Brady Campaign

Uncategorized

“I want gun control and I hope to God nobody else sends me any more prayers.”

November 12, 2018 by 1 Comment

The above quote comes from Susan Orfanos. She was the mother of Telemachus Orfanos who was one of the victims in the multiple murders committed at the Borderline Bar in Thousand Oaks, California. It was reported on the CBS Evening News for Friday, November 9th.

“He didn’t come home last night,” said his mother, Susan. “I don’t want prayers. I don’t want thoughts. I want gun control and I hope to God nobody else sends me any more prayers. I want gun control. No more guns.”

The link to the story includes the video interview with her and a friend of the murderer.

I can excuse the bitter words of a distraught mother who lost a son. However, I have also gotten emails from both the Brady Campaign and the cult of personality known as Giffords calling for more gun control and asking for donations.

Excuse me but these murders happened in the gun control paradise known as California. Giffords Law Center rates the state an “A”. It is the only state in the Union rated this high. Even New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts only get A minuses. In the last Brady Campaign rankings I can find from 2015, California was the number one state in terms of adopting the gun control measures they wanted.

Red Flag laws?

Check!

Highly restrictive may issue concealed carry?

Check!

Ban on open carry?

Check!

Waiting periods?

Check!

Assault weapon (sic) bans?

Check!

Magazine size restrictions?

Check!

Purchase of ammunition only through licensed dealers?

Check!

Background check to buy ammo?

Check!

Ban carry in establishments that serve alcohol?

Check!

The state has every thing that the gun prohibitionists have been calling for to supposedly stop “gun violence” and “mass shootings” and yet it failed. When a murderer is determined to commit evil deeds the weapon really almost becomes irrelevant. It could just as easily have been an attack using a knife as in Melbourne, Australia on Friday. Even worse might have been an arson attack where an exit was illegally locked or blocked. Some of the worst night club fires in the US and the rest of the world have been due to arson.

My point is that there is little that can be done to stop the initial attack even with the most restrictive of laws. Evil people will do what evil people will do.

That said, there are a number of things that might have lessened the toll. For example, if the six off-duty cops there had been allowed to carry in the Borderline Bar, they could have responded with deadly force to stop the murders. Or, for example, as Greg Ellifritz points out, the murderer posted to Facebook and Instagram during the attack which was an opportunity to attack the murderer when he was distracted. While it might have been illegal in California, in many states you can carry in a place that serves alcohol so long as you don’t drink. This would be the place for Designated Defenders as suggested by Massad Ayoob.

I’m not sure how to prevent all mass violence events. I do think Malcolm Gladwell is on to something with his theory of threshholds where each event begets a larger and worse event. Media publicity doesn’t help. I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be reported but restraint and discretion should be exercised. For a start, do like many bloggers and academics have pledged: don’t report the killer’s name. As the No Notoriety campaign suggests focus on the victims and not the killer.

It would be a start. In the meantime, be alert and be careful where you go.

Uncategorized

And Now The Reactions From The Prohibitionists, Part 2

July 10, 2018 by

The Brady Campaign wasted no time in signalling their opposition to Judge Kavanaugh. I’m sure like the opponents marching on the steps of the Supreme Court last night, they had pre-printed press releases with the names Hardiman, Kethledge, and Barrett inserted in them.

From the Brady Campaign:

Washington, D.C., July 9, 2018 – This evening, President Trump announced his nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, replacing retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence expressed serious apprehension over the nomination, citing Judge Kavanaugh’s previous hostility to common-sense gun safety laws.

Brady Campaign co-president Avery Gardiner:

“We don’t have to guess when it comes to Judge Kavanaugh’s track record on gun laws – he’s made it quite clear where he stands. And for a president who took more than $30 million from the NRA, Judge Kavanaugh is a perfect fit. This is a judge who sees no difference between assault weapons and handguns, and who has stated that there is no judicial role when it comes to regulating gun ownership. We call on Judge Kavanaugh to tell the American people clearly and plainly how he interprets the Second Amendment. If he is as hostile to gun laws as he appears to be, then we will fight this nomination tooth and nail.”

