NRA

Uncategorized

Movement In CRPA-NRA Lawsuit Against San Francisco

September 28, 2011 by 4 Comments

Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco was filed back in May of 2009. The suit challenges three San Francisco ordinances on Second Amendment grounds. Yesterday, Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a ruling on San Francisco’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. He denied their motion and said the case can move forward.

More on this from attorney Chuck Michel:

On September 27, 2011, Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court, Northern District of California, issued his long awaited ruling on San Francisco’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Holding that the plaintiffs had “adequately alleged an intent and desire to engage in conduct that is prohibited by the ordinances but which they contend is constitutionally protected,” the court denied the City’s motion. The case, entirely funded by the NRA and CRPA Foundation, can now move forward toward a determination of its merits. The full text of the court’s Order Denying Motion Dismiss for Lack of Standing can be viewed here at www.calgunlaws.com.

The order was issued in Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 09-2143 (N.D. Cal.). The Jackson lawsuit, filed on May 15, 2009, challenges three San Francisco ordinances on Second Amendment grounds. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that the City’s enactment and enforcement of three city ordinances requiring firearms be disabled by a trigger lock or stored in a locked container, banning the sale of ammunition that “serves no sporting purpose,” and prohibiting firearm discharges with no self-defense exception unduly burdens the right to self-defense. The Jackson case has already been successful in forcing the City to amend its discharge ban, a law that has been in place for some 73 years, to allow for discharges in self-defense, defense of others, and all other circumstances allowed for under state and federal law.

On February 10, 2011, the City responded to Plaintiffs’ Complaint with a motion to dismiss the case based on its claim that the City does not enforce the challenged ordinances. As such, the City argued, Plaintiffs have no legitimate fear of prosecution and otherwise suffer no injury by complying with the law. The technical claim was that Plaintiffs lack “standing” to bring their claims, based on the dearth of prosecutions to date. In short, the City exposed itself as unconcerned that its ordinances in fact coerce law-abiding citizens to surrender their constitutional right to self-defense.

Plaintiffs responded on March 23, 2011, arguing the City’s motion should be denied. Plaintiffs regarded as unpersuasive the City’s claims that its ordinances are not and have not been enforced and that Plaintiffs suffer no injury by obeying these laws. Ultimately, Plaintiffs asked the court to recognize the very real harm they each suffer by complying with the unconstitutional laws.

The court’s ruling did just that. Plaintiffs laud the decision, upholding reason over rhetoric and recognizing the “immediacy and concreteness of the injury [Plaintiffs] have alleged” and the unreasonableness of requiring a self-defense emergency, or a criminal prosecution, to arise before judicial review of these laws is available. The ruling paves the way for future Second Amendment litigants in the Ninth Circuit.

Uncategorized

More On NRA/CRPA Amicus Briefs

September 2, 2011 by

The NRA and the CRPA filed amicus briefs in the California carry case Richards v. Prieto. The release from Chuck Michel is below which explains them in more detail.

August 31, 2011 – Today, the California Rifle and Pistol Foundation (“CRPA Foundation”) and the National Rifle Association filed amicus briefs in support of appellants in Richards v. Prieto, who have challenged California’s regulatory scheme governing the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms (“CCW permits”) and Yolo County policies for its (non)-issuance of permits to residents seeking to exercise their right to carry a loaded firearm in public.

At issue in Richards is a Yolo County policy conditioning the issuance of CCW permits on a wholly discretionary assessment of each applicant’s “moral character” and stated “good cause.” In practice, Yolo’s policy prohibits the vast majority of county residents from obtaining a permit.

In its brief, available here, CRPA Foundation argues in support of the appellants that Yolo County’s CCW permitting policies are unconstitutional to the extent they deny law-abiding residents the only lawful means of exercising their right to bear operable handguns for self-defense anywhere in the State, despite the United States Supreme Court’s declaration that armed self-defense is a “central component” of our Second Amendment rights.

