NRA
by Castle Doctrine In North Carolina Is Out Of Committee
SB 34, the first castle doctrine bill filed, has been reported out of the NC Senate Judiciary II committee. It will come to the floor of the State Senate as early as tomorrow.
As I discussed earlier, this bill had been criticized as not going far enough as it did not cover people in their vehicles nor did it have a “stand your ground” provision. These defects have been remedied as the Judiciary II committee adopted substitute language to strengthen the bill. It now adds both of these provisions.
Both the NRA and Grass Roots North Carolina have indicated their support and approval of the strengthened bill. The NRA released this tonight:
Earlier today, NRA-supported “Castle Doctrine” self-defense legislation was favorably amended and reported by the Senate Judiciary II Committee. The full Senate will now consider this important legislation, which could take place as early as tomorrow.
Introduced by state Senators Andrew Brock (R-34), Doug Berger (D-7) and Kathy Harrington (R-43), Senate Bill 34 would codify the “Castle Doctrine” in the home, as well as establish immunity from civil lawsuits for those who use lethal force to defend themselves or their loved ones while in their home. The bill was amended to add automobiles to the Castle Doctrine protections, as well as “Stand Your Ground” language. This greatly expands the legislation to offer more protections for law-abiding citizens who use their firearms for personal protection.
Please contact your state Senator TODAY and respectfully urge him or her to support your right to self-defense and pass Senate Bill 34 when it comes up for a vote.
From an alert sent out by Grass Roots North Carolina this evening to its members:
Under guidance from Grass Roots North Carolina, the Senate Judiciary II Committee today passed SB 34: “Castle Doctrine” in a stronger version which could ultimately create the most comprehensive such law in the country.
Thanks to the efforts of Sens. Buck Newton (R-, GRNC ****) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie/Rowan, ****), an amendment was made to the bill to incorporate most of the desirable features of HB 74, plus an added protection against crime in the workplace.
GRNC Legislative Action Team members were heavily involved in improving the language of the bill, drafting and reviewing sections, and providing information to sponsors and committee members.
Speaking on behalf of the bill were Sens. Berger, Clary, Daniel, Newton, and Tucker. Raising questions about the bill were Sens. Dannelly and McKissick. Sen. Berger initially offered an amendment to remove workplaces, but later withdrew the amendment and voted for the bill. SB 34 passed unanimously.
Improvements made to SB 34 include:
* Presumption of reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury when an attacker makes an unlawful and forcible entry not only of a home, but also a motor vehicle and a workplace. Beyond including the carjacking protection long-sought by GRNC, this may be the first law in the country to include the workplace among protected areas
* “No duty to retreat” before using deadly force in anyplace the victim has a lawful right to be.
* Protection against malicious prosecution: Police may not arrest a victim forced to use deadly force unless they have probable cause to believe the use of force was unjustified.
Blood Drenched Organization?
Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC’s “The Last Word” describes the NRA as a blood drenched organization in his “rewrite” of Wayne LaPierre’s CPAC speech. He goes on to say that “the merchants of death” aka firearms manufacturers pay Wayne’s salary. And here I thought it was my dues as a NRA member that paid them.
If Lawrence O’Donnell is considered by MSNBC to be the man to replace Keith Olbermann, it is obvious that he was chosen because of his gift for hyperbole and snide nastiness. Weren’t progressives bemoaning “hate-filled” political rhetoric only a few weeks ago? Mr. O’Donnell must not have gotten the memo.
I’ll Believe It When I See Her In Pittsburgh
Rachel Maddow had Meghan McCain as a guest on her show Monday. In her discussion with McCain about guns, gun control, and McCain’s NRA membership, Maddow revealed that her first date with her partner Susan Mikula was at an NRA Ladies Day on the Range event.
Meghan McCain then invited her to attend the NRA Annual Meeting and Maddow accepted. Then McCain went on to make stupid comments about how no one “needs” standard capacity magazines. I’ll believe Maddow was serious about her acceptance when I see her at the Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh at the end of April. Heck, I’ll believe McCain is a NRA member when I see her there as well.
