State Censorship

Update: VT administration rejects Commission on Student Affairs' stance

Any effort to end Tech's contract with the Collegiate Times or its parent company, or to ban student organizations from advertising in the newspaper, "is not in the offing," [university spokesman Larry Hincker] said. "That is not the position of this administration."

Good.

----------

Virginia Tech is threatening to pull funding from the campus paper (the Collegiate Times, or "CT").

The dispute centers upon a CT policy that allows online readers to post anonymous comments at collegiatetimes.com. The [Commission on Student Affairs] and others who support its proposal have objected to reader postings they characterized as racist or otherwise offensive.

[...]

Despite its independence, the newspaper receives free office space and $70,000 annually from the university, Vice President for Student Affairs Ed Spencer said.

The commission would further seek to ban student organizations from using university funds to buy ads in the CT, the letter stated.

Such a move could cripple or shut down the newspaper, which derives the majority of its revenues from ad sales. The newspaper's leadership pushed back publicly Thursday.

Essentially, the university wants to ban all anonymous comments on the paper's website because of some "racist or otherwise offensive" postings (ignoring, of course, the question of just who decides what is racist or offensive). The company that owns the CT is standing its ground, and doing so rather aggressively at this point.

The commission has requested another meeting with CT representatives.

But in a response to [commission chairwoman Michelle McLeese], [Kelly Wolff, general manager of the Educational Media Company at Virginia Tech, which owns the CT] wrote: "We have advised the Collegiate Times staff to discontinue discussions with CSA members, individually and collectively, on the topic of online comments. ... This is no longer a dialogue; it is coercion.

"We will wait to hear what the commission says. ... But if they are going to pursue this course of action, then we will take legal action," Wolff said in an interview Thursday.

In a purely private enterprise, this would not be a problem - a sponsor can provide or withdraw funding, facilities, or services at will and for any reason (within the limits of existing contracts). Virginia Tech, however, is an agency of the state (which is why they can't ban firearms on campus for anyone other than employees and students, or for specific events).

Note the sentence that I put in bold in the first quote. This actually goes farther than the university just pulling funding and support, they're also seeking to restrict where student organizations (the Fencing Club, the LGBTA, etc.), would be allowed to advertise.

Should an agency of the state be allowed to dictate terms about content to a newspaper? Should they be allowed to restrict where student organizations advertise? Or does this become a First Amendment violation? My first instinct is that this goes to far, and is an unallowable government coercion of media, but I'm not 100% settled yet - I really haven't had time to give it good, thorough, consideration. Opinions?

Negligent, or accidental?

A little thought exercise, from a story in the Roanoke Times today: "Salem man wounds hunting partner":

A man closes the action on his double-barrel shotgun, and it discharges. The pellets ricochet off a nearby truck and strike his friend in the face and chest.

The way the story is written, the discharge appears to have been the result of a malfunction, not a Rule 3 violation (assuming the paper got the facts right - always a big caveat with the MSM). He (supposedly) knew it was loaded, so there was no Rule 1 violation, and he wasn't actually preparing to fire, so Rule 4 didn't really apply.

I find myself somewhat torn on this one. There was a Rule 2 violation (because there was a truck in front of the muzzle). Metal objects, like vehicles, can cause ricochets. On the other hand, maybe he didn't see it through some trees, or something. Maybe the geography meant the truck was the safest direction to point the gun (though it would be better to leave the action open until reaching a better location in that case).

Ricochets can be hard to anticipate, and even harder to predict, especially when you're not expecting the gun to fire in the first place. Inanimate objects, if you know no one is behind them, are often considered a "safe direction," especially if you don't particularly care about the object and don't expect a discharge.

So what say you, dear readers - negligent, or accidental?

Bad news for TGSCOM, Inc.

According to this story at the Roanoke Times (which appears to be an AP story):

The gunman who killed three women and wounded nine others at a Pittsburgh-area health club bought accessories for a handgun from the same Wisconsin-based dealer that sold a gun to the Virginia Tech shooter.

Forty-eight-year-old George Sodini bought the accessories from TGSCOM Inc. of Green Bay, Wis.

Note that he only bought accessories, not the actual weapons. There's no indication of what kind of accessories, or whether they played a part in (or have any relevance to) the actual shootings.

I fully expect yet another PSH anti-gun editorial from the RT soon, calling for TGSCOM to be shut down, or for banning internet gun sales, or something similar. I'll point it out if I see one.

Update:

TGSCOM Inc. sold a Glock Magloader and a Glock Factory Magazine to 48-year-old George Sodini for $46 in April 2008, company president Eric Thompson said.

It was not immediately clear if Sodini used the accessories during his attack on a health club in Collier Township, Pa., on Tuesday.

So they still don't know if this is relevant, but they're going to report on it anyway.

Published CHP Information

I have now gotten a look at the list in question from the Chatham Star-Tribune (with thanks to Phillip Van Cleave, VCDL President), and while it's still very bad, it's not - quite - as bad as I initially thought. The good thing? It's not a list of all CHP holders in the county. The bad thing? It is a list of people in Pittsylvania county who were issued CHPs in January. Which leads to my next question:

Is this a regular item in this paper?

I won't post the images I received, for obvious reasons. It does look like it's not a complete list, and no addresses are given. On the other hand, enough information is given that finding someone using the list would be very easy.

On the gripping hand, it's a good example of why the legislature needs to act to stop this garbage.

Another paper publishes CHP information

According to the VA Citizens Defense League another Virginia paper, the Chatham Star-Tribune, has published a list of CHP holders. I'm currently trying to get verification and more detail.

This one is personal, as my parents live in that area.

More (hopefully) after work.

UPDATE:

It should be noted that, while I have no reason to mistrust or disbelieve VCDL, I have not been able to confirm this personally. I have not been able to locate the list, or any reference to it, on the Star-Tribune's website. I posted a comment requesting more information on the VCDL blog entry I linked to above, but have not yet received a reply.

If anyone can corroborate this, please let me know. I'd like to know if my parents (or any other family members) are on the published list, so I can make them aware.

More PSH from the Roanoke Times

The Roanoke Times has an editorial up about the restaurant ban repeal. They spout their usual fear mongering and distrust again, and their contempt for CHP holders is blatantly obvious.

Their blog for the column has a good discussion going, mostly by pro-gun supporters. I encourage people to go read and comment.

Sadly, they are right about one thing. The governor will probably veto this bill again, just like last year.

It doesn't get more deadly than an AK-47

Well, I haven't done the fisking thing before, but this article just cries out for it, and I haven't seen where anyone else has done it yet. So, here it is:

It Doesn't Get More Deadly Than an AK-47

PEORIA —

The recent discovery of two rapid-fire, high-powered assault-style rifles in Peoria has alarmed police because they know the devastating punch they pack. And when police are worried, residents ought to be.

Rule 1: The language is always loaded.

The first gun, a knock-off version of an AK-47, was recovered Oct. 29 from a Central Peoria house as police raided the home looking for drugs. Three days later, another AK-47-type semi-automatic rifle was used against officers in a shoot-out that ended with the gunman being killed.

"It doesn't get more deadly than an AK-47," Peoria police spokesman Doug Burgess said.

What about those horrible .50 caliber rifles? Aren't they supposed to be able to cut a man in half from a mile away, and knock 747s out of the air? That sounds more deadly to me!

Figures from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives show a marked increase in the number of AK-style weapons traced and entered into the agency's computer database because they had been seized or connected to a crime.

The number of such tracings rose even while the federal assault weapons ban was in effect and has continued to climb since its expiration.

So wait, you're saying the AWB didn't work?

Since 1993, the year before the ban took effect, ATF has recorded a more than sevenfold increase in the guns - which includes the original Russian-made AK-47 and a variety of copycats from around the world. The number of AK-type guns climbed from 1,140 in 1993 to 8,547 last year.

The numbers confirm what is happening here locally with the guns: They're getting into criminals' hands.

But.... they're criminals! It's illegal for them to have guns! There oughtta be a law against that!

"Personally, I know a lot of these guns are out there," said Peoria police Sgt. Doug Theobald, adding officers occasionally find the rifles during raids or arrests. "Most of the time it's regular gun owners that have them in their gun safe. They don't sell drugs or shoot at police.

"The concern is if a criminal has one," he said. "It's not the gun itself, but the person standing behind the gun."

