Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Discounted NRA memberships available

  1. #1
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671

    Discounted NRA memberships available

    With the political future what it is (again), I think its time for everyone to help to ensure our gun rights. Whether you like them or not, the NRA is the 800 pound gorilla in DC.

    As a recruiter, I have special discounted memberships that are not available online (aside from the 1 yr. - you can get that via our website). They can only be offered through a recruiter via the NRA membership applications that I have. Its a bit of work, but I'd like to offer them here. If anyone is interested in these discounts, send me a pm with your address. I'll mail you the application form and then you can mail it back to me.

    The discounts are:

    One year - $25 instead of $35
    Three years - $70 instead of $85
    Five years - $100 instead of $125
    Life - $750 instead of $1000

    You can also do the easy pay life membership which is $25 per quarter until paid off.

    If you are interested, shoot me a pm and I'll drop the app in the mail to you.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  2. #2
    Regular Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    186
    Thanks, ProShooter!

    I saw NRA membership folks were offering the same discounts at the last Chantilly gun show...except that free show entry was also included. Don't know if they are at every Chantilly show or not. Next one is February 10 - 12 (2012).
    Daily carry: SIG P229 .40 S&W

  3. #3
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Felix View Post
    Thanks, ProShooter!

    I saw NRA membership folks were offering the same discounts at the last Chantilly gun show...except that free show entry was also included. Don't know if they are at every Chantilly show or not. Next one is February 10 - 12 (2012).
    They probably do have the one year discount but not every recruiter has the multi-year discounts. You may want to check to see what they are offering.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    I'm having second thoughts. I may cancel my membership, as well as my trainer certifications. I am wondering whether the NRA hasn't become too enmeshed and is now part of "the system" and is engaging in strategic compromise in order to further a political agenda inconsistent with my rights as a citizen of Virginia.

    I've written to John Frazer, an attorney at NRA who seems to be in charge of Virginia issues.

    No response as yet. Here's what I said:

    I recall that you and one of your associates spoke at a recent Continuing Legal Education program that I attended. At least I think it was you - I got the email address out of the front of the outline book. I was the guy on what will have been your left, arguing that it was a bad idea to codify the castle doctrine.

    Now that some bills have been introduced, purportedly to "codify the castle doctrine", I'm seriously concerned, because the net effect of any of them will be the destruction of rights, not a preservation of rights. What concerns me is that an NRA-ILA "alert" has apparently been broadcast telling members to support these bills. This, to me, is a "what, are you NUTS?" kind of situation.

    After talking about it for a while with Ken Cuccinelli and Judge Michael Valentine, I became convinced that codification is a good idea, but not because of any lack in current law. Virginia common law has the strongest implementation of the castle doctrine of any state in the U.S. The problem is that people don't know it well enough, as it goes back about a thousand years. That includes not just plain folks and cops, but also judges (as Cuccinelli observed) and prosecutors (as Valentine added in defense of judges who only get the cases that prosecutors put in front of them).

    I've been working hard on this issue for about the past four years, and I've developed a comprehensive legislative proposal to codify the law of personal defense in Virginia. It is, with three minor exceptions, the current state of the common law. However, regardless of whether it accurately reflects the common law, I suggest that it is what the law ought to be. I'm attaching a copy; I