Uncategorized

More On Castle Doctrine In North Carolina

February 8, 2011 by 1 Comment

As I posted earlier this evening, a Castle Doctrine bill has been introduced in the North Carolina State Senate. The bill has 16 co-sponsors including two Democrats. The majority of the co-sponsors are newly elected freshman Republicans. Three women and one African-American are among the co-sponsors.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Judiciary II committee for hearings. Two of the three co-chairmen of that committee are also co-sponsors of this bill.

With a Republican majority in both the NC House and Senate, this may be the year in which we get the castle doctrine passed. The text of the bill is below. Having not read other states castle doctrine bills, I don’t know how it compares. I don’t think it is as broad as the one in Texas where deadly force can be used outside the dwelling. That said, it is a start.

SENATE BILL 34
Short Title: The Castle Doctrine. (Public)
Sponsors: Senators Brock, D. Berger, Harrington; Apodaca, Clary, Daniel, Goolsby, Gunn, Hise, Jones, Newton, Pate, Preston, Soucek, Stevens, and Tucker.
Referred to: Judiciary II.
February 7, 2011
*S34-v-1*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO CLARIFY WHEN A PERSON MAY USE DEFENSIVE FORCE TO PROTECT AGAINST THE UNLAWFUL AND FORCIBLE ENTRY INTO THE PERSON’S DWELLING BY ANOTHER, TO PREVENT THE REMOVAL OF A PERSON AGAINST HIS OR HER WILL FROM THE PERSON’S DWELLING, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON IS JUSTIFIED IN USING DEFENSIVE FORCE IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SO IS IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTION FOR THE USE OF SUCH FORCE.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by 10 adding a new section to read:

Ҥ 14-51.2. Home protection; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm; immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.

(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Criminal prosecution. – The term includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) Dwelling. – A building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is 19 designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(3) Law enforcement officer. – Any person employed or appointed as a full-time, part-time, or auxiliary law enforcement officer, correctional officer, probation officer, post-release supervision officer, or parole officer.
(4) Residence. – A dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.

(b) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if both of the following apply:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling or residence, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling or residence.
(2) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(c) The presumption set forth in subsection (b) of this section does not apply in any of the following circumstances:
(1) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling or residence, such as an owner or lessee, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person.
(2) The person sought to be removed from the dwelling or residence is a child or grandchild or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used.
(3) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in, attempting to escape from, or using the dwelling or residence to further any criminal offense that involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
(4) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling or residence in the lawful performance of his or her official duties, and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(5) The person against whom the defensive force is used (i) has discontinued all efforts to unlawfully and forcefully enter the dwelling or residence and (ii) has exited the dwelling or residence.
(d) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling or residence is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(e) A person who uses force as permitted by this section is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer.”

SECTION 2. G.S. 14-51.1 is repealed.

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. Prosecutions for offenses committed before the effective date of this act are not abated or affected by this act, and the statutes that would be applicable but for this act remain applicable to those prosecutions.

(Democrat co-sponsors are in bold type)

UPDATE:  It is my understanding from others that a stronger castle doctrine bill will be introduced into the NC House within the next week or so. The bill above is the same as S. 928 (including a weakening amendment) that passed the State Senate in the last session of the General Assembly. In other words, it is a start but could be improved and strengthened.

Uncategorized

Castle Doctrine Bill Introduced In NC

February 7, 2011 by

Just got this by Twitter from the NRA-ILA. I will have more on the bill later tonight after I finish teaching class.

North Carolina: 2011 legislative Session Begins with the Introduction of Castle Doctrine Legislation in Raleigh!

Monday, February 07, 2011

The North Carolina General Assembly convened last week, and the NRA is working with state legislators to introduce several pro-gun reforms. Our legislative goals include Right-to-Carry reforms that will expand where permit holders may lawfully carry their concealed firearms, eliminating the archaic requirement that law-abiding citizens request permission from their local sheriff before purchasing a handgun, passing a solid Castle Doctrine law, and fixing the problems with the current statutes relating to a declared state of emergency.