Brady Campaign co-president Kris Brown:

“The NRA paid good money to get this nomination, and make no mistake – they’re popping champagne as we speak. Wayne LaPierre called this no less than the ‘ultimate prize,’ and we can all expect the gun lobby to outspend the million dollars they spent during the last Supreme Court nomination to push for Judge Kavanaugh. We at Brady are not going to let that happen without a fight, and without demanding a rigorous and exacting standard of questioning for Judge Kavanaugh about his judicial record. Brady has been at the frontlines of the legal battles for gun safety for nearly three decades, and we will press forward with this important fight in the weeks, months, and years to come.”

Brady VP of Litigation Jonathan Lowy:

“Judge Kavanaugh must tell the American public whether he will protect their most important right — the right to be safe from gun violence — or whether he will cater to the gun lobby’s agenda to let virtually anyone carry any gun, any time, anywhere. At the end of the day, it’s a simple question. Do you believe that the right to guns overrides the right to be safe from being shot? If the answer is yes, you simply aren’t fit for a lifetime appointment to America’s highest court.”

BACKGROUND

Judge Brett Kavanaugh has a history of opposition to common-sense measures to promote gun safety.

  • In Heller v. District of Columbia (note: this is a different case than the landmark Supreme Court decision in 2008), Judge Kavanaugh dissented from the panel opinion that upheld a city law banning possession of semi-automatic rifles and requiring registration of all guns. In his dissent, Kavanaugh wrote that “there is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles.”
    Kavanaugh further wrote that “semi-automatic rifles have traditionally not been banned and are in common use today, and are thus protected” by the Second Amendment. This would run counter to what numerous federal courts have ruled, placing the viewpoint far outside the mainstream legal opinion.
  • The dissent also read that there is an “absence of a role for judicial interest balancing or assessment of costs and benefits of gun regulation,” indicating that Kavanaugh would potentially rule against any sort of common sense gun safety laws.
  • Of the panel of three Republican-appointed judges, Kavanaugh was the only one to dissent and argue that the assault weapon ban is unconstitutional.
    The Brady Center also recently published a report on the 10-year anniversary of the landmark D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court case. 


The report:

  • Discusses the reality of what Heller does and does not allow, including that there are clear and valid reasons for certain firearms, such as assault weapons, to be banned from personal use and possession;
  • Explores the ongoing position, held by Brady and which numerous courts have agreed with, that the Heller decision can coexist with reasonable gun measures and laws; and
  • Examines key developments over the past ten years, over which approximately 1,200 Second Amendment challenges have been considered by state and federal courts. Many of the disputes have focused on common-sense gun laws regarding public carry, assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans, prohibited purchasers and background checks, and gun safety regulations. In over 90% of these cases, the courts have sided with Brady’s interpretation of Heller. Notably, the Supreme Court has only agreed to hear one major Second Amendment case in the decade since Heller; a Court featuring Kavanaugh could choose to hear many more cases in the near future.


Jonathan Lowy knows that the US Constitution does not include a “right to be safe from gun violence (sic)” nor does it explicitly include a right to privacy. It does, however, have the enumerated individual right to keep and bear arms. Hmm.

They are correct that the Supreme Court might finally agree to hear cases in the future involving the Second Amendment. Since McDonald, with the exception of Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court has not heard a Second Amendment challenge and Caetano didn’t involve firearms but rather stun guns.

Just because courts have misconstrued and ignored Heller and McDonald doesn’t mean they are right. That is akin to saying in 1910, 90% of white southerners thought segregation was correct. It wasn’t.

Finally, and I find this amusing, in the clearest indication that the Brady Campaign is not sharing in the largesse of Michael Bloomberg, they have resorted to promoting high priced lipstick as a means of fund raising.

Uncategorized

House Democrats Pushing For Vote On HR 4240

February 28, 2018 by

HR 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2017, is being pushed for a vote by virtually all the Democrats in the House plus another 11 Republicans. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) filed a discharge petition on Monday to get it brought from the House Judiciary Committee to the floor of the House for a vote. I should note at this point that no hearings have been held on the bill since its introduction.