CRPA Foundation’s brief further provides an historical analysis of the right to keep and bear arms, which establishes that Yolo County’s broad prohibition on the carriage of loaded firearms is categorically unconstitutional and, at a minimum, fails to satisfy the heightened scrutiny required of regulations that so severely burden the right as to eliminate it altogether.

CRPAF is itself currently before the Ninth Circuit, litigating its own challenge to prohibitory local CCW permitting policies. Briefing in that case, Peruta v. San Diego, will be completed onASeptember 6, 2011.

In its brief, available here, NRA provides the Ninth Circuit panel with significant background on the practices and experiences of other states in issuing carry permits throughout the nation. NRA’s amicus brief beautifully illustrates the fact that issuing such permits to law-abiding citizens will not increase crime rates and may, in fact, cause them to fall.

The CRPA amicus brief is available here.

The NRA amicus brief is available here.

Uncategorized

Classy Move

September 2, 2011 by 1 Comment

The NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association just filed an amicus brief in a California carry case, Richards v. Prieto. In return, the Second Amendment Foundation just issued this press release yesterday expressing their thanks for the NRA/CRPA support. Its good to see them playing well together!

SAF THANKS NRA, CRPAF FOR AMICUS BRIEFS IN RICHARDS V. PRIETO CASE

For Immediate Release: 9/1/2011

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today thanked the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Foundation for filing amicus briefs in SAF’s challenge of Yolo County, California’s policies that exploit the state’s regulations on the issuance of concealed firearms carry permits.

Joining SAF in that lawsuit is the CalGuns Foundation. The case is known as Richards v. Prieto. It targets Yolo County’s arbitrary policy that requires CCW applicants to provide good cause for obtaining a permit, and subjects each applicant to a “moral character” standard.

“The policies practices in Yolo County are clearly unconstitutional and should be overturned,” said SAF Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We filed the lawsuit because citizens should not be subjected to such policies simply in an effort to exercise their rights to bear arms for personal protection.

“We are delighted that our good friends at both the NRA and CRPA have filed briefs in support of this cause,” he continued. “Authorities in Yolo County who are trying to perpetuate this egregious policy despite the Supreme Court’s clear determination that self-defense is a cornerstone tenet of the right to keep and bear arms.”

Gottlieb noted that the overwhelming majority of the states have adopted shall-issue statutes for concealed carry licenses or permits, and that they have worked remarkably well by removing the authority from local officials who may want to abuse complicated regulations such as those that exist in the Golden State.

“State and local governments should be scrambling to review, and where necessary, adjust firearms laws and regulations in the wake of two Supreme Court rulings on the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said. “When local governments continue to resist, rather than comply with, the principles and spirit of high court rulings and the Constitution, we’ll continue to meet them in court. As NRA and CRPAF have demonstrated with their briefs in this case, when we take people to court, we’re going to have company.”

Uncategorized

Sunnyvale Planning Commission Wants To Impose Unconstitutional Restrictions Due To NIMBYs

August 26, 2011 by 6 Comments

Attorney Chuck Michel who works with the NRA/CRPA Legal Action Project in California posted an article this evening about the Sunnyvale, California Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is seeking to have the Sunnyvale City Council adopt a new municipal ordinance which would put increased restrictions on the sale of firearms in Sunnyvale. The Commission is responding to unfounded complaints from some neighbors of a firearms dealer that opened in Sunnyvale in 2010. The complaints include that they weren’t notified and that children walk by the store on their way to school as if just merely seeing guns will turn their kids into the next Klebold and Harris (of Columbine infamy).

NRA & CRPA OPPOSE NEW REGULATIONS RESTRICTING FIREARMS DEALERS IN SUNNYVALE, CA

On August 22, 2011, the Planning Commission for the City of Sunnyvale held a meeting to consider the City’s ongoing “Firearms Sales Study Issue.” The issue originated when a firearms dealer, U.S. Firearms, opened for business in Sunnyvale in the fall of 2010. Despite the fact that the dealer had all necessary permits and licenses from both the state and federal government, neighbors made complaints to Sunnyvale staff and elected officials.