I'm surprised this made it into the story. It almost sounds like they're trying to say that regular gun owners aren't criminals. That's completely contrary to what the MSM's masters at the Brady Campaign say. It must be a typo.

Because the weapon is shoulder-mounted, its accuracy is substantial.

Shoulder-mounted? You mean it attaches to your shoulder, unlike every other rifle out there?

The standard bullet, a 7.62x39mm, is highly lethal as it can travel up to 400 meters.

WOW! Up to 400 meters! That's really lethal! But, wait a minute, I hear a .22 can travel over a mile. So a .22 must be so lethal it can kill you just by looking at you! The killer doesn't even have to pull the trigger!

The common AK-47 magazine holds 30 rounds and is flat with a curve in it to allow the bullets to feed properly. Other higher-capacity magazines, some holding twice or triple the normal amount, also can be used.

With such a large magazine attached, the rifle has the capability to "lay down suppressive fire," meaning it can shoot 20-30 high velocity rounds as fast as the gunman can squeeze the trigger, said Theobald.

So if I only shoot 19 rounds, it's not suppressive fire? What about 5, or 10?

"(The bullets) can go through brick walls, a car, just about anything," Burgess said. "The penetrating power of the round is unbelievable."

So can almost any round used for hunting. In fact, the rounds that can't are generally not allowed for hunting in most states, because they're not considered powerful enough.

Police have reported finding the rounds inside the former Warner Homes public housing complex after they blew through the exterior brick wall. Two years ago at Landmark Apartments, eight bullet holes were found in an apartment. Shell casings found outside the apartment matched bullets used in an AK-47 assault rifle.

Another example of the gun's packing-power is in the 1999 homicide of Marcus Risby. Charles Childs fired an Egyptian-made AK-47 rifle 30 times into a house on Garfield Avenue. His best friend, Risby, was killed by one of the bullets as he stood outside the front of the house, as part of a plan to get revenge on the home's occupant. The bullet went all the way through the house to kill him.

When faced with criminals armed with these kinds of weapons, Peoria police are equipped with higher-powered guns to match the threat.

I thought it didn't get more deadly than an AK-47. How can the police have higher-power guns if they don't exist?

"We have the capacity of going against weapons systems like that," said Theobald, who oversees the department's Special Response Team, whose members are trained and certified to use fully-automatic, military-style assault rifles.

You mean the bullet-hoses-of-death? The ones that no one can possibly control? I thought the only purpose of those was to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. The police shouldn't need to be able to do that, should they? They should only shoot at the bad guys, right?

Thirty-two patrol officers also are commissioned with semi-automatic rifles and have the guns with them while on-duty.

So, there's some magic field that means the police don't need to worry about overpenetration? Just the criminals and "regular gun owners?"

"The concern for the public is the same as for police," Theobald said. "These bullets will keep traveling and go through cars and houses, regardless of what the intended target was for the bad guy. They can hit innocent bystanders."

They just keep going, and going, and going....
----

H/T to David Codrea at The War on Guns for this one.

Shedding the Light on Concealed Handguns - Again

The same post at The War on Guns that prompted the rant below also reminded me of this. For those who don't remember, or aren't from here in the Blacksburg/Roanoke area, Christian Trejbal wrote a column on March 11, 2007 called Shedding Light On Concealed Handguns, in which, as part of "reflect[ing] on the importance of open government and public records" he used the process of obtaining a statewide list of concealed handgun permit holders to demonstrate how open government is beneficial. Then he published the entire list on the paper's website, complete with addresses!

Needless to say, a great public outcry followed. (The paper's blog comments are here.) One of the loudest outcries was that many of the people on the list had a permit because of an abusive ex-spouse or ex-significant other, who now had access to their most recent address. The outcry was such that the Roanoke Times removed the list the next day. They claim they did so because:

“When we posted the information, we had every reason to believe that the data the State Police had supplied would comply with the statutes. But people have notified us that the list includes names that should not have been released,” said Debbie Meade, president and publisher of The Roanoke Times. “Out of a sense of caution and concern for the public we have decided to take the database off of our website.”

Probably just to avoid lawsuits when some ex-spouse goes to his ex's home and attacks her because he got the address from their site.

It looks like the Medford Mail Tribune is getting ready to do the same thing, and they've won the court case to get the list. For the whole story, go to The War on Guns.