Highlights of the bill include:

  • Reauthorization of the NICS Program.
  • Grants to the state to improve and automate reporting of prohibited persons. There are also penalties for failure to do so.
  • Amend HIPPA to allow mental health records to be reported to NICS database.
  • A relief from disabilities provision.
  • Require ALL firearm sales at a gun show to have a background check.
  • Require ALL firearm sales as a result of a ad, listing, posting, or other display to have a background check. This would include both sale ads and want to buy ads.
  • Transfers without background checks due to gun show or Internet ads will be subject to a fine and/or 5 year prison sentence. 
  • Prohibition of a gun registry (for now).
This is being pushed hard by the Brady Campaign as it goes far beyond the FixNics Act passed by the House as well as the Senate version. Noticeably absent is any penalty for Federal departments such as DOD for failure to report prohibited persons.
As to the Republicans, they are:

Rep. King, Peter T. [R-NY-2]* 11/03/2017
Rep. Fitzpatrick, Brian K. [R-PA-8] 11/06/2017
Rep. Meehan, Patrick [R-PA-7] 11/07/2017
Rep. Curbelo, Carlos [R-FL-26] 02/16/2018
Rep. Costello, Ryan A. [R-PA-6] 02/23/2018
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R-FL-27] 02/23/2018
Rep. Dent, Charles W. [R-PA-15] 02/23/2018
Rep. Lance, Leonard [R-NJ-7] 02/27/2018
Rep. Mast, Brian J. [R-FL-18] 02/27/2018
Rep. Donovan, Daniel M., Jr. [R-NY-11] 02/27/2018
Rep. Smith, Christopher H. [R-NJ-4] 02/27/2018

The dates after their names indicates when they became co-sponsors of the bill.

I intend to let my local Congressman know that I’m opposed to this bill as I see it as merely a first step along the road to universal background checks. We also know that there is no such thing as a “gun show loophole” and a “Internet loophole”. They are made up constructs to vilify the sale of private property within the spirit and letter of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Finally, in an ironic twist, the name of this bill – the Public Safety and Second Amendment Protection Act – is the same one chosen by the Kafkaesque Manchin-Toomey bill.

Uncategorized

Much Ado About Nothing

February 14, 2018 by 2 Comments

The Brady Campaign, CNN, and the cult of personality known as Giffords are all in a tizzy that an BATFE official actually reached out to a lobbyist for comments. You may remember the white paper written by BATFE Associate Deputy Director Ron Turk that suggested items for discussion with regard to firearms regulations. The white paper was released after the inauguration of President Trump. It is to be noted that Ron Turk has always maintained that the items discussed in the paper were not official policy but rather items for discussion that he proposed.

According to CNN, after writing his initial draft of the white paper, Turk sent it to firearms lobbyist Mark Barnes for comments.

“If I am missing the mark on a major issue or disregarding a major discussion point any feedback you have would be appreciated,” Turk wrote to the lobbyist, Mark Barnes, on January 9, 2017. “My hope is that the agency can demonstrate flexibility where appropriate and identify areas for further discussion, recognizing that solving everyone’s concerns on each side would be difficult.”

Some of the suggestions from Barnes were included in the final draft of the white paper. Things like allowing dealers to use the NICS system to run background check on their own employees and a re-examination of a 20-year old sporting use study in light of the sporting uses of AKs and ARs. However, things that Barnes also suggested like loosening restrictions on the imports of SKS carbines and Makarov pistols from Russia were not included.

I think what has the gun control lobby and their enablers in the media so upset is that they weren’t approached for suggestions.

From Avery Gardiner of the Brady Campaign:

“I was surprised to see that the draft document had been emailed out to a gun industry lawyer and the final product took his suggestions as edits — without any disclosure of that until we went to court to get these documents,” said Avery W. Gardiner, co-president of the Brady Center. …


“There was a secret white paper that was partially written by the gun lobby. That’s exactly the kind of thing the Freedom of Information Act is supposed to address — transparency of government,” Gardiner said.

And from David Chipman, the former BATFE Special Agent who now works for Giffords, who is dismayed by the revelation:

“An independent ATF is critical to this nation’s security. The white paper suggests that the gun industry’s quest for power and influence has trumped public safety,” Chipman said.

An interesting side note on Chipman, he is a 1984 graduate of Phillips Exeter Academy – the ultra-expensive, ultra-upper class, prep school. I’m having a little bit of cognitive dissonance over a preppy actually getting his hands dirty working for a lackluster agency like BATFE. Isn’t that a little beneath a graduate of Phillips Exeter?