The Sunnyvale Planning Commission ultimately decided to sponsor the issue as a result of the complaints, but the City Council ranked it number 4 of 4 for 2011. Even though this issue had the lowest ranking by the City Council for 2011, and the fact that the Staff Report on the issue (AVAILABLE HERE) indicates that “there has been no evidence of increased crime, property devaluation or land use incompatibilities as the result of the businesses,” and Sunnyvale “staff ha[d] not identified any adverse land use impacts associated with a firearms store,” the Planning Commission nonetheless recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend the City’s municipal code to place restrictions on firearm sales in Sunnyvale. Though the staff report acknowledged there had been no problems with firearm sellers, staff nonetheless inexplicably noted in the report that, “[t]he greatest concern regarding firearm sales is the business operator that is engaged in buying and selling the firearms.”

The approved ordinance would: 1) add a definition for “firearms sales business;” 2) prohibit these businesses in commercial and industrially-zoned districts within 200 feet of public schools in order to provide a buffer to the schools; and 3) require a new DPS Firearms Dealer Permit that would include additional conditions such as requiring a security plan to be installed and then inspected by the City, and that the Federal Firearm License (FFL) holder and all employees meet the state and federal requirements regarding past criminal convictions, etc. (current requirements are limited to the dealer and not the employees).

Michel & Associates attorneys submitted an opposition letter to the Planning Commission on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) noting that firearm dealers are subject to a variety of background checks at both the state and federal levels. The letter (AVAILABLE HERE) also noted that firearm dealers are generally some of the most upstanding members of society, and that after the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision, they enjoy a protected status as purveyors of a fundamental right. So the fact that some “residents [of Sunnyvale] have expressed [unfounded] concerns about the potential crime and public safety risk associated with a firearm sales business located near their homes and schools” does not mean that the City of Sunnyvale is free to infringe on fundamental Second Amendment rights.

The letter explains that since the Second Amendment is a newly court-recognized right, the contours of the Second Amendment’s protections are still being litigated in courtrooms across the country. The letter also amicably explains the current legal landscape regarding firearm regulation, and suggests Sunnyvale should avoid litigation on these issues by consulting with the NRA, CRPA, and their attorneys.

As the city continues moving forward with the proposed ordinance, additional correspondence will be submitted.

I have examined the 141 page staff report submitted to the  Sunnyvale Planning Commission. Much of the document was devoted to reporting on the comments at a public meeting on the issue. Approximately 120 people attended the June 2011 meeting and it appears that the overwhelming majority were against any new regulations and were indeed pro-rights. Many of the letters received also support the existing gun store, U.S. Firearms, and gun stores in general.

However, the Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) has weighed in on the issue with a 59 page submission urging the Planning Commission to adopt new regulations. Unfortunately, this submission and not the majority of the residents of Sunnyvale seems to have carried the day. You must wonder if LCAV will also foot the legal bills for Sunnyvale when they get the pants sued off of them on Second Amendment grounds. I somehow doubt it.

Uncategorized

The NRA, Gun Manufacturers, and GCA ’68

August 24, 2011 by 1 Comment

I was alive when the Gun Control Act of 1968 was enacted. However, given I was an 11-year old, I don’t have any memories of its enactment and the debate around it. I do remember Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King being assassinated and the riots after Dr. King’s death. I do remember the war in South Vietnam because my Dad was “in country” at the time. However, policy debates on firearms just were not on my radar at the time.

Fortunately, Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell has done an excellent job of examining some of the myths around the passage including those that the NRA and major gun manufacturers were complicit in its passage. He also looks at some of the other myths regarding the enactment of  the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Sebastian is correct that much more research using original documents is needed to get a better handle on all the issues surrounding the passage of this legislation. Rather than relying on undersourced modern accounts of the bill’s passage, using the original documents will give a clearer picture of the forces involved in the bill’s passage as well as the forces that opposed it.

Uncategorized

Lawsuit Filed Challenging Multi-Rifle Reporting Requirement

August 2, 2011 by 1 Comment

J&G Sales of Prescott, AZ has joined the NRA in filing suit against the illegal requirement that FFL’s in the Southwest border states must report multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles to the ATF. J&G is also one of the gun dealers that was told during Operation Fast and Furious to allow sales to go through to obvious straw purchasers.

Here is their statement on the lawsuit.

BATFE lawsuit info – Monday August 01, 2011
As many of you may have heard, the BATFE has sent a demand letter to all the licensed firearms dealers in the four border states of Arizona, New Mexico, California, and Texas. This letter requires these dealers to report to the BATFE the names and addresses and serial numbers of all purchases of more than one semi-automatic rifle, with a detachable magazine, over 22 caliber, within a 5 business day period.

The BATF and Department of Justice has made this demand with no Congressional authorization and therefore, J and G Sales has filed suit in the Washington DC federal court challenging the legitimacy of this new regulation. We are being assisted in this law suit by the NRA as well. We hope the outcome of our challenge will be a reversal of this unconstitutional regulation for all border state FFL dealers. We appreciate our customers and your support of the 2nd amendment and will keep you all updated as this case progresses.

This new regulation goes into effect for all purchases that occur on or after August 14th, 2011. The BATFE has issued a new form 3310.12 that FFL dealers have to fill out and return to the BATFE starting on this date and going forward until this is hopefully reversed.

I’ll update this as soon as I get and read a copy of the suit.

Uncategorized

NRA Head Addresses UN Conference

July 14, 2011 by

Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP and CEO, of the NRA addressed the UN’s Preparatory Committee on the Arms Trade Treaty today. His remarks to this group are below. The gist of his remarks were that the NRA will fight tooth and nail any effort to regulate U.S. civilian firearms ownership by the UN. Moreover, he reminded them that treaties must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and they isn’t going to happen if he can help it.

I’m sure his remarks were received politely but wouldn’t be that popular with the prohibitionist agenda prevalent amongst the less than democratic countries which comprise the majority of the UN’s membership.

United Nations Arms Trade Treaty
Preparatory Committee – 3d Session
New York, July 11-15, 2011
Statement of the National Rifle Association of America

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this brief opportunity to address the committee. I am Wayne LaPierre and for 20 years now, I have served as Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association of America.

The NRA was founded in 1871, and ever since has staunchly defended the rights of its 4 million members, America’s 80 million law-abiding gun owners, and freedom-loving Americans throughout our country. In 1996, the NRA was recognized as an NGO of the United Nations and, ever since then, has defended the constitutional freedom of Americans in this arena. The
NRA is the largest and most active firearms rights organization in the world and, although some members of this committee may not like what I have to say, I am proud to defend the tens of millions of lawful people NRA represents.

This present effort for an Arms Trade Treaty, or ATT, is now in its fifth year. We have closely monitored this process with increasing concern. We’ve reviewed the statements of the countries participating in these meetings. We’ve listened to other NGOs and read their numerous proposals and reports, as well as carefully examined the papers you have produced.

We’ve watched, and read … listened and monitored. Now, we must speak out.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately selfevident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution. Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth, and self-destiny.

We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community. Our Founding Fathers long ago rejected that notion and forged our great nation on the principle of freedom for the individual citizen – not for the government.

Mr. Chairman, those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not ban possession of any civilian firearms.” Yet, the proposals and statements presented to date have argued exactly the opposite, and – perhaps most importantly – proposals to ban civilian firearms ownership have not been rejected.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with state domestic regulation of firearms.” Yet, there are constant calls for exactly such measures.

We are told “Trust us; an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms.” But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.” Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping, and firearms tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not create a new international bureaucracy.” Well, that’s exactly what is now being proposed – with a tongue-in-cheek assurance that it will just be a SMALL bureaucracy.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.” But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.

We are told, “Trust us; an ATT will not interfere with a hunter or sport shooter travelling internationally with firearms.” However, he would have to get a so-called “transit permit” merely to change airports for a connecting flight.

Mr. Chairman, our list of objections extends far beyond the proposals I just mentioned. Unfortunately, my limited time today prevents me from providing greater detail on each of our objections. I can assure you, however, that each is based on American law, as well as the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

It is regrettable that proposals affecting civilian firearms ownership are woven throughout the proposed ATT. That being the case, however, there is only one solution to this problem: the complete removal of civilian firearms from the scope of any ATT. I will repeat that point as it is
critical and not subject to negotiation – civilian firearms must not be part of any ATT. On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedom.

It is also regrettable to find such intense focus on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers. Nowhere do we find a thought about respecting anyone’s right of self-defense, privacy, property, due process, or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

Mr. Chairman, I ‘d be remiss if I didn’t also discuss the politics of an ATT. For the United States to be a party to an ATT, it must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate. Some do not realize that under the U.S. Constitution, the ultimate treaty power is not the President’s power to negotiate and sign treaties; it is the Senate’s power to approve them.

To that end, it’s important for the Preparatory Committee to understand that the proposed ATT is already strongly opposed in the Senate – the very body that must approve it by a two-thirds majority. There is a letter addressed to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton that is
currently being circulated for the signatures of Senators who oppose the ATT. Once complete, this letter will demonstrate that the proposed ATT will not pass the U.S. Senate.

So there is extremely strong resistance to the ATT in the United States, even before the treaty is tabled. We are not aware of any precedent for this – rejecting a proposed treaty before it’s even submitted for consideration – but it speaks to the level of opposition. The proposed ATT has become more than just controversial, as the Internet is awash with articles and messages calling for its rejection. And those messages are all based on the same objection – infringement on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator, and due to all humankind.

Therefore, the NRA will fight with all of its strength to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

Thank you.

Uncategorized

And Then There Was Only One

July 8, 2011 by 5 Comments

Illinois is now the only state left that does not have some form of concealed carry or any carry for that matter.

Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) signed SB 93 today in Wausau, Wisconsin which approved concealed carry for those in the Badger State. From the NRA-ILA who was there along with NRA Exec. VP Wayne LaPierre:

Fairfax, VA. – Today, National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director Chris W. Cox joined Governor Scott Walker as he signed the Wisconsin Personal Protection Act into law. This makes Wisconsin the 49th state to give law-abiding citizens an option to carry a concealed firearm for personal protection.

“For everyday crime victims, Right-to-Carry is the difference between no chance and a fighting chance. That is why the NRA’s commitment to freedom, the Second Amendment and the self-defense rights of good people everywhere never wavers,” said LaPierre. “Today’s signing ceremony is proof of the value of the hard work, dedication and perseverance of NRA members in Wisconsin.”

“This is an historic day for the Right-to-Carry effort not only in Wisconsin, but across the country,” said Cox. “The fundamental, individual, God-given right to self-defense must be respected. I’d like to thank Senators Galloway and Zipperer, Reps. Mursau and Suder and Gov. Walker for their dedication to freedom.”
“By signing concealed carry into law today, we are making Wisconsin safer for all responsible, law abiding citizens,” said Gov. Walker.

“I would like to thank the NRA for all their hard work over the past 10 years—they never gave up the fight for Wisconsinites to defend themselves,” said Sen. Pam Galloway. “While we were both disappointed that Constitutional Carry did not have the necessary support in the legislature to pass this year, we know that SB 93 represents one of the most freedom-oriented licensing laws in the entire country and it’s a tremendous first step toward our ultimate goal of adopting Constitutional Carry in the Badger State. I look forward to continuing this battle alongside the proud members of NRA.”

Both chambers of the Wisconsin legislature voted to approve one of the nation’s strongest Right-to-Carry bills by solid bipartisan margins. Today’s signing of the Wisconsin Personal Protection Act into law leaves Illinois as the only state that provides no way for its citizens to carry firearms for self-protection outside their homes or places of business.