The comments begin at about the 8:55 mark and it is at the 10:00 mark where McCain discusses the “need” for, in her words, “extended capacity” magazines. As to “need”, little Miss McCain ought to heed the advice of Uncle when he says “Whats need got to do with it?”
NRA Responds To ATF Proposal
From the NRA Grassroots Alert:
BATFE Requests “Emergency”
Authority To Track Semi-Automatic Rifle SalesFriday, December 17, 2010
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has proposed that it be given emergency authority for six months, beginning January 5, to require about 8,500 firearms dealers along the border with Mexico “to alert authorities when they sell within five consecutive business days two or more semiautomatic rifles greater than .22 caliber with detachable magazines.” A Washington Post story reporting on the BATFE proposal described that definition as being applicable to “so-called assault weapons,” but it would also apply to many rifles that have never been labeled with that term.
The reporting requirement will apparently be imposed under the “authority” the BATFE has used in the past to demand reporting of other types of transactions from certain limited groups of dealers over the past 10 years, but the new proposal is far broader than any previous use of this authority. Of course, there’s no law today that prevents dealers from reporting suspicious transactions (or attempted transactions) to the BATFE, and dealers often do so. The BATFE is also free to inspect dealers’ sales records—either for annual compliance inspections or during a criminal investigation.
NRA-ILA’s chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, denounced the attempt to establish a registry of Americans who purchase semi-automatic rifles that gun control supporters ultimately want to see banned. “This administration does not have the guts to build a wall, but they do have the audacity to blame and register gun owners for Mexico’s problems,” Cox told the Post. “NRA supports legitimate efforts to stop criminal activity, but we will not stand idle while our Second Amendment is sacrificed for politics.”
The Post says “The plan by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives revives a proposal that has languished at the Justice Department and in the Obama administration for several months,” and that the gist of the plan was proposed by Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) last year. It its August 2009 Blueprint for Federal Action on Guns, MAIG indeed proposed that “ATF should identify the long guns most linked to crime and require dealers to report multiple sales of such guns.”
The idea must have appealed to the BATFE, because in June of this year Congress’ Government Accountability Office released a report noting that BATFE officials had claimed that U.S. efforts to stop the smuggling of firearms to Mexico are hindered by “a lack of required background checks for private firearms sales, and limitations on reporting requirements for multiple sales.”
Curiously, in September, a draft of the Department of Justice’s Inspector General’s Office’s unfavorable review of BATFE’s Project Gunrunner, established to combat the trafficking of firearms to Mexico, didn’t mention multiple sales at all. But the final version of the review, released in November, mentions “multiple sales” 43 times and says “the lack of a reporting requirement for multiple sales of long guns – which have become the cartels’ weapons of choice – hinders ATF’s ability to disrupt the flow of illegal weapons into Mexico.”
Whether BATFE intends its plan as another expansion of its oft-criticized firearm sales record tracing empire, or to lay the groundwork for legislation or regulations restricting “assault weapon” sales, or to fatten the files the agency keeps at its National Tracing Center in West Virginia remains to be seen. And the legality of requiring sales reports on any long guns is also in doubt. When the Congress specifically imposed multiple sales reporting on handguns only, it implicitly stated its intention that the same requirement not apply to sales of long guns.
However, it is crystal clear that some in the Obama Administration agree with those who believe the answer to crime is always more gun control. In September, MAIG blamed crime in states that have “strong” gun laws, on states that don’t have the same laws. And ever since President Obama took office, gun control supporters have been blaming Mexico’s crime problem on America’s gun laws.
The fact that Mexico’s multi-billion dollar drug cartels have machine guns, rocket launchers, grenades, and other potent weaponry you cannot buy in the United States is, to gun control supporters, irrelevant. The fact that most of the cartels’ guns have never been on this side of the U.S. border is, as far as they are concerned, a trifling inconvenience. The fact that the cartels will never have enough “assault weapons” or any other guns from the U.S. to hand out to all the Mexican policemen, soldiers and politicians on their payrolls, is, in their view, an unimportant detail. And the fact that the murder rate in the United States is at a 45-year low, while crime in Mexico is through the roof (the murder rate in Juarez is 115 times higher than in El Paso) is, they would certainly say, a contradiction best ignored.
To read the BATFE’s Federal Register notice about the plan, and for information on how to send your comments, click here (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2010/pdf/2010-31761.pdf). Comments about the proposal will be accepted for two months; if you choose to comment, please state your firm but polite opposition to the plan.
Needless to say, the NRA will not only comment, but take whatever other action is appropriate to block this sweeping expansion of federal recordkeeping on gun owners. Stay tuned.
Washington Post In Tears Over NRA’s Influence
The Washington Post ran a story today that was intended to be a hit piece on the NRA and its influence on Congress. It is part of their The Hidden Life of Guns series.
In the story they decried the amount of money the NRA spent on Congressional races of which 80% were won by NRA endorsed candidates. However, if you look at the graphic presented for House races, the striking thing is that for the majority of endorsed candidates the NRA spent nothing. As in nada, zilch, zero.
While not true for the Senate, in the House races even when the NRA endorsed candidate lost, their opponent was usually as good on gun rights as the endorsed candidate. I wonder how the Post would like to play that little tidbit.
There are a number of good blog posts on this article in the Post. Instapundit linked to the story with the snarky intro – WHEN IT’S BAD THAT CIVIL RIGHTS GROUPS have influence. Bob Owens at Confederate Yankee applies a proper fisking to the story as well.
Finally, in the not connecting the dots category comes this from Don Davis of Don’s Guns and Galleries in Indianapolis who only yesterday they pilloried for being number three on the list of crime guns traced.
Don Davis, 77, has run Don’s Guns and Galleries in Indianapolis for 37 years and says he is one of the highest-volume dealers in the region. A big supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, Davis resigned from the NRA many years ago. “They used to be an organization for the hunter and the fishermen,” he said recently. “Then they got into politics. They’re so political, that’s what they do with their money. Today if you say anything about a gun, they use their money to run against you.”
If it weren’t for the NRA being political, Mr. Davis and his gun shop would have been forced out of business long ago by the gun control forces.
UPDATE: Sebastian at Snow Flakes in Hell does a good job dissecting the Washington Post article. Also both he and Thirdpower over at Days of Our Trailers caught the bit about Ray Schoenke being paid by the Obama campaign to shill for them to gun owners. I missed that part.
FoxNews Covers D’Cruz Case
Larry Thompson, attorney for James D’Cruz and the NRA, and Paul Helmke, head of the Brady Center, appeared on Fox and Friends on Saturday morning to debate whether 18-20 year olds should be allowed to legally purchase handguns as well as carry concealed in Texas.
In the short time period, I would say that Thompson got most of his points made while Helmke said that except for voting 18 year olds aren’t mentioned in the Constitution. So, if one is to listen to Paul Helmke, your only right as an 18 year old is to vote for Obama in big numbers and then shut up. I wish Fox had given them more time to discuss this case.
Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>
H/T James D’Cruz
NRA Weighs In On Andrew Traver
This was sent out this morning by the NRA-ILA:
The National Rifle Association Strongly Opposes the Nomination of Andrew Traver to Head BATFE, Calls on President Obama to withdraw the nomination
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Statement from Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action
The National Rifle Association of America strongly opposes President Obama’s nomination of Andrew Traver as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Traver has been deeply aligned with gun control advocates and anti-gun activities. This makes him the wrong choice to lead an enforcement agency that has almost exclusive oversight and control over the firearms industry, its retailers and consumers. Further, an important nomination such as BATFE director should not be made as a “recess appointment,” in order to circumvent consent by the American people through their duly-elected U.S. Senators.
Traver served as an advisor to the International Association for Chiefs of Police’s (IACP) “Gun Violence Reduction Project,” a “partnership” with the Joyce Foundation. Both IACP and the Joyce Foundation are names synonymous with promoting a variety of gun control schemes at the federal and state levels. Most of the individuals involved in this project were prominent gun control activists and lobbyists.
The IACP report, generated with Traver’s help, called on Congress to ban thousands of commonly owned firearms by misrepresenting them as “assault weapons,” as well as calling for bans on .50 caliber rifles and widely used types of ammunition. The report also suggests that Congress should regulate gun shows out of existence and should repeal the privacy protections of the Tiahrt Amendment — all efforts strongly opposed by the NRA and its members.
