Letters to the Editor

Miniatures from the Attic Happy With Fundraiser

Editor,

Thank you, Falls Church!

The staff at Miniatures from the Attic wants to thank all the citizens of Falls Church for their support of our Second Annual Childhelp USA Roombox Fundraiser. We especially want to thank our customers who created such wonderful roomboxes for the event.

Also, thanks to you, Falls Church News-Press, for your coverage of our event. Your support of fundraising efforts of all kinds throughout the year makes the News-Press a champion of good and just causes. We know you will continue promoting these worthwhile efforts. This year's contest raised $1,100.00 to support Childhelp USA in its fight to prevent and treat child abuse. When next September arrives, we know you will once again help us raise funds for Childhelp USA.

Gary LaPorta and Staff Miniatures from the Attic

Citizens With Firearms Best Hope Against Terror

Editor,

As a resident of Falls Church City, I wholly support City Manager McKeever's proposed administrative regulation which would, among other things, call upon city employees to notify city police if they see someone carrying a weapon into a city-operated facility, city-sponsored event, or onto city-owned property.

I am one of those who believes the carrying of weapons without a license or permit should not be permitted under any circumstances, but our state legislature, with reasoning which completely eludes me, believes we are actually safer with an openly armed populace. Since Northern Virginians seem to have little sway with the state legislature, I believe it is incumbent upon our local governments and municipalities to enact regulations which they believe protect their own citizens within the confines of current law.

It is currently illegal for certain people to carry firearms. These include convicted felons, those under the age of 18, those convicted of a domestic violence offense, those dishonorably discharged from the armed services, and those convicted of crimes related to drugs or alcohol. Especially in these days of growing threats of terror, one would not know whether a person who wandered into a city park with a gun tucked in his or her belt is lawfully carrying that weapon. The only way for that determination to be made is for someone in authority, in this case, the city police, to ascertain that fact.

We are told on the one hand that there are too many regulations affecting the rights of gun owners and that the laws alreadyallowing open carry of firearms for law-abiding citizens - “that increase the likelihood of lethal violence among innocent civilians.” On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that legally armed citizens are a deterrent to crime.

If some of the good citizens of the City of Falls Church are uncomfortable at the sight of other citizens legally carrying firearms in public, they may want to consider that those comparatively few citizens who choose to carry firearms legally may someday be their best hope against crime or terrorism-yes, even in the streets or public squares of Falls Church. Falls Church's fine police force cannot be at the scene of crimes while they happen, but an armed citizen just might be there, where the mere presence of his/her firearm could save a life or otherwise deter a crime.

Mr. Snyder, whose “impassioned statement” you quoted in your editorial, does not have the corner on the market for disgust and shock at what “a .45 [caliber] bullet does to a human head when shot from close range,” despite his respectable experiences as a volunteer rescue worker. It is precisely because of the real possibility of such occurrences happening to good citizens, and because of a desire to exercise an individual, Constitutional right to bear arms for personal protection, that some citizens choose to carry firearms in public.

Andrew Wilson

Falls Church

Protecting Self Is a Basic Human Right

Editor,

I happened to read Councilman Snyder’s online comments regarding his stand on gun rights. I have a concealed carry permit and travel monthly to the Falls Church area on business from my home in the Tidewater area. In the past I haven’t always had my firearm with me; however, I think I will probably need to be prepared to protect myself more diligently when visiting his Falls Church. Mr. Snyder’s description of his experiences as a rescue squad volunteer who has treated victims who have been “stabbed, clubbed, slashed, drugged, pushed from balconies, burned, and scalded to death” (as well as several shooting victims), has convinced me that I need to carry my gun all the time, and especially in Falls Church.

Snyder’s description of treating a man with a headshot wound in a bar was particularly enlightening because it illustrates an important point—that although the police were there and able to “chase the assailant out the other side of the bar,” they weren’t able to protect the victim and prevent the shooting in the first place. Having the ability to protect myself from these types of harm isn’t a philosophical issue for me, I consider it to be my basic human right—even in Falls Church. The Virginia Assembly and my Virginia permit have enabled me to do this. Even though Councilman Snyder doesn’t think I should be allowed to protect myself in his community, I don’t believe my ability to do that should stop at the city limits.

Nancy Gruttman-Tyler

Hampton, VA

Those Carrying Firearms Were 'Good Guys'

Editor,

As a citizen of Falls Church, a taxpayer and a voter, I was dismayed at the attitude our city board displayed before my eyes during the session on September 27. Especially at Councilwoman Hockenberry’s expression of her discomfort at the sight of law abiding armed citizens. Perhaps the honorable councilwoman did not realize the character of those who were carrying firearms that evening. They are, in fact, the good guys and she should recognize that.