Share photos on twitter with Twitpic
Click on picture to embiggen.
Uncategorized

Irony

June 15, 2011 by

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich, in his written testimony submitted for the hearings into Operation Fast and Furious, relies upon a position taken by the head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan years for refusing to provide all the documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The most basic justification for the policy follows from the Constitution’s careful separation of legislative and executive powers, the purpose of which is to protect individual liberty. As Charles J. Cooper, the Assistant Attorney General heading the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel during the Reagan Administration, explained in 1986, providing a congressional committee with sensitive, Executive Branch information about an ongoing law enforcement investigation would put Congress in an inappropriate position of exercising influence over or pressure on the investigation or possible prosecution. See Congressional Requests, 10 Op. O.L.C. at 76.

In what can only be called a delicious irony, the most anti-gun administration in recent memory has had to rely upon the writings of pro-gun attorney Charles J. Cooper to defend their position. Cooper and his law firm Cooper and Kirk serve as the attorneys for a number of the Second Amendment lawsuits brought by the National Rifle Association. Among the more notable include Benson v. Chicago which challenges the New Chicago Gun Law and both of the D’Cruz cases in Texas.

(edited)

Uncategorized

An Open Letter From Paul Valone, President Of Grass Roots North Carolina

June 14, 2011 by 2 Comments

F. Paul Valone, President of Grass Roots North Carolina, just sent out this open letter regarding SB 594, HB 650, amendments, and the emergency powers gun ban. It shouldn’t come as surprise that I agree 100% with Paul on this if you have read this blog for more than a week.

I am a Life Member of both the National Rifle Association and of the Second Amendment Foundation. I also belong to Grass Roots North Carolina. As Paul says, this isn’t about the NRA or GRNC. I’d also add in the Second Amendment Foundation. It is about being smart and not-short sighted. We are in a Long War to regain our freedom and our God-given rights to protect ourselves and our families. We lost these rights bit by bit and now must win them back bit by bit. Among the tools we need to win are legal precedents. A case that gets mooted never becomes a precedent.

OPEN LETTER FROM PAUL VALONE:

IS SB 594 THE RIGHT BILL?

To: North Carolina Gun Rights Supporters

From: GRNC President F. Paul Valone

Members of the NRA recently received postcards urging them to call NC Senate leadership in support of Senate Bill 594, described in the postcard as “an emergency powers bill [to] ensure that our Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be suspended” during declared states of emergency.

But while North Carolina’s state of emergency law is indeed a problem, SB 594 is the wrong solution. Worse, it seems to be a short-sighted effort by the NRA to grab credit for what some would have you believe to be a victory.

Why? Because it would render moot – and cause the dismissal – of crucial litigation to expand recognition of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is Bateman v. Perdue. Together with the Michael Bateman, Virgil Green, Forrest Minges, and the Second Amendment Foundation, GRNC is working with Alan Gura – the winner of DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago – the cases which led the Supreme Court to affirm the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Although GRNC has made numerous entreaties to NRA representatives to back the Bateman case, they have apparently fallen on deaf ears. Just as the NRA tried to derail the DC v. Heller decision in its early stages through its attempts to repeal the DC gun ban, now it apparently wants gun owners to regard GRNC – the state’s most vocal and effective gun rights organization – as somehow “anti-gun” for realizing that SB 594 is a short-sighted and misguided vehicle to advance gun rights.

Gun rights supporters have two choices:

* Help the NRA achieve a narrow, short-sighted win by amending HB 650 or other gun bills to include language from SB 594, the now-dead “state of emergency” bill; or

* Help Gura, SAF and GRNC expand the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which will not only render North Carolina’s state of emergency law unconstitutional, but will advance gun rights for everyone, everywhere.

Don’t support GRNC. Don’t support the NRA: SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT! And do so by helping Bateman v. Perdue expand your right to keep and bear arms.

Armatissimi e liberissimi,

F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina

I would also urge you to read Sean Sorrentino’s post that went up this afternoon entitled More Respectful Disagreement. It is an excellent post and I think his ideas are on the mark.