Traver also participated in an extremely deceptive NBC Chicago report (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Assault-Weapons-Surge-in-City-69620227.html) in which he referred to “the growing frequency of gang members and drug dealers using heavy caliber military-type weapons” and described them as if they were machine guns: “Pull the trigger and you can mow people down.” Traver and his agents provided the reporter with a fully automatic AK-47, with which she was unable to hit the target. He then said that stray bullets are “one of the main problems with having stuff like this available to the gangs.”
As the Agent-in-Charge of Chicago’s BATFE office, Traver knows that fully automatic firearms are not available through normal retail channels — the opposite of what was implied in the report.
An agency involved in the regulation of a fundamental, individual right guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution should not be led by an individual with a demonstrated hostility to that freedom. For that reason, the NRA strongly opposes Andrew Traver to head the BATFE and urges President Obama to withdraw this ill-advised nomination.
–NRA–
GRNC vs NRA – And the Winner Is….
Neither.
In the two races where Grass Roots North Carolina and the NRA sparred over endorsements, they each won one race.
In the 11th Congressional District, Heath Shuler won 54% of the vote or about a 20,000 vote margin. Until I have the complete precinct by precinct results, I can only speculate his win came because he took the Democrat (and hippie) stronghold of Asheville big while holding his own in the rest of the district.
Both candidates in this race were rated A by the NRA so gun rights won’t suffer though I might not say the same for civil rights given Shuler’s votes on union card check and the DISCLOSE Act. I will also say the race was vicious with the negative ads starting almost immediately after Labor Day.
The other race where GRNC worked to defeat a candidate with the NRA’s endorsement was between NC House Majority Leader Hugh Holliman (D-Davidson Co) and the Republican challenger Rayne Brown. GRNC targeted Holliman for his refusal to push for a vote on a Castle Doctrine bill that had already passed the State Senate. It was held in the Judiciary I committee by the chair Deborah Ross (D-Wake).
Rayne Brown won almost 58% of the vote in her successful effort to unseat Holliman. Brown had been ranked 4 stars in the GRNC’s 0 to 4 star ranking system. Her victory knocked off the number two Democrat in the General Assembly.
In general, this was a good election for gun owners in North Carolina. Control of the North Carolina General Assembly appears to have completely switched hands from Democrat to Republican. If the close races hold up, it will be the first time in over a century that the GOP has controlled both houses of the General Assembly. I anticipate that this time the Castle Doctrine will be enacted as will changes to the NC law enacting a ban on off-premises possession and carry of firearms during declared states of emergency.
Tackiness
First off, I am a NRA Life Member. You will also find a recruiting button for the NRA on the sidebar of this blog. That said, for Chris Cox and the NRA to claim credit for the win in McDonald v. Chicago is just plain tacky. To not even mention the role of the Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation just compounds it.
Tom Gresham hit on this in his GunTalk radio show on Sunday and he was right. It just doesn’t sit right. David Codrea has more in his National Gun Rights Examiner column from yesterday.
In terms of strategic Second Amendment litigation, Alan Gura is a master. He picks his plaintiffs with care and he crafts the case to have a narrow – but winnable – focus. One need only compare his follow-on Chicago case, Ezell v. Chicago, with that sponsored by the NRA, Benson v. Chicago. Ezell is focused solely on the gun range issue. Benson takes more of a scatter gun approach and has already been amended once.
In an ideal world, the NRA would focus on the legislative arena where they are really, really good and leave litigation to the Second Amendment Foundation and Alan Gura. The legislative arena calls for an organization that can be the 800-pound gorilla who must sometimes resort to steamroller tactics. Civil rights litigation requires a deft, strategic approach as the courts are not meant for steamroller tactics. With his wins in the Heller and McDonald cases, Alan Gura and – by extension – the Second Amendment Foundation have shown their great ability in Second Amendment litigation. The NRA is the heavy armored division to the SAF/Gura’s Special Forces A-Team. Both are needed to win the war but each should be employed where they will do the most good.