Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: GRNC Alert 2-24-11: CASTLE DOCTRINE SURVIVES HOUSE AMBUSH

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    173

    GRNC Alert 2-24-11: CASTLE DOCTRINE SURVIVES HOUSE AMBUSH

    Grass Roots North Carolina P.O. Box 10665 Raleigh, NC 27605, 919-664-8565

    GRNC Alert 2-24-11:
    CASTLE DOCTRINE SURVIVES HOUSE AMBUSH

    * Republican House Majority Leader attacks HB 74, portending battles to come

    * Senate version passes 2nd Reading: 3rd Reading Monday

    Two Castle Doctrine bills are working their way through the NC legislature. Which bill might ultimately be enacted into law remains to be seen.

    SB 34 has been much improved from its original weak version and today passed its 2nd Reading Senate by a vote of 33-17. Vote details for particular Senators will be published when they become available. Generally (although not always), 3rd Reading is a formality. Both may be accomplished in a single day provided no member of the body objects. Apparently, one of the perennial anti-gun members objected, delaying 3rd Reading until Monday.

    AMBUSH IN THE HOUSE

    HB 74, originally the stronger Castle Doctrine bill, met far tougher resistance in a House Judiciary subcommittee, however, as it was repeatedly attacked not only by anti-gun Democrats, but also by Republican House Majority Leader Paul "Skip" Stam (R-Wake, formerly GRNC ****).

    In relentless questioning apparently intended to tie up the bill, painted scenarios of drug dealers shooting it out and using Castle Doctrine as a legal defense (this was rebutted by committee counsel), likening the bill to "expedited execution." Using phrases like "dead people on the floor" and "shoot first and ask questions later," Stam eventually produced handwritten language he claimed would accomplish "95%" of what bill supporters want, but which actually offered crime victims few protections beyond current law.

    Equally obstructionist were Reps. Darren Jackson (D-Wake, 0-star), and Grier Martin (D-Wake, GRNC 0-star), both of whom repeatedly demanded impossible statistics on home invasions until both GRNC president Paul Valone and representatives of the Administrative Office of the Courts pointed out that such statistics are not kept.

    Advocating passage of the bill were subcommittee chair Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, ****), stalwart George Cleveland (R-Onslow, ****), freshman Jonathan Jordan (R-Ashe, ****) and Shirley Randleman (R-Wilkes, ****). Hilton, Cleveland and Randleman are primary sponsors for HB 74.

    The bill eventually passed in a 5-3 vote with Reps. Cleveland, Jordan, Hugh Blackwell (R-Burke, ****), Rayne Brown (R-Davidson, ****) and Ric Killian (R-Mecklenburg, ****) voting for it, and Stam, Jackson and Martin voting against it.

    IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE

    HB 74 now heads for the full Judiciary Committee, where it will undoubtedly meet resistance not only from the same individuals but other anti-gun Democrats including Deborah Ross (D-Wake, 0-star), who chaired the committee which in the last session killed Castle Doctrine by denying it a hearing. Moreover, when the senate bill, SB 34, crosses to the House, it will also be referred to the same committee, portending tough battles for both bills.

    IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED

    * CALL AND E-MAIL MAJORITY LEADER SKIP STAM: Remind him that gun owners helped replace previous leadership over precisely this issue. Reach him at: Paul.Stam@ncleg.net and 919-733-2962. Note: If his office complains about the subcommittee hearing giving "no public notice," remind them that ad hoc committees are not required to and rarely do. If he says his proposal is "better," remind them that HB 74 mirrors every other state which has adopted Castle Doctrine.

    * E-MAIL SPEAKER THOM TILLIS: Pro-gun Speaker Tillis (R-Mecklenburg, ****) supports Castle Doctrine, but needs POLITE AND CONSTRUCTIVE input to rein in Majority Leader Stam. At this point, gun owners from outside his district should e-mail only. Constituents should call. Reach Tillis at: Thom.Tillis@ncleg.net

    In future alerts, you will be given contact information for House Judiciary members.

    DELIVER THIS MESSAGE TO THE SPEAKER

    Copy and paste, changing it as you prefer. Again: Tillis is on our side. PLEASE BE COURTEOUS.

    Dear Speaker Tillis:

    It is with profound disappointment that I learned of Majority Leader Paul Stam's attack on Castle Doctrine bill HB 74. After decades of opposition to Second Amendment interests in the legislature, the current session has been both exhilarating and encouraging. I urge you to continue that course.