State Senators Andrew Brock (R-34), Doug Berger (D-7) and Kathy Harrington (R-43) have already introduced Senate Bill 34, which 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.

Uncategorized

Gunned Down By The “Extended Capacity Clip”

February 7, 2011 by

George Stephanopolus had an interview this morning with Kelly O’Brien on Good Morning America. Her fiancee, Gabe Zimmerman, was Rep. Gabby Giffords’ outreach coordinator in Tucson and was killed by Jared Loughner in the Tucson shootings.

Ms. O’Brien was on GMA to lend her support to bills being introduced into the Arizona House and Senate which would limit magazine capacity to 10. She is a sympathetic figure and you grieve for her loss. I think we can expect to see more of her as well as others related to this shooting being used to push for restrictions on standard capacity magazines.

Ms. O’Brien, however, gets it wrong when she says that it is “so sad to see 19 people gunned down in 15 seconds by one of these extended capacity clips.” It was not the “clip” that killed her fiancee – it was a mentally disturbed person whose condition went unreported by school authorities and then ignored by the Pima County Sheriff’s Department. It was Jared Loughner that killed Gabe Zimmerman and not the Glock 18 knock-off magazine. We can still grieve for Ms. O’Brien’s lost love but we don’t have to agree with her reasoning.

Uncategorized

Mayors Upset Over OMB Delay Of Multi-Rifle Reporting Requirement

February 7, 2011 by 1 Comment

With the announcement from OMB that they are delaying the multi-rifle reporting requirement until February 14th, Mayors Bloomberg and Menino are upset. Reading their statements in the context of Operation Gunwalker shows how out of touch they have become.

I really don’t think ATF recognizes an emergency but rather an opportunity to push their agency even if a Border Patrol agent is killed in the process.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 5, 2011
No. 16

STATEMENT OF MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS CO-CHAIRS IN RESPONSE TO WHITE HOUSE DELAY OF ATF POLICY ON REPORTING BULK SALES OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT RIFLES

White House Office of Management and Budget Rejected an Emergency Rule Proposed by The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) to Require Certain Gun Dealers Along the Southwest Border to Report Bulk Sales of Rifles, Including Military-style Semiautomatic Rifles.

The Rejection of the Emergency Rule Could Delay the Implementation of the ATF’s Proposal for Months

Statement of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg

“The White House decided that the illegal trafficking of thousands of semiautomatic assault rifles from the U.S. to Mexico is not an emergency, our coalition of over 550 mayors strongly disagrees. These guns are fueling violence that has claimed more than 30,000 lives and putting our law enforcement officers at risk. ATF recognizes the emergency but we need the White House to give the agency the support it needs do its job effectively.”

Statement of Mayor Thomas M. Menino

“ATF’s emergency proposal to require reporting of bulk sales of long guns would give law enforcement meaningful intelligence about gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexican drug cartels. According to the Justice Department’s Inspector General, these long guns make up nearly half of the guns recovered in Mexican crimes. ATF has said an overwhelming majority of these guns are traced back to the United States. It is disappointing that the Administration will not act swiftly to give ATF the investigative tools it needs to help stop these crimes.”

Uncategorized

Who Needs “Extended” Magazines?

February 7, 2011 by

Just as Stephen Hunter said in an op-ed in the Washington Post, defenders needed standard (or large) capacity magazines.

For them, the Glock with a 33-round magazine is the weapon of maximum utility. You can load it on Sunday and shoot it all month. (Nobody wants to reload a gun while being shot at.) It’s light and easy to control. You don’t have to carry it or conceal it; it’s under the bed or in the drawer until needed. When the question arises of who needs an extended magazine, the answer is: the most defenseless of the defenseless.

Those who would ban extended magazines, will say that although hundreds of thousands are in circulation and thousands more will surely be sold before a ban is enacted, it will be worth it if it saves just one life. But the other half of that question must be asked, too: Is it worth it if it costs just one life?

As one would expect, the comments are full of derision for Hunter and his stance. From reading them, you would think all anti-gunners had the shooting skills of Annie Oakley and thus didn’t need more than one or two rounds.

To confirm the need for protection against home invaders comes this video from WSAZ in southern Ohio. The area has seen a large increase in home invasions and residents are stepping up to protect themselves. When even the former Sheriff has to fight off home invaders, you know the thugs don’t care who they attack.

H/T Buckeye Firearms Assoc.

Uncategorized

Illinois Senators Send Letter Supporting Andrew Traver

February 5, 2011 by 1 Comment

It has been a while since we have had any news to report on Andrew Traver – President Obama’s anti-gun nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Thanks to Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL)  and Mark Kirk (Rino-IL), we have something. They sent a joint letter yesterday to Obama expressing their support for Traver.

In a press release that announcing the letter, they urged the NRA to reconsider it opposition to Traver and give him a second look. A different version of the release sent to local newspapers gives the impression that Traver’s nomination was supported by NSSF.

Traver’s efforts to combat gangs and violent crime in Illinois have drawn bipartisan praise, and his efforts to work cooperatively with the firearms industry have been applauded by industry leaders such as National Shooting Sports Foundation Senior Vice President Lawrence G. Keane.

This is incorrect and NSSF has posted a demand for a retraction on their website which could explain the different versions of the press release.  Neither NSSF nor Larry Keane have endorsed Andrew Traver to head ATF and they object to the phrasing of the letter to Obama. The full text of the letter from Durbin and Kirk is below.

February 4, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. President:

We commend you for nominating Andrew Traver to be Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF has been without a Senate-confirmed Director since 2006, and this lack of leadership has hampered our nation’s efforts to combat street gangs and drug cartels and to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is long past time for the ATF Director position to be filled, and we believe the record will show that Mr. Traver is the right man for the job.

ATF is a major federal law enforcement agency with approximately 5,000 officers and field division offices located in 25 U.S. cities and 5 foreign countries. While ATF has a dual role as regulator of the U.S. firearms industry and as primary enforcer of federal firearms laws, ATF performs other vital missions critical to our homeland security. For example, the agency plays leadership roles in combating Mexican drug cartels, coordinating the federal law enforcement security response to potential attacks involving weapons of mass destruction, and investigating incidents involving explosives and arson. ATF additionally serves as a key partner in efforts to combat the violent street gangs that plague many of America’s cities. It is critical that the agency have a Director who can manage the agency’s operations and carry out these functions effectively.

We believe Mr. Traver is an exceptional nominee for ATF Director. A Navy veteran and a cancer survivor, Mr. Traver is a 23-year veteran of ATF who served for the last four years as Special Agent in Charge of the ATF Chicago Field Division. Under his leadership, the ATF Chicago Field Division has spearheaded major investigations and enforcement actions against numerous Chicago-area street gangs, including the Latin Kings, the Gangster Disciples, and the Aurora Insane Deuces. Mr. Traver’s efforts to combat gangs and violent crime in Illinois have drawn bipartisan praise, and his efforts to work cooperatively with the firearms industry have been applauded by industry leaders such as National Shooting Sports Foundation Senior Vice President Lawrence G. Keane. We know Mr. Traver personally and can vouch that he is a no-nonsense, results-oriented leader who takes seriously his commitment to enforcing the laws on the books.

We are aware that the National Rifle Association issued an early initial statement opposing his nomination. We believe the NRA should take the opportunity to hear Mr. Traver present his case for confirmation and to permit a review of his qualifications by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The NRA commendably waited until after hearings had taken place before taking a position on the nominations of Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. As a veteran and decorated federal law enforcement officer, Mr. Traver deserves similar respect for the service he provided the nation in and out of uniform.

It is crucial to the security of our nation and our citizens that we enable ATF to effectively carry out its mission and enforce the law. We will urge our colleagues to judge Andrew Traver’s nomination on the merits and are confident that they will find him to be an outstanding nominee. He has served his country and Illinois with distinction and we believe the record will show he deserves to be confirmed.

Sincerely,

Richard J. Durbin         Mark Kirk