Back to the story in question, think back to the Obama Administration and all the photo ops and meeting held with the gun control industry. They were quite numerous. I think the problem here is that they are miffed to be on the outside looking in as opposed to the good old days when they had a seat at the table.

The CNN story does have link to all the drafts of the white papers if you are interested. They have also included a video on the page that seems like an outright editorial call for universal background checks. As Glenn Reynolds has often said they are Democratic operatives with a byline. I’d modify it to include gun control advocates with a byline.

Uncategorized

Brady Campaign Sues BATFE And DOJ

October 18, 2017 by 2 Comments

With the departure of Dan Gross as President of the Brady Campaign, the new leadership seems to have shifted some of organization’s strategy to the courts. First there was the lawsuit against Slide Fire Solutions filed in conjunction with an class-action, personal injury firm in Las Vegas. That suit was filed less the same week as the Las Vegas mass casualty event. There is significant question whether that suit can even proceed given the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

On Monday, the Brady Campaign filed suit in US District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. They are accusing the BATFE of ignoring two Freedom of Information Act requests for documents related to Associate Deputy Director Ron Turk’s white paper and for documents related to warning letters or license revocations sent to Federal Firearm Licensees. By ignoring the FOIA requests after acknowledging receipt of them, BATFE provided the Brady Campaign with an opportunity to sue to get the info they seek.

From their press release, in part, on the lawsuit:

“The ATF has a critical role in monitoring the gun industry and keeping America safe from gun violence. We sought information about its work, and it did not respond, even though it is required to do so under federal law. We certainly hope that ATF is doing its job and the public deserves these documents so we can make sure that the ATF is doing everything it can to stop gun trafficking and other crimes,” said Avery Gardiner, Co-President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Brady lawyer Mariel Goetz added, “The Brady Center has worked diligently to follow all procedures to obtain this information. Last week, our organization filed a class action suit on behalf of the attendees of the Las Vegas music festival who suffered through the deadliest mass shooting in modern American history. Today, we file suit on behalf of all Americans. We all deserve information about our government’s efforts to regulate firearms and stop illegal gun trafficking. We need transparency to make sure that the federal government is doing what it should to stop gun violence.”

The complaint gives more detail on what they are seeking in their FOIA requests.

On the white paper:

(1) All communications between ATF employees related to the
January 20, 2017 White Paper titled “Federal Firearm Regulations
– Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations”;

(2) All communications between ATF employees and members of
the Presidential Transition Team related to the January 20, 2017
White Paper titled “Federal Firearm Regulations – Options to
Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations”;

(3) All communications between ATF employees and nongovernment
employees, including but not limited to representatives
from gun manufacturers or the National Rifle Association, related
to the January 20, 2017 White Paper titled “Federal Firearm
Regulations – Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations”;
and

(4) All other documents, including drafts, related to the January 20,
2017 White Paper titled “Federal Firearm Regulations – Options to
Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations.”

And on the warning letters and revocation notices:

(1) All warning letters, warning conference notices, and the
underlying reports of violations and firearms inspection narrative
reports, issued to federal firearms licensees from July 1, 2015
through June 30, 2017;

(2) All notices of revocation of license and the accompanying ATF
Form 4500s issued to federal firearms licensees from July 1, 2015
through June 30, 2017.

As I see it, the FOIA request for any communications between ATF and then President-elect Trump’s transitional team as well as any communication related to the White Paper with the NRA and firearms manufacturers is to dig up anything that they or their allies can use for political purposes against Trump, the NRA, and the firearms industry.

Conversely, the second FOIA request is an attempt to have the BATFE give them information that they can use for lawsuits against dealers and distributors. This would be part of their attempt to pierce the PLCAA through their “Bad Apples” project. While FOIA was never meant to substitute for the discovery process in litigation, the courts have ruled that there is no prohibition against it either.