    I look forward to telling family, friends and co-workers how leaders in both the House and Senate passed legislation to bolster the rights of North Carolina gun owners.

    Respectfully,

    ----------------------

    You may find your NC STATE representative by going here:
    http://www.grnc.org/contact_reps.htm

    You may write your FEDERAL congressman by going here:
    http://www.house.gov/writerep/

    You may write your FEDERAL senators by going here:
    http://www.senate.gov/

    -------------------
    Support these PRO RKBA merchants who, as GRNC sponsors, are supporting your Second Amendment rights:

    Hyatt Gun Shop, 3332 Wilkinson Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28208, 704-394-0387, www.hyattguns.com
    C & E Gun Shows, 4225 Fortress Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24060; Phone 540-953-0016 or 888-715-0606; http://www.cegunshows.com/
    Dixie Gun and Knife Shows, PO Box 21049, Raleigh, NC 27619, ph: 919-781-1287, www.dixiegunandknifeshow.com/
    Ryan & Nina Leonard, Down South Ammo, Home of "SOUTHERN THUNDER" Exploding Targets, http://downsouthammo.com/
    Duncan Gun & Pawn, 414 Second St., North Wilkesboro, NC 28659, 336-667-6303, www.duncangun.com
    Shooter's Express, 2 Caldwell Dr., Belmont, NC 28012, 800-358-GUNS, www.shootersexpress.com
    The Aisle Pawn Shop, 216 N. Main St., Mooresville, NC 28115, 704-663-5656
    Gunner's Alley, LLC, 203 N. Harrison Ave., Ste. 130, Cary, NC 27513, www.gunnersalley.com, 919-388-1991, contact: Ed Guerriero, ed@gunnersalley.com
    Patrick J. Phelan, Lake Norman Firearms, Inc., 20823 N. Main Street, Cornelius, NC 28031, www.lknfirearms.com, 704-892-7839
    Vanguard Security Consulting, LLC, 19135 W. Catawba Ave, Cornelius, NC 28031
    DoubleD Media, 8300 Raintree Lane, Charlotte, NC 28277, ph: 704-650-5555, fx: 704-544-0326, donna@doubledme.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Thanks for the update.

    It's amazing the games these people play to get things stalled, tripped up, and buried, especially in the waning arguments before bills are voted on.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Northerner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    320
    I caught the WRAL blurb and they did show the two sides of the debate. I can't believe the (D) Rep actually thinks a law abiding citizen would shoot someone under this newer castle doctrin for knocking on a car window to ask for directions. WTF, get a grip.
    "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
    Thomas Jefferson

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by Northerner View Post
    I caught the WRAL blurb and they did show the two sides of the debate. I can't believe the (D) Rep actually thinks a law abiding citizen would shoot someone under this newer castle doctrin for knocking on a car window to ask for directions. WTF, get a grip.
    I'm starting to think it's projection. They are afraid if they had a gun they would shoot someone for that. Simple solution, don't let liberals have guns. lol j/k relax

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Johnston County NC
    Posts
    19
    No surprise that the senator represents Durham, must need to protect is carjacking homies.

  6. #6
    Regular Member sultan62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Clayton, NC
    Posts
    1,319
    Quote Originally Posted by NCSteveh View Post
    No surprise that the senator represents Durham, must need to protect is carjacking homies.
    My thoughts exactly.
    "They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band
    It ain't what they call rock and roll
    And the Sultans...
    Yeah the Sultans, they play Creole"

    OCDO Member
    NCGO Member

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Just got this from Stam's office. Interesting. We'll see. Looks like he wants to reconcile HB 74 to SB 34. Why not just say that? Or wait till they have to do it.




    Ladies and Gentlemen,


    Thank you so much for contacting Rep. Stamís office. He is working to strengthen the existing Castle Doctrine. He wants the law to protect your right to defend yourself at home, in your car and in your workplace.


    For your information, below is the current North Carolina law on the use of deadly physical force against an intruder. G.S. 14-51.1 currently states:

    ß 14-51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruderís unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

    (c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law.


    He is working with the bill sponsor of House Bill 74. He should be able to send you his ideas on how to strengthen the current law by early next week. What do you think?



    Sincerely,

    Chad Barefoot


    Chad Barefoot

    Policy Analyst

    Office of Representative Paul Stam

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    Just got this from Stam's office. Interesting. We'll see. Looks like he wants to reconcile HB 74 to SB 34. Why not just say that? Or wait till they have to do it.




