing. Here are the Westhues’ emails relating to community mobbing a.k.a. gang stalking:

Please note that in each of the following four email exchanges, Dr. Westhues’ response is first, followed by Keith Labella, Esq.’s initiating e-mail.

First e-mail exchange:

—–Original Message—–
From: Kenneth Westhues <[email protected]>
To: Keith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sun, Jan 6, 2013 5:48 pm
Subject: RE: Mobbing and Mass Shootings

Dear Mr. Labella: Thank you for your email. I appreciate your
encouragement in the research on mobbing. I believe the evidence
supports your contention of a link between mobbing (whether in
workplace, community, church, or wherever else) and rampage murders —
not in all cases of such violent outbursts, so far as I can see, but in
maybe a third or a half of cases. And, of course, it is only in a tiny
minority of mobbing cases that the target lashes back violently. I plan
to write more about this link as soon as I find time, and I’m grateful
to be prodded toward that end by your email. All the best in the new
year. Respect and regards, Kenneth Westhues
From: Keith [[email protected]]
Sent: 05 January 2013 10:51
To: Kenneth Westhues
Subject: Mobbing and Mass Shootings

I have read some of the work that you and your colleagues have
written exposing the nexus between community mobbing and rampage
shootings. I wonder why, given the quality of the work exposing this
link, you and your colleagues have not made a media statement regarding
the alarming increase in violent mass shootings. It seems that some of
your books are being priced out of the market in the U.S. I also
understand that the media is largely controlled, and, that it is no
accident that the causal connection between mobbing and violence is
being “missed” by the MSM. However, you could comment about the trend
on your webpage, and, also publish an open letter about it. Sandy Hook
captured the attention of the U.S. and the world. I believe that your
work is too important for you not to weigh in promptly on these events.
You would be deserving of a Nobel Prize if the attention you brought to
the issue stopped one future massacre.


Keith S. Labella, Esq. (licensed in New York).

Second Exchange:

—–Original Message—–
From: Kenneth Westhues <[email protected]>
To: Keith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tue, Jan 15, 2013 8:47 pm
Subject: RE:

Mr. Labella: Yes, I did have a chance to look at several of the links,
and I thank you for sending them to me. I’m hoping to write something
about gang stalking in the next few weeks, and I’ll plan to send it to
you if and when I get it done. With best wishes, Ken Westhues
From: Keith [[email protected]]
Sent: 15 January 2013 09:28
To: Kenneth Westhues
Cc: Kenneth Westhues

Did you get a chance to look at any of the links I sent to you? Do
you have any impressions or opinions about community-based harassment
networks a.k.a. gang stalking?

Thanks again,

Keith Labella

Third Exchange:

—–Original Message—–
From: Kenneth Westhues <[email protected]>
To: Keith <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 8:48 pm
Subject: RE:

Mr. Labella: I appreciate your drawing this news to my attention. I’ve
now read Dorner’s manifesto, as well as the report of the house
tribunal that adjudicated his complaint against his fellow officer. To
judge by his account of the tribunal, this would indeed appear to be a
case of workplace mobbing, or more specifically, administrative
mobbing, and one of those very rare cases in which the target
retaliates violently. Dorner is an obviously bright and perceptive
fellow, and much of his manifesto is compelling. On the other hand, as
Dorner admits, and as his murderous intentions and alleged actual
murders demonstrate, he is a deeply disturbed person. However bright he
is, he is obviously not thinking straight: killing innocent people is
not a way to recover one’s good name. Hence I’m not willing, without
further investigation and review of evidence, to take Dorner’s word for
what happened to him in the LAPD, or to call it a case of mobbing. He
urges journalists to investigate, and I hope some first-rate
journalists will do exactly that. This is for sure a tragedy. Let’s
hope he is caught before he kills still more people. With every good
wish, Kenneth Westhues
From: Keith [[email protected]]
Sent: 07 February 2013 15:57
To: Kenneth Westhues
Cc: Kenneth Westhues

A former LA police officer, who also held a Top Secret Security
Clearance in the Naval reserve, has gone postal. He has killed several
officers in separate, ambush attacks, and, is now on the loose. His
Manifesto, linked below, spells out programmatic workplace mobbing.
This seems to be a textbook case based on your own case studies and
mobbing checklist:

Link to the Dorner Manifesto:

Fourth Exchange:

—–Original Message—–
From: Kenneth Westhues <[email protected]>
To: Keith <[email protected]>
Sent: Fri, Feb 8, 2013 9:22 pm
Subject: RE: RE:

Yes, thanks, as soon as I get to it. I put a little piece of writing on
my website (like this one:, it gets tens
of thousands of hits, and I spend the next two weeks answering emails
in response to it. With every good wish.
From: Keith [[email protected]]
Sent: 08 February 2013 10:07
To: Kenneth Westhues
Subject: RE:

Thanks for taking the time to write me back. As you and Amelia
Howard have pointed out, there is never an excuse for retaliatory
violence in cases of mobbing. I agree with this wholeheartedly.
However, even without justification, there can be an explanation for
the victim lashing back. If Dorner’s claims of mobbing are validated,
and, I suspect that a thorough and independent investigation will
validate many of them, then he would be another mobbing victim gone
postal. Similar to Cho, and other cases that have been studied, there
is clearly indicia of psychological pathology as relates to the
shooter. This does not, in my opinion, repudiate the fact that mobbing
is a toxic societal issue and represents a type of group pathology.

p.s.   Are you still planning to write something on the subject of
gang stalking?

End of e-mail exchanges

Dr. Kenneth Westhues on the tragedy at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007:


by Kenneth Westhues, Professor of Sociology, University of Waterloo

November 2007

On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, a fourth-year student in the English Department at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, murdered 32 professors and students and injured a further 25, then took his own life. This webpage points toward an explanation of the tragedy.


A common way mobbings play out is that one or a handful of voluntary participants, who typically have strong feelings about the target, call down on the target a debilitating bureaucracy, an organized array of social-control specialists who take aggressive action not from ill-will or deep conviction, but as routine performance of their job responsibilities. This was very much the case in the mobbing of Cho in the student residence, which compounded the effect of the mobbing in Cho’s home department.

From information that has so far come to light, Cho appears to have been the target of an uncommon but distinct and devastating social process called workplace mobbing. It is the impassioned ganging up of managers and/or peers against a targeted worker, the object being the target’s absolute humiliation and elimination from respectable company. It is a matter of turning a person who is different or troublesome into a nonperson, rubbing his or her nose in dirt. For more on this workplace pathology, click here or here.

Mobbing… rarely results in the target going postal: that is, retaliating in a violent rampage, openly and indiscriminately murdering co-workers (sometimes singling out specific mobbers), then committing suicide or being killed or captured by police. Most mobbing targets simply quit their jobs. Others become chronically ill or depressed. Some commit suicide. Some knuckle under. Only a tiny fraction lash back.

Nor do all workers who go postal have a history of being mobbed at work. Charles Whitman gunned down 45 people at the University of Texas on August 1, 1966, before police shot and killed him. Kimveer Gill killed or injured 20 people at Dawson College in Montreal on September 13, 2006, before taking his own life. Neither Whitman nor Gill had been mobbed on the campuses they shot up. Their crimes have other origins.

Most of the people who go postal, however, in academic as in other workplaces, have been mobbed there in preceding months or years.

An adequate explanation of the Virginia Tech massacre requires becoming conscious of the scapegoating mechanism, transcending it, and then calmly picking through all relevant evidence, toward a factual, reasoned account of what happened and why. It requires accepting the awful truth of what John Donne wrote, that no man is an island, that every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main, that every man’s death diminishes me.

This does not mean trying to excuse Cho’s inexcusable crimes. Nor does it mean trying to shift blame and scapegoat somebody else. It means trying to get at the truth of what happened: empirical identification of the sequence of events, what led to what. Sound scientific explanation honors those who wrongly and unnecessarily lost their lives or suffered injury at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, and gives promise of preventing repetition of the tragedy.

7. Ending the .22LR ammo shortage

Member Walter Jackson emailed me this:


Ending the .22LR Ammo Shortage
by Frank Melloni
November 17, 2014

My fellow shooters,

Quite often, our students ask, “How long will the .22LR ammo shortage last?” and our answer is always, “Well, that’s up to us.”

Now, before I go ahead and say what I am about to say, might I remind you these are only suggestions. Each shooter has their own individual ammo needs.

We don’t claim to be any sort of “moral authority,” but merely wish to do our part in ending a hopeless situation.

So, without further ado, here is some information that we hope will shine some light onto how much .22LR you REALLY need to keep on hand and some of the pitfalls of stockpiling it.

Many of us are in “See it, BUY IT!” mode when it comes to .22LR. I won’t deny that I was guilty of this myself. After spending a large amount of cash on .22LR when I found a supply of it locally (with cash I didn’t have, mind you), I asked myself that very question — “Frank, did you really need to make that purchase?”

Now, before I go any further, please let me explain…I don’t have any sort of “rock star” status in the ammo industry. I don’t get special treatment or priority supply — neither myself nor Renaissance. I have to wait in line, just like everyone else, and I have to buy ammo for EVERY student!

So, let me share the company’s volume with you and give you some examples that I hope will represent the average shooters annual .22LR ammo consumption.

Adding up our last 10 rifle classes, we had a total of just about 190 students. During that period, yours truly also got some quality trigger time on the company supply (good to be the boss).

Each class had a three hour range session where we supplied each shooter with ammo.

For all those classes, we used a total of  23 bricks of ammo (or around 12,000 rounds), and that was for a course of fire that included sighting in, eight rifles for each class. Thinking back to our first experiences, we all know how much ammo it takes a first time shooter to do that!

Looking at our students’ shooting habits, I would say they’re pretty average. Most of us spend right around three hours in a session, right?

So, if we use that as a model, here’s what an average shooter goes through annually:

23 bricks…if you get to the range 190 times a year!

12 bricks if you get to the range 90 times a year — that’s just about every Saturday and Sunday.

6 bricks if you religiously go every weekend for just one day.

3 bricks if you get there every other Saturday.

If you are like the rest of us, which includes “Mr. Top Shot” himself, a lowly shooter who, with the balance of work, life and travel, only gets to the range once a month to plink…it comes down to just 1-2 bricks a year.

Now, if you are the type who is grabbing all they can, I ask you — look at the stack of ammo you have piled up in your basement (which is a horrible place for it, by the way) and do the math. How long will it take you to get through all of it?

Do you really believe you won’t find 2-6 bricks of ammo to hold you over in that amount of time?

Write today’s date on your next five bricks of ammo…notice when you get to them.

If we (gun owners) don’t stop the chaos, prices will just continue to rise. If we don’t stop scooping every scrap of .22LR, then shortages of 9mm and .223 will continue because manufactures will be too busy making .22LR (that we don’t really need) to make centerfire calibers.

Now, I know, I know…what about the zombies, or if North Korea or China invade, or if England comes for their back taxes?…

Anybody planning to “fend off [insert threat here],” please be reminded that you cannot fit enough ammo in your house to keep off an army. If we are invaded, we will be relying on guerrilla tactics and most likely scoped rifles — think Stalingrad WWII. Nobody’s going to storm a squad with a laser max 10/22.

Ammo is heavy, and you need food, fuel, shelter and clothing as well in your vehicle, which means the majority of your 100K+ rounds will not only have to be left behind, but it will more than likely fall into to enemy hands.

Keeping all that .22 in your basement is interfering with training new shooters. Many of them are children who we need to keep our heritage and gun rights for future generations!

In closing (and this is my opinion), we’ll ever feel like we have enough 22LR ammo as long as there’s never any on the shelves. We never worried about having five or ten years worth of .22 when you could get it anytime and anywhere, right?

Let’s each do our part and buy responsibly; Because, the truth is, WE decide when the shortage will end.

Keep it in the x-ring.

8. Guidance for reducing access to lethal means through storage

Member Josh Kellogg emailed me this:


9. Trio of armed thugs get a surprise


Trio of Armed Thugs Tied Up Man and His Wife, Then Momentarily Left Them Unattended. When They Returned, There Was a Surprise Waiting.
by Jason Howerton
November 21, 2014

A man and his wife were reportedly attacked and tied up by a trio of home intruders who forced their way into the couple’s Lakewood, Washington, home on Tuesday. The horrifying incident left one of the intruders dead and the others running for their lives, according to police.

The 66-year-old wife was reportedly in the bath when three men knocked on the door. When the husband, 62, answered the door, he quickly realized he didn’t know them and tried to close the door. Unfortunately, the men — armed with a gun and knife — overpowered him and entered the home.

The thugs beat the man severely, leaving him needing stitches, and cut his wife’s hand, according to court documents obtained by the News Tribune. The men then allegedly tied up the couple and searched the house for valuable items to steal. At one point, they momentarily left the house — and it turned out to be a huge mistake.

During the brief time that the men were outside, the husband was apparently able to free himself, untie his wife and relocate to their bedroom. They locked the door and the man retrieved his firearm from a lock box and aimed it at the door.

When the suspects returned and busted through the door, the husband opened fire. Police believe the man fatally hit one of the robbers. Police later identified the deceased suspect as 19-year-old Taijon Voorhees. All three of the men ran out of the house in fear.

Police later arrested Duprea Wilson, 19, in connection to the robbery, which he reportedly told others had “gone wrong.” The suspects may have broke into the wrong house looking for drugs and money, according to investigators.

Wilson was later charged with 12 felonies, including first-degree manslaughter, robbery, kidnapping and assault.

10. Harris Teeter to MDA bullies: Whatever

Kroger (who owns Harris Teeter) continues to stand up to the bullying from Moms Demand Action.


Harris Teeter To Moms Demand Bullies: Whatever
by Bob Owens
November 20, 2014

Apparently flummoxed by their inability to bully grocery giant Kroger into passing a corporate policies more restrictive than local, state, and federal gun laws, gun prohibitionist group Moms Demand Action has apparently shifted focus to a smaller regional target, Harris Teeter.

The less-than-a-handful of activists—described as MDA Advocacy Lead Christy Clark and “several” others—received a cool response.

Harris Teeter said it doesn’t plan to change its policies, which permit open-carry in states where it’s legal. In North Carolina, gun owners can openly carry firearms in most public places. A permit is required to carry a concealed gun.

“We have and will continue to adhere to the firearms and concealed handgun laws as outlined by the states in which we do business,” said spokeswoman Danna Jones, in an email. “We believe this issue is best handled by lawmakers, not retailers.”

Jones said the company’s policy was the same before its acquisition by Kroger. The grocery conglomerate also has a policy of allowing openly carried guns in places where it is legal. Harris Teeter operates about 200 stores, most of them in North Carolina.

It appears that the three dour Moms Demand “protesters”—probably all Bloomberg-paid employees–weren’t very impressive to Harris Teeter, and open carry is generally a non-issue in North Carolina anyway. Most gun owners in NC conceal carry by choice, and I’ve seen open carriers precisely twice despite a lifetime spent mostly in the state.

The protest seems to be little more than an attempt by Moms Demand to remain in the news, and you can rest assured that the only reason that the Charlotte Observer was there to cover the “event” was that Moms Demand themselves called them.

Hardly anyone else in the parking lot even noticed they were there.

11. The New York Times’ war on gun-owning rape victims


The New York Times’ War on Gun-Owning Rape Victims
by Michelle Malkin
October 31, 2014

Nasty New York Times editorial writer David Firestone pretends to care about campaign scare-mongering. But what he and his elitist ilk really fear are independent-thinking women who have dared to exercise their First Amendment powers to defend their Second Amendment rights.

This week, Firestone took aim at “attack ads” sponsored by the National Rifle Association. The “worst commercial,” he says, “features a rape victim describing her assault and accusing” former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg “of wanting to take away her right to defend herself.”

That rape victim has a name and a story Firestone couldn’t even bother to mention. She is Kimberly Weeks, a brave and fierce Colorado woman who testified against the Bloomberg-backed gun-control measures that beleaguered Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper now admits he passed “without basic facts” and concedes were ineffective from the get-go.

Weeks was brutally raped as a college junior at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley. As she recounted last year, “I will never know if I would have been able to stop my rape if I had owned a firearm. I can tell you that any fear I had of guns evaporated as soon as I got a second chance at living my life. Had I been armed, I very well could have changed my circumstances and possibly prevented another attack on myself or the next victim.”

Firestone dismissed Weeks’ response to Bloomberg’s gun-grabbing efforts by asserting that “the former mayor is not trying to take away anyone’s legal handgun, and neither is any Democrat.” Never mind that Colorado Democrats, goaded by Bloomberg and lobbied by Vice President Joe Biden, were contemplating a radical ban on concealed carry on college campuses.

Victims of sexual assault in Colorado were snubbed by Democratic state legislators, Weeks reminded voters. She is speaking out to prevent other rape victims and rape targets from being disarmed and dismissed Another rape victim and pro-concealed carry advocate, Amanda Collins, faced similar hostile treatment from Colorado Democrats when she protested draconian gun-control laws that undermined women’s self-defense autonomy.

“I just want to say, statistics are not on your side, even if you had had a gun. … Chances are that if you had had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you,” former Democratic state Sen. Evie Hudak lectured Collins. But as I’ve reported previously, even the liberal Denver Post pointed out that the old statistics Hudak cited from a liberal anti-gun group applied only to women with guns who were attacked by “intimate acquaintances,” not strangers, as was the case with Collins.

But let’s not let facts get in the way of a liberal New York Times writer’s hysterical anti-hysteria diatribe.

While Firestone pronounces Weeks’ ads as the “worst” example of the “use of fear,” abortion rights group NARAL is running election ads telling Colorado women that Republicans are going to take away all their condoms. Harry Reid’s super PAC is accusing North Carolina GOP Senate candidate Thom Tillis of causing “the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.” And the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has poured $2.5 million into scare-mongering ads in Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Louisiana and New Hampshire telling elderly voters that Republicans are going to strip them of their Social Security and Medicare.

When victims embrace liberal orthodoxies, they’re heroes and absolute moral authorities in the eyes of The New York Times editorial board.

When victims become survivors who reject the Nanny State, they’re liars, ideologues and pot-stirrers who deserve to be sneered at from the rarefied offices of the Fishwrap of Record.

The Times has spilled barrels and barrels of ink decrying the campus rape epidemic. Its opinion writers and reporters call for more money for sexual assault prevention, more government programs and more respect for rape victims. But when a rape victim advocates armed self-defense, where’s the crusading New York Times?

Catcalling courageous armed women like a Big Apple street bum. Shame on the smug rape-survivor shamers.

12. [IN] Concealed carrier who shot criminal fears for their life [VIDEO]

Memer Walter Jackson emailed me this:


[Video] Concealed Carrier Who Shot Career Criminal During Armed Robbery Now Fears For His Life
by Dan Cannon
November 19, 2014

Indianapolis, Indiana – Despite the fact that a concealed carrying pawn shop customer likely saved lives when he shot and killed a career criminal during an armed robbery this week, the man now says he fears for his life.

According to a local Fox affiliated television station:

Police say a person came into the business and showed a weapon. Multiple shots were fired. It is unclear if the suspect fired shots or just brandished his weapon. A witness claims both men fired shots.

[Witness Jeremy Stewart] said he was rounding the corner, about to go inside, when he saw a gun battle go down. Stewart told FOX59 Tyerre Allen and that customer exchanged shots, as others in the store searched for safety…

…When officers arrived, they found the suspect shot multiple times at the entrance of the business. He was pronounced dead by EMS crews on the scene.

The suspect was ID’d as Tyerre Allen, who was just released from prison after serving time for a previous robbery.

The customer, who likely won’t face any charges, is asking that their face and name be withheld from the media because they fear retaliation.

This is the 41st defensive gun use we’ve documented in the state of Indiana and the 1,347th defensive gun use we’ve documented overall.

This is also the second defensive gun use we’ve reported on out of Indianapolis this week.

13. [OR] The numbers are in. Another embarrassment.

We see this kind of result across the country.

Member Billy Huckleberry emailed me this:

So much for universal background checks.


The Numbers Are In. Another Embarrassment.

November 16, 2014 in Blog Post, OFF Alerts
embarrased monkey

We now have the Oregon State Police numbers for firearms purchase denials for Oct. 2014. Once again, they demonstrate what a colossal sham the entire process is.

While these numbers are repeatedly used by politicians and anti-gun groups to “prove” that background checks work, they prove exactly the opposite.

Of the 19, 901 background checks run by the Oregon State Police in October, 196 sales were “denied.” Wow, that’s 196 bad guys off the street. Maybe not.

Of the 196 desperadoes denied, a grand total of 5 were “arrested” or “taken into custody.”  Not a single one of the people who were denied because they were identified as felons or “otherwise prohibited” was arrested. Of those arrested we have no idea how many were actually charged with a crime.

8 people were denied for reasons of “mental health” but, as we have seen in the past, sometimes the police have no idea why these people have mental health holds.

Of those 8 the number taken into custody was…none. Now keep in mind, the entire reason Kitzhaber/Bloomberg is trying to force background checks on private transfers is to “keep guns out of the hands of criminal and the mentally ill.”

36 of the denials resulted in “Investigation Complete, No Action.”  So almost 20% of the denials were clearly against people who should not have been denied at all.

The State police claim that 13 % of the denials were for people who were “wanted.” So 26 people were “denied” a firearms transfer at that specific place and time. Of those a total of 4 were held by the cops. We don’t know for how long.

10% of the denials were because the police said the gun they were trying to buy was stolen. In over 68% of those denials, no action was taken. Only one person was taken into custody as a result of a “stolen” gun . Again, we have  no way of knowing if the person was ever charged with anything. So once again, we have  less than 3% of all denials taking anyone off the street even if only briefly.

This is the system Kitzhaber/Bloomberg is determined to extend to every firearm you want to lend or give to a friend or family member.

The system is stacked to deny firearms to people who are law-abiding while doing virtually nothing to criminals and the mentally ill.

Look for the universal gun registration push to be used as a way to “stop” domestic abusers. This too is a shameful scam. Prohibitions on “domestic abusers” are routinely used to harass people who have received no due process while doing nothing to protect the abused.

Of all the background checks we paid the state to run, less than 1% resulted in denials. Of those denials less than 3% resulted in any kind of arrest. That’s 0.025% And remember that means that more than 6 times every day one or more State Troopers were taken off the road, taken away from traffic accidents and crime fighting to waste their time investigating denials that served no purpose in almost every case.

The charade continues.

14. Russians can now carry guns for ‘self-defense’

Member Walid Boonprasit emailed me this:


Russians can now carry guns for ‘self-defense’
November 19, 2014

In an amendment to its tough gun control laws, the Russian government eases restrictions, allowing citizens to carry licensed weapons for the purposes of ‘self-defense.’

Until now Russian gun enthusiasts were only permitted to carry firearms for hunting or target shooting after obtaining a license through the Interior Ministry. Russian gun licenses are to be renewed every five years, and applicants face strict background checks and are required to take gun safety courses.

The addendum to the law now lists self-defense as a legally acceptable reason for carrying a weapon.

However, a 2011 Levada poll found that 81 percent of Russians opposed easing the existing gun regulations.

In spite of its restrictive gun laws, Russia has seen its share gun violence. In 2012, a 30 year old lawyer opened fire on his colleagues at a pharmaceutical company, killing six. Just last year, 15-year-old straight A student, Sergey Gordeyev, killed a teacher and a police officer after taking 29 students hostage.

The government’s press service underscored that carrying a weapon will remain prohibited at educational institutions, establishments which operate at night and serve alcohol, and mass public gatherings such as street demonstrations or protests. The legislation also forbids carrying a weapon while under the influence of alcohol.

The law broadly defines self-defense weapons, including smoothbore long barrelled guns, pistols, revolvers, and other firearms, as well as Tasers, and devices equipped with teargas. Long barrelled fire arms and edged weapons are, however, forbidden by the law.

In addition, the amendment softened requirements for foreigners bringing arms into the Russian Federation or purchasing arms on Russian territory. The grace period for foreigners awaiting a license from the Interior Ministry for firearms has been increased from 5 to 10 days.


About Tom White

Tom is a US Navy Veteran, owns an Insurance Agency and is currently an IT Manager for a Virginia Distributor. He has been published in American Thinker, currently writes for the Richmond Examiner as well as Virginia Right! Blog. Tom lives in Hanover County, Va and is involved in politics at every level and is a Recovering Republican who has finally had enough of the War on Conservatives in progress with the Leadership of the GOP on a National Level.

One Response to “VCDL Update 2/2/15”

  1. Dawn says:


    This is an incredible update. Thank you for the references, the deep analysis, and the work that you do to keep our rights safe.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Follow Us Anywhere!