Bearing in mind that I am not an expert on FOIA in the least and that I find it somewhat humorous that I am defending BATFE of all agencies, I think BATFE was correct in not releasing this information to the Brady Campaign. I think BATFE can make a very strong case that releasing warning notices/letters and revocation notices would interfere with potential law enforcement legal proceedings which is an exemption under FOIA. I think a strong argument could also be made that this should be considered commercial information which is a specific exemption as well. Likewise with the FOIA request for info on the white paper, since it was not a final statement of policy and could be considered part of the deliberative process, I think BATFE has grounds for not releasing this information as well.

Where the BATFE screwed up was in not informing the Brady Campaign within 20 days of their request that they could go pound sand. This could be due to bureaucratic laziness on the part of BATFE’s FOIA officer. Whatever the reason was it did provide the Brady Campaign the legal go-ahead to file suit. How a judge on the US District Court for DC might rule on this is anybody’s guess. I will note that in addition to the Brady Campaign’s own lawyers, they have pro bono lawyers from the mega-law firm of Covington and Burling. The marriage of gun controllers with big law is shameful in my opinion but progressives gotta do what progressives do.

Uncategorized

Attorney Adam Kraut On Slide Fire Stocks And The PLCAA

October 10, 2017 by

I spoke with attorney Adam Kraut of the Prince Law Firm earlier today. I had asked him a question about the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act and whether Slide Fire Solutions would be protected by it. He went over the requirements of the law and said he’d be posting on the case this afternoon.

He published The Protection in Lawful Commerce of Arms Act and the Fate of Slide Fire in the Aftermath of Las Vegas this afternoon and it is well worth a read if you want a better understanding of just who is protected by the law.

His conclusion?

Had Slide Fire not been a licensed manufacturer (or dealer or importer) it is likely that they would be an open target to be sued without the PLCAA coming into play.

UPDATE: Adam has a second post on the issue up at RecoilWeb.com that goes into more depth about the lawsuit itself.

Uncategorized

Hmmm. Very Interesting. Trouble In (Gun Control) Paradise?

September 6, 2017 by 4 Comments

There is that old saying that says keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

In that spirit, I read with interest that Dan Gross has stepped down as the president of the Brady Campaign. He was the ad executive brought in to replace Paul Helmke as president back in early 2012 after a long search. Gross will be replaced by Co-Presidents Kristin Brown and Avery Gardiner.

Historically, the presidents of the Brady Campaign have been men since its formation in 1974 as the National Council to Control Handguns. Sarah Brady’s role was as chair of the organization from 1989 until her death in 2015.

I wonder if the switch to female co-presidents has something to do with what seems to be the female centric nature of the gun prohibitionists. Even beyond Moms Demand Action, any rally, protest, gathering, etc. seems to be composed primarily of women. I don’t know but it seems to have some logic to it.

Here is the press release from the Brady Campaign announcing the changes.

Board of The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence Appoints Two Internal Executives to Lead Organization

Board Chair says “Mission to cut gun deaths has never been more urgent.”

WASHINGTON, DC – September 6, 2017 — The Board of Trustees of The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced today it has appointed Kristin Brown and Avery Gardiner, as Co-Presidents of the Washington, D.C., nonprofit.

“The Brady Campaign and Center’s mission to cut gun deaths in half by 2025 has never been more urgent,” said Kevin Quinn, Chairman of the Board. “Brady has a focused strategy to prevent gun violence, and we need strong leaders with exceptional strategic and operational skills to achieve our goals. We have those leaders in Kristin and Avery. We are confident in the appointment of these two executives to lead this great community of Brady advocates and our organization.”

Brown and Gardiner will lead the organization from Washington, with a renewed focus on Brady’s three strategic campaigns to: (i) expand Brady background checks to all gun sales; (ii) change the cultural perception that a gun in the home makes you safer; and (iii) shut down or reform the small number of bad apple gun dealers that supply the vast majority of our nation’s crime guns. The new leadership brings extensive experience in law, policy, and public health, all of which are critical to leading these three campaigns, which have a core focus in each of those areas.

Kristin Brown was previously the Brady Campaign’s Chief Strategy Officer. She began her tenure at Brady as the National Policy Director and has a corporate, policy and legal background, having worked on Capitol Hill for more than 8 years where violence prevention and public health were two of her chief policy issues. Brown served for many years as a member of the Executive Management Board and Chief Legal Officer to a global logistics/airline services company based in Switzerland and, prior to that, represented companies in complex litigation and restructuring cases at the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

Avery Gardiner was previously the Brady Center’s Chief Legal Officer. She has been responsible for shaping and driving the organization’s legal strategy, as well as providing legal advice to all of the organization’s departments. She brings extensive litigation and strategic experience to the Brady Center, having litigated and provided strategic advice as a lawyer for a Fortune 15 telecommunications company and at the United States Department of Justice in addition to past roles at major national law firms.

Both Brown and Gardiner already served on Brady’s Executive Management Team.

The Board accepted the resignation of Brady’s immediate past president, Dan Gross, who will remain with the organization to assist with the transition. According to the Chair of the Board, “Mr. Gross has been an important and influential leader in the gun violence prevention movement for many years, has led Brady, and leaves the organization poised for even greater success. We are grateful for Mr. Gross’s service to this issue and organization and wish him the best in his future endeavors.”

The appointment is effective immediately.

Uncategorized

Trotting Out A Dusty Old Canard

May 23, 2017 by 9 Comments

I got an email yesterday from the Brady Campaign. Now that in and of itself is not unusual. They are usually begging for money almost as frequently as Gabby Gifford’s American for Responsible Solutions.

No, what I found intriguing was the depths that these people will sink to in order to push their anti-rights agenda. I shouldn’t be surprised given how in the Paul Helmke era they tried to portray a young James D’Cruz as an unhinged kid who would shoot up a school. That would be the same Mr. D’Cruz who just graduated this month from Harvard Law School.

This time Dan Gross and his advertising minions are now labeling national carry reciprocity as “the Zimmerman Bill”. They say it will give felons, domestic abusers, and fugitives an open license to carry like that “criminal George Zimmerman”. Yes, they actually referred to George as a criminal even though a jury of his peers found him not guilty. This is outright defamation. I have met George, spoken with George, and have seen how his life will never be the same after he defended himself. He is not an evil man. He is merely a guy who was attacked by a wannabe thug with evil intent who had to defend himself.

There is another subtle message that the Brady Campaign is implying by bringing George Zimmerman into the conversation about concealed carry. The message is that concealed carry will allow whites to kill blacks with impunity. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth but then expecting truth from the gun prohibitionists is an exercise in futility.

I have reposted the Brady Campaign’s email below so you see for yourself the depths to which they will go.

It may seem all eyes are on Trump’s Russia drama right now, but the gun industry has stayed laser-focused on profits and pushing the myth that more guns make the country safer.

You and I both know that’s a lie. But their latest attempt to put guns in the hands of every American — no matter how dangerous — is perhaps their most outrageous yet.

Trump and the gun industry have pushed Congress to introduce the Zimmerman Bill — what they call “concealed carry reciprocity.” This dangerous bill would roll back gun safety laws in nearly every state, forcing states with strong state laws to accept anyone with permission or a permit to carry a concealed gun, including criminals like George Zimmerman. This bill would create a system with no standards, no rules and no borders.

If the Zimmerman Bill becomes law, states working hard to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people would be at the mercy of states that do nothing to stop felons, domestic abusers, fugitives and people who are a danger to themselves or others from carrying loaded, hidden guns in public.

This bill already has nearly 200 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. But we can stop it! Sign our petition opposing the Zimmerman Bill today and stand together for a safer country.

Thank you for all you do,

Dan

Uncategorized

Let’s Call It What It Really Is – Institutionalized Racism

April 21, 2017 by

I just received an email from the Brady Campaign railing about North Carolina HB 588 and how it rolls back “four decades” of “lifesaving background checks”. I’ll let you read it first and then I will comment on it.

The corporate gun industry is bringing its fight to weaken lifesaving background checks to North Carolina! Right now, they’re pushing H.B. 588, a dangerous bill that would dramatically undermine the current background check system, through the state legislature.

This bill would roll back at least four decades of a lifesaving policy requiring a background check and a “permit to purchase” for every handgun sale. If this bill passes, dangerous people will easily be able to acquire handguns at gun shows, online or from private individuals without any background check whatsoever.

These permits are proven to lower suicide rates. And when Missouri eliminated a similar law in 2007, the state saw a 25 percent increase in the gun murder rate!