    Ladies and Gentlemen,


    Thank you so much for contacting Rep. Stamís office. He is working to strengthen the existing Castle Doctrine. He wants the law to protect your right to defend yourself at home, in your car and in your workplace.


    For your information, below is the current North Carolina law on the use of deadly physical force against an intruder. G.S. 14-51.1 currently states:

    ß 14-51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruderís unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

    (c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law.


    He is working with the bill sponsor of House Bill 74. He should be able to send you his ideas on how to strengthen the current law by early next week. What do you think?



    Sincerely,

    Chad Barefoot


    Chad Barefoot

    Policy Analyst

    Office of Representative Paul Stam
    Wait until you see what he is really up to.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by cricketdad View Post
    Wait until you see what he is really up to.
    I can't say that I'm holding my breath. I have an uneasy feeling about the deal. Trust but verify I guess. What a response that long and thought out really tells me is that he is getting a lot of flack for his little stunt. I'm hoping your comment means good instead of the forehead palm groan I'm expecting.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    I'm starting to think it's projection. They are afraid if they had a gun they would shoot someone for that. Simple solution, don't let liberals have guns. lol j/k relax
    If you want to see how Dan Blue tried to shoot down SB34 watch this. you will see how the process works.
    http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccap...7/#/vid9166807

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    381
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefjason View Post
    I can't say that I'm holding my breath. I have an uneasy feeling about the deal. Trust but verify I guess. What a response that long and thought out really tells me is that he is getting a lot of flack for his little stunt. I'm hoping your comment means good instead of the forehead palm groan I'm expecting.
    Look for the GRNC alert that should be coming out shortly.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    862
    Quote Originally Posted by cricketdad View Post
    If you want to see how Dan Blue tried to shoot down SB34 watch this. you will see how the process works.
    http://www.wral.com/news/state/nccap...7/#/vid9166807
    Mr Blue used a lot of words to formulate his ridiculous scenarios. I understand his concerns but someone should have interrupted him (on numerous occasions) and reminded him that, even in "tents", you still have a right to defend yourself. It doesn't matter if you are in your home, living in a temporary tent, or walking on the moon- you should still have the legal backing to defend yourself if you reasonably feel that your life, or the life of someone else, is in real danger.

    Also, I haven't seen language in any of the numerous versions of these Castle Doctrine bills that allows for someone to shoot someone else after being "pushed". The whole argument was a strawman built on inane, unrealistic scenarios. No language in these bills supports and isolates someone from prosecution for wrongful shootings.

    I'd be embarrassed to have this man represent me in public.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    Mr Blue used a lot of words to formulate his ridiculous scenarios. I understand his concerns but someone should have interrupted him (on numerous occasions) and reminded him that, even in "tents", you still have a right to defend yourself. It doesn't matter if you are in your home, living in a temporary tent, or walking on the moon- you should still have the legal backing to defend yourself if you reasonably feel that your life, or the life of someone else, is in real danger.

    Also, I haven't seen language in any of the numerous versions of these Castle Doctrine bills that allows for someone to shoot someone else after being "pushed". The whole argument was a strawman built on inane, unrealistic scenarios. No language in these bills supports and isolates someone from prosecution for wrongful shootings.

    I'd be embarrassed to have this man represent me in public.
    It was almost laughable to listen to him. The thing that made me sick though is, he knows that there are folks "living" in tents on "his" block, but has he talked to any of these folks? Could any of them be out of work families? According to his opinion, they do NOT have the right to defend themselves. Why? Because they are homeless?

    Then the other guy.... McKissick..... yeah, here is another one. He does not want you to be able to protect yourself in a car because it has an accerator?!?!? You can get away from the danger........ yeah, OK... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7NqLxnYB0

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by merc460 View Post
    Then the other guy.... McKissick..... yeah, here is another one. He does not want you to be able to protect yourself in a car because it has an accerator?!?!? You can get away from the danger........ yeah, OK... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7NqLxnYB0
    So the second guy in line is out of luck I guess? Most of us would drive off given the chance, shooting a gun in a car and going partially deaf is not on my to do list. But this is about when you don't have that chance.

    Liberals are scared of free men/women who make their own choices. They much prefer a nanny state.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Resto Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by merc460 View Post
    ...........
    Then the other guy.... McKissick..... yeah, here is another one. He does not want you to be able to protect yourself in a car because it has an accerator?!?!? You can get away from the danger........ yeah, OK... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv7NqLxnYB0

    I guess that is not a problem if you're faster than a speeding bullet.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •