NRA-ILA

Uncategorized

Anti-Hunting Campbell-DeFazio Amendment Voted Down in Congress

June 17, 2011 by

The NRA-ILA sent this out this evening:

Fairfax, Va. – A proposal by Congressmen John Campbell (R-CA) and Peter DeFazio (D-OR) to prohibit necessary and legal practices used to effectively manage wildlife and predator species was overwhelmingly defeated today in the House of Representatives. The amendment to H.R. 2112, the Agriculture appropriations bill, was strongly opposed by the NRA and other pro-hunting organizations. It was pushed by the Humane Society of the United States and other radical anti-hunting groups.

“Wildlife and wildlife predators cause hundreds of millions of dollars in damage annually to natural resources, public infrastructures, private property and agriculture,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “We will continue to oppose efforts like the Campbell-DeFazio Amendment that seek to diminish essential wildlife and predator management programs that protect our hunting heritage.”

The amendment would have drastically reduced funding to the Wildlife Service Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Program (WS), which is authorized by Congress to manage a program to decrease human-wildlife conflicts throughout the United States, including damage from predator animals.

Coyotes and other predators have decimated a great deal of the mule deer, moose and elk populations throughout the United States. As it stands, lethal predator control remains the best tool we have for keeping large predators in balance with existing habitat and the prey they require.

“This was yet another defeat for the anti-hunting agenda being pushed by the Humane Society of the United States”, concluded Cox. “The NRA will continue to fight to protect America’s hunting heritage from those who seek to eliminate it.”

-nra-

Uncategorized

We Must Agree To Disagree

June 14, 2011 by 1 Comment

Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell had a post yesterday in which he disagreed with my opposition to a bill in the North Carolina State Senate, S. 594, which would have amended North Carolina’s emergency powers.

The bill introduced by Senators Doug Berger (D-Franklin) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie) would have allowed the possession of firearms during a declared state of emergency. As I said then and I will say again on the face of it this is a good thing EXCEPT that it would have mooted the Second Amendment Foundation/Grass Roots North Carolina’s case Bateman et al v. Perdue et al. I hold that getting a good legal precedent in a court battle can often times trump getting a bill passed in a legislature for long lasting impact.

Sebastian holds that “if you’re presented with the shot, take it” or in other words, go with the certainty of the legislative victory as opposed to the uncertainty of the courts. This presupposes that it was a lock that the North Carolina General Assembly would pass an act amending Chapter 36A of the General Statutes. The major gun rights bills this session included the Castle Doctrine (passed), firearms in parks (passed), concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (passed in the House), an omnibus bill that would improve concealed carry (passed with amendments in the House), and the emergency powers act changes (stalled in committee). Of all of these bills, I would have to say that the Castle Doctrine was the most important and it was passed.

I did not see any major public movement on S. 594 by either the NRA or Grass Roots North Carolina until the end of the session. It is my feeling that GRNC would have pushed for passage of S. 594 without the wise counsel of their attorney and the Second Amendment Foundation. By not pushing for it – and actually opposing it at the end of the session – that organization showed its growing maturity as a gun rights organization. By this I mean they were willing to play the long war and sacrifice the temporary gains of a bill for the longer term impact of an opinion.

Anthony Roulette, NRA-ILA State Liaison for North Carolina, commented on Sebastian’s blog that I was mistaken about the NRA’s rationale for pushing S. 594 at the end of the session. I will do him the courtesy of reprinting his comments here.

Mr. Richardson:

I appreciate that you have a right to your personal opinions regarding the NRA efforts on Senate Bill 594, but you are incorrect. The NRA has been pushing for a legislative fix to the problem of gun rights and a declared State of Emergency for many years. The NRA has been pushing for legislation in Congress and the states to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency almost immediately after Hurricane Katrina, and has succeeded in enactment of such statutes at the federal level and in 31 states.

In 2009, the NRA supported North Carolina House Bill 257 that sought to correct this problem:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4496

If you have been following NRA-ILA alerts this year, you will note that NRA has been “publicly pushing it from the start.” Here is our alert from April 15:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6634

It was mentioned again on April 22: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6670

Unfortunately, it was not until last week that the NRA was informed by Senate Republican leadership that S 594 would not be brought up for consideration. That is the reason for our recent push, and it has nothing to do with your speculated reason.

Sincerely,

Anthony Roulette
North Carolina State Liaison
NRA-ILA

House Bill 257 from the 2009 session referred to above was supported by Grass Roots North Carolina as they made clear in their Alert from February 27, 2009. Why the change from then to now? McDonald v. Chicago. That win brought the Second Amendment to the states through incorporation and with it a whole new valid way to advance gun rights.

My training in political science reflects two divergent schools of thought. As an undergraduate, I was trained in the classical or legalistic approach to government with heavy emphasis on constitutional law and the structure of governmental institutions. As a graduate student at Chapel Hill, I was trained in the behavioral approach to political science which is the polar opposite of the classical approach. It is heavy on quantitative measurement and studying the actual behavior of political actors. In other words, what they do as opposed to what they say.

If one takes Mr. Roulette at his word that it was not their intention to moot Bateman, the impact of S. 594 passing would still have the same impact. Bateman would be mooted because the underlying case or controversy no longer existed regardless of whether or not this was the NRA-ILA’s intention. Thus, from a behavioral standpoint, their actions, if successful, would have mooted Bateman and screwed one of their critics, attorney Alan Gura, for good measure.

And they would have been able to say they got the Emergency Powers ban done away with. From a bureaucratic standpoint how much better could that have been – they get the glory, their critics are diminished, and a threat to their power is removed.

Uncategorized

I Respectfully Disagree

June 10, 2011 by 7 Comments

The NRA-ILA sent out a legislative alert for North Carolina this morning concerning S. 594. This bill would do away with North Carolina’s ban on possession on ammo and firearms off premises during a declared State of Emergency.

Thursday, June 09, 2011

Contact Your State Senator Immediately!

With time rapidly winding down on this year’s legislative session, many pro-gun reforms are in a position to advance. One critical reform has been bottled up, and could die if it is not acted on soon.

Senate Bill 594, an emergency powers bill introduced by state Senator Doug Berger (D-7), has been stalled since its introduction. This critical legislation would ensure that our Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be suspended during a declared state of emergency. The NRA has been told that the Senate Republicans are preventing this bill from being heard.

Please call AND e-mail your state Senator IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support adding the language in S 594 as an amendment to all pro-gun legislation.

Please also call AND e-mail Senate Republican Leadership and urge them to ensure the language in S 594 is amended to other pro-gun legislation.

I have written a great deal on North Carolina’s ban on firearms during declared states of emergency. I have called the Governor’s Office to inquire about the declared emergency at the start of dove season last year and was called a rumor mongerer. I have chastised Gov. Bev Perdue for misstating the law. I have written about the Senate Bill above. No one can say that I have ignored it and want the emergency ban to remain in place.

Normally, I’d be urging North Carolina readers to call or email the State Senate leadership to move this bill. That said, I disagree with the NRA-ILA on pushing to rush this bill through the State Senate. The reason I don’t want to see this bill passed right now is because of a conversation I had with a certain prominent attorney. All I will say about this attorney is that he has rock star status within the gun community.

He said that in strategic civil rights litigation you need the opinions and decisions so that you can build upon them to expand the right. For example, you had to have the Heller decision before you could get the McDonald decision which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states. If Mayor Adrian Fenty had not in his confident arrogance appealed to the Supreme Court from the Court of Appeals, you would not have had a Supreme Court decision in favor of Dick Anthony Heller.

Likewise here in North Carolina, if the General Assembly passed changes to the emergency powers, it will moot Bateman v. Perdue. At the heart of that case is the right to carry for self-defense outside of your residence. Bateman is fully briefed and is ready to go to oral arguments. It is a good case and despite the strong efforts of Attorney General Roy Cooper and his legal staff, I think we will win it.

There are many opportunities to get a bill passed or a law changed. There is only this one chance to win in the courts. Why blow it just because you are getting antsy? The strongest proponent for changes in this law has been Grass Roots North Carolina which is one of the plaintiffs in the case. With their Alerts going out almost daily as the General Assembly gets near the crossover date, you have not heard them pushing S. 594. Think about that. If the most hard-core, take no prisoners, gun rights group in North Carolina isn’t pushing it, doesn’t that say something? I think even GRNC realizes the value of letting the District Court finish the process that they started the day after the Supreme Court’s favorable ruling in the McDonald case.

UPDATE: S. 594 was not passed (or even considered) by the State Senate before the Crossover Deadline of 11:59pm on June 9th. As a result, it is dead for this session of the General Assembly despite the last minute efforts of the NRA-ILA.

Is this a bad thing that the General Assembly didn’t pass changes to the Emergency Powers statutes? The answer is no for two reasons. First, Bateman v. Perdue is moving along in the courts and as I said earlier, I think we have a good chance of winning it. And second, Governor Perdue herself has changed how she declares a State of Emergency. While she still retains the power to declare a statewide State of Emergency under Chapter 36A of the General Statutes which imposes the firearms restrictions, she has begun to use another section of the General Statutes, Chapter 166A,  that allows declaration of an emergency yet doesn’t impose firearms restrictions.

UPDATE II: I was correct about GRNC recognizing the value of letting the District Court finish the process. GRNC’s leadership sent out this message yesterday to Republican State Senators

To: GOP Senators
From: Grass Roots North Carolina
Re: SB 679, anti-gun effort by Sen. Doug Berger

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Grass Roots North Carolina has reason to believe that Sen. Doug Berger
will attempt to amend SB 679 (“Castle Doctrine/Amend Firearms Laws”) on Third
Reading by adding the contents of SB 594 (“Firearms/State of Emergency”).

I strongly urge you to oppose any such attempt by Sen. Doug Berger.

Although this bill appears to be a well-intentioned effort to repeal the
gun ban which applies during States of Emergency declared by the Governor or
local governments, in reality it is an effort to moot a lawsuit filed
against Gov. Perdue and others by Second Amendment lawyer Alan Gura.

As you may recall, Gura won DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, forcing
SCOTUS to recognize the Second Amendment as an individual right.

This lawsuit, Bateman et al. v. Perdue et al., is intended to expand the
definition of the Second Amendment by the United States Supreme Court. If
won, not only would the lawuit cause repeal of the State of Emergency law in
question, but it would further expand our rights under the Second Amendment.

Again, I strongly urge you to oppose any attempt by Sen. Doug Berger to
add State of Emergency language to SB 679.

Senate Bill 679 passed its 2nd and 3rd Reading yesterday without the Emergency Powers amendment. Sen. Doug Berger referred to in the letter is a pro-gun Democrat.

Uncategorized

An Area In Which The NRA Excels

June 4, 2011 by

The legislative arena along with the concomitant lobbying is one of the areas in which the National Rifle Association really excels. The embedded letter below is evidence of their success.

The letter to President Barack Obama urges him to stop the stonewalling over Project Gunrunner and Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunwalker). It was spearheaded by Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) who was one of the keynote speakers at the recent NRA Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh. The letter is signed by 31Congressional Democrats.

In an ideal world, the NRA would concentrate on training, the legislative arena, and other areas in which being a mass organization really helps and leave the court challenges to the Second Amendment Foundation. While the NRA does have good lawyers, it is the Second Amendment Foundation that has the agility, smarts, and legal expertise in Alan Gura to bring the strategic Second Amendment cases which will get the appellate wins.

Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world. There are some in the NRA’s hierarchy who believe the NRA has to be the be-all and end-all of all things Second Amendment. The result so far has been a number of “me, too” cases, overly broad complaints, and poorly vetted plaintiffs as well as interference in the strategic civil rights litigation of the Second Amendment Foundation. It is time for the adults in the NRA to rein in those who seek organizational glory at the expense of the Second Amendment.

Project Gunrunner Letter to POTUS June 2011(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Uncategorized

HB 650 Expanded In Committee

June 3, 2011 by

The NRA-ILA released this today regarding North Carolina’s omnibus gun law – HB 650 – which passed out of the House Judiciary C Subcommittee yesterday. Before it left the subcommittee, the committee amended the bill to add the castle doctrine and parking lot provisions among other gun rights strengthening provisions.

North Carolina: Castle Doctrine Language and Parking Lot Provision in NRA-Backed Omnibus Bill Threatened!

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Urge Your Representative to Oppose Any Amendments to House Bill 650!

As reported by the NRA yesterday, the North Carolina House Judiciary Subcommittee C sent House Bill 650, the NRA–backed omnibus gun bill, to the House floor for a vote. However, there is now a strong effort by the anti-gun lobby to add amendments that would weaken both the current Castle Doctrine language and Parking Lot/Employee Protection provision contained in this bill. It is vital that you let your state Representative know that he or she needs to support HB 650 in its current form and oppose all amendments, especially those that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot language.

HB 650, introduced by state Representative Mark Hilton (R-96), originally focused on making a number of improvements to the Right-to-Carry (RTC) law, as well as improving the firearm preemption statute that prevents municipalities from enacting gun control laws more onerous than what has been passed by the state. A Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for the bill was approved by the subcommittee at a previous hearing, which greatly expanded the bill’s scope in a very positive way. The PCS includes a number of other issues, such as Castle Doctrine language, Parking Lot/Employee Protection language, Fraudulent Firearms Purchase Prevention language, and language to ensure North Carolina residents are not prohibited by state law from purchasing long guns in states that do not border North Carolina.

It is essential to the passage of this bill that you contact your state Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support the current version of HB 650 with NO amendments, especially any amendments that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot provisions. Contact information for your state Representative can be found here.

Uncategorized

NRA-ILA Statement On Court’s Decision On Attorneys’ Fees

June 2, 2011 by 3 Comments

Chris Cox, head of the NRA-ILA, released this statement this afternoon regarding the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision regarding the awarding of attorneys’ fees in NRA et al v. City of Chicago et al and McDonald et al v. Chicago et al.

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Holds NRA Entitled to Attorneys’ Fees in Lawsuits Against Chicago and Oak Park, Illinois

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Fairfax, VA—Today, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals conclusively and forcefully held, without need for oral argument, that the National Rifle Association has the right to recover attorneys’ fees in its lawsuits against the city of Chicago’s and the village of Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun bans. The court held that the NRA was a prevailing party in the case of National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago and Village of Oak Park.

“This is a Second Amendment victory and a civil rights victory. The National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment prevailed against those who sought to deny the right to keep and bear arms in Chicago and Oak Park,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “The attempt to avoid paying the NRA’s attorneys’ fees was rightly found to be unjust by the Court.”

After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right to keep and bear arms for all Americans in the historic McDonald v. Chicago and NRA v. Chicago and Oak Park cases, it remanded them for the purpose of issuing an injunction against Chicago and Oak Park’s unconstitutional gun ordinances. Before that injunction was issued, however, those ordinances were repealed. The City and the Village then argued that the NRA was not a prevailing party and should not be allowed to recover attorneys’ fees. The District Court, which originally ruled against the NRA, agreed and denied the fee award.

Today’s Seventh Circuit decision overturns that ruling, holding instead that the NRA is indeed a prevailing party and is entitled to receive reimbursement for attorneys’ fees. The amount to be recovered will be established by the District Court.

“This is a major victory for the NRA. While we are grateful to recover our attorneys’ fees, however, we remain steadfast in our belief that Chicago and Oak Park continue to circumvent the law of the land and deny their law-abiding residents the Second Amendment freedoms protected by the Constitution. We will continue to fight those efforts until the Second Amendment is fully respected,” concluded Cox.

I see Mr. Cox still has a problem saying the name of the attorney who won the case actually heard in the Supreme Court as well as the Heller case. Let me say it for him – AH-lin Grrr-AH.

Uncategorized

Shepard v. Madigan: The NRA-ISRA Challenge To Ban On Carrying Firearms

May 13, 2011 by

The National Rifle Association and the Illinois State Rifle Association filed suit today on behalf of Mary Shepard challenging the State of Illinois’ ban on the carrying of firearms for self-defense. As I posted earlier, the Second Amendment Foundation filed suit yesterday in Illinois with a similar challenge. Fortunately, the NRA suit is filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois while the SAF suit was filed in the Centeral District of Illinois. Therefore, the cases cannot be combined.

The release from the NRA-ILA announcing the case is below.

Friday, May 13, 2011

Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association is funding and supporting a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Illinois’ complete and total ban on carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home. The case, filed today in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, is Shepard v. Madigan. The lead plaintiff is church treasurer Mary Shepard; joining her is the Illinois State Rifle Association, the NRA’s state affiliate.

Mary Shepard is an Illinois resident and a trained gun owner with no criminal record, who is licensed to carry a concealed handgun in two other states. Because Illinois remains the only state that completely prohibits all law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms for self-defense outside the home, Mary Shepard also became a crime victim. While working as the treasurer of her church, Mrs. Shepard and an 83-year-old co-worker were viciously attacked and beaten by a six-foot-three-inch, 245-pound man with a violent past and a criminal record. Mrs. Shepard and her co-worker were lucky to survive, as each of them suffered major injuries to the head, neck and upper body. Mrs. Shepard’s injuries required extensive surgery and physical therapy.

“Mary Shepard isn’t just a victim of the violent criminal who attacked her,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. “She is also a victim of anti self-defense activists in the Illinois legislature who have consistently refused to recognize that good people have the right to protect themselves when they go about their everyday business. We’re pleased that the legislature has come closer this year than ever before to changing the law, but close isn’t good enough for Mary Shepard and the thousands of other Illinois residents who are prohibited by statute from defending themselves outside the home.”

Because Illinois statutes prohibit the right to keep and bear arms and the ability to carry handguns in Illinois, they infringe on the right of the people, including Mrs. Shepard, members of the ISRA and other law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and are thus null and void.

Cox concluded: “In its historic Heller and McDonald decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects a fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Mary Shepard’s story highlights the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights. Whether through the legislature or through the courts, we won’t rest until that happens.”

Uncategorized

Fishing In Washington State

March 23, 2011 by

The Washington State Police are on a fishing expedition. Given that it is Washington State you might think it would be for some of the wonderful salmon that runs up their rivers and is off their coast. That would be incorrect.

Actually, they have sent a letter to every FFL in the State of Washington asking for records and documents dealing with all AR-15’s and AR-15 lowers sold or purchased between July 1, 2010 and now. As you might imagine, this has caused an uproar.

The NRA-ILA has posted an alert on this fishing expedition and has sent a letter to the Washington State Police (see letter at bottom). It alerts dealers that they are under no legal obligation to provide this information.

Dave Workman, editor of Gun Week and a Washington resident, discusses the issue with Cam Edwards on Cam and Company.

National Rifle Association of America Washington State Police Inquiry

UPDATE: The NRA has issued an update on this issue after talks with the Washington State Police.