I’m glad Councilman Snyder agreed with us that there are places where firearms are needed, however he was mistaken in that Falls Church is not one of them. The only people who know a crime will occur in advance are the criminals. And although Falls Church enjoys a low crime rate that does not mean crimes don’t occur. The recent brutal rape that occurred on Graham Road is an outrageous and unfortunate reminder that the

Falls Church area does not exist in perfect safety. We all know our city’s law enforcement is unquestionably hard working and professional but they cannot be everywhere all the time. Even Cherry Hill Park, in the Police Station’s backyard, a murderer dumped the body of Michele Lynn Cosbey in March of 1995.

A different aspect of this issue is how this policy will affect city employees. Mr. McKeever seems to intend to fire any employee that carries a weapon. I must object to this as grossly unfair if no associated crime was committed. Theoretically, if a single woman employee of the city who possesses a carry permit and handgun because she lives in Culmore, the regional base of the MS-13 gang and does not wish to be raped and killed like what happened to Diana Garcia in August 2001. It seems this woman would be fired summarily under this policy and this just does not seem fair to me.

Andrew Amerine

Falls Church

Only Bill on Draft Introduced By Democrats

Editor,

It seems only fair to point out that the President doesn’t have the authority to re-institute the draft. Yes, there are two bills introduced in January 2003, but it should be noted that both bills were authored and introduced by Democrats, and not Republicans.

The bills are Senate Bill 89, introduced by Senator Ernest F. Hollings (d-SC) and Chouse Resolution 163 introduced by Representative Charles B. Rangel (d-NY) and co-sponsored by Jim McDermott (d-WA). Right off it would seem that it is Democrat party and not the President pushing for a draft.

Both bills have languished in committee every since; supported only by the democrats who introduced them. The Hollings version has only 13 co-sponsors and Rangel’s bill has one.

These bills fly in the face of today’s defense requirements and are an insult to the young men and women volunteering for service today. They are not the ”sex, drugs and rock’n roll-Me Generation” of the 60’s. Our military members today are highly trained professionals, experts in the use of sophisticated equipment and tactics. It takes a minimum of 18 months to two years to turn out a trained Soldier, Airman, Sailor, or Marine. It takes even longer than that for many military specialties.

If a draft were implemented today, Selective Service says it would take 193 days for the first inductee to report in. After that, it would take another 12 to 18 months to train them in today’s sophisticated war fighting and integrate them into effective combat units. In short, if we instituted a draft today, inductees would not be effective until about two years from now, when their service would be at an end.

William T. Edmonds

Falls Church

Draft Bill Was Moran's Own Initiative

Editor,

Last week’s banner headline “Moran Warns of Quiet Plans to Reinstate Draft” and the accompanying article was a little misdirected. Rather than headlining “quiet plans” — a conspiracy, perhaps? — you could just as well have written, “Moran Warns: Moran Draft Proposal May Pass.” In other words, “a military draft will (not just ‘could’) be in the works” if Rep. Moran’s own bill is enacted.

Yes, more than just “mulling” or “being open to” the draft, Mr. Moran — who is a friend although not at all of my political persuasion — has himself co-sponsored a bill introduced by Rep. Rangel (D-NY) to revive the draft. It is H.R. 163, and Mr. Moran cosponsored it back in January 2003 (that is, before the liberation of Iraq). The bill has a total of 14 cosponsored a bill introduced by Rep. Rangel (D-NY) to revive the draft. It is H.R. 163, and Mr. Moran cosponsored it back in January 2003 (that is, before the liberation of Iraq). The bill has a total of 14 cosponsors (all Democrats). The Rangel-Moran bill generally obliges all persons between 18 and 26 to provide service in the military if needed, and otherwise "in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security." Conscientious objectors "shall, when inducted, participate in military service that does not include any combatant training component" and "may, at the discretion of the President, be transferred to a national service program for performance of such person's national service obligation under this Act."

Mr. Moran evidently thinks this is a good idea, and he's entitled to promote his opinion. But as provided in the introduced bill, his draft has nothing to do with problems in Iraq, or with a national emergency. He ought to be willing to defend its stated principle, that "[I]t is the obligation of every citizen of the United States . . . to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted." (Section 1, H.R. 163). If the Administration were pursuing reviving the draft -- and it is NOT -- all they would be doing is copying the Rangel-Moran initiative.

Hillel Weinberg

Falls Church>b>