H.B. 588 would also require universities, community colleges, and some houses of worship to allow hidden loaded handguns on campus — even against their wishes.

The House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider H.B. 588 at any time. It’s critical that we STOP this bill before it goes any further — and before it has the chance to put North Carolina lives at risk.

Call committee members today and urge them to oppose H.B. 588 and stand up for lifesaving gun laws!

Thank you,

Kris Brown
Chief Strategy Officer

First let’s be clear – HB 588 does not eliminate the pistol purchase permit as much as I’d like to see it do that. It merely changes how the mental health reporting requirement is implemented. Nothing more and nothing less in that section of the bill.

What the Brady Campaign calls “four decades of a lifesaving policy requiring a background check and a ‘permit to purchase’ for every handgun sales” is actually 98 years of institutionalized racism. They won’t say it but it is what it is.

The pistol purchase permit system was adopted by the General Assembly in 1919 for the implied purpose of denying blacks – and especially those who were veterans that had just come back from France in World War I – the ability to have a handgun for self-defense. There had been significant racial unrest in various North Carolina cities post-war with a major riot in Winston-Salem in late 1918. The “Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” was adopted soon after in March 1919. The primary sponsor of the bill was State Sen. Earle A. Humphrey (D-Goldsboro). Sen. Humphrey’s brother-in-law, US Sen. Furnifold Simmons, was the architect of the NC Democrat’s segregationist political agenda. I think you can connect the dots here.

As to the claim about the increase in murders in Missouri, it all has to do with how you cherry pick your data. Dr. John Lott exposed it here and here.

The bill would allow a person with a valid carry permit to carry on school property that is also used for worship services AFTER school hours. My thinking is that was included as many church communities have instituted security teams consisting of trained congregation members.

And yes, HB 588 would allow campus carry at both community colleges and public universities in North Carolina. And, yes, it is against the wishes of university administrators because, let’s face it, they are anti anything that takes power out of their hands including a monopoly on the power of violence. That said, I also don’t know of any public university campus in North Carolina that is fenced and has controlled entry. While they all have their police forces they also are all open to criminals and potential terrorists.

HB 588 does clarify that merely possessing or carrying a firearm, openly or legally concealed, is not grounds for charging a person with going in terror of the public. Many citizens who were legally open carrying and minding their own business have been charged with “going in terror of the public”. These cases also are usually thrown out of court because walking down a public sidewalk in a non-threatening manner while open carrying is not a crime in North Carolina.

Instead of calling legislators to ask them to stop HB 588, I suggest calling them to demand an end to 98 years of institutionalized racism and an end to keeping our sons and daughters as defenseless targets in officially gun free zones.

Uncategorized

Using Brady Campaign’s Tool To Urge Passage Of S.J.Res. 14

February 14, 2017 by

The Brady Campaign is going all out to make sure senior citizens who have trouble managing their finances remain as prohibited persons. It is not merely that they will be prevented from purchasing a firearm but that they will be considered a prohibited person under the Gun Control Act of 1968. While those affected have not been adjudicated as mentally defective as provided by GCA ’68, the Social Security Administration still would report them as such to the FBI for inclusion in the NICS Database.

The Brady Campaign is saying that there are 11 undecided senators. They don’t name them. If your home state senator is one of these undecideds, the Brady telephone tool connects you to their office. If not, then you are connected at random to one of the other senators. I just tried it and I wasn’t connected to either of the senators from North Carolina who, by the way, I had already called urging passage of S.J.Res. 14.

I love using the resources of the anti-rights gun prohibitionists to advance a pro-rights agenda!

Breaking news: We’re within just a few votes of victory and we need you!Dear ,
The time to act is now!
Yesterday,
we asked you to email your Senator and demand that they vote no on a
bill to roll back protections that keep guns out of the hands of people
who are a danger to themselves or others.
TODAY the Senate is expected to vote on whether to erase a critical part of the Brady background check law that prevents people most at risk from accessing guns.
Please take one more action now to let key, undecided senators know we need them to vote against rolling back the protections of the Brady background checks.
Call one of the key senators today and tell them to vote NO on Senate Joint Resolution 14! Thank you.
Kristin Brown
Chief Strategy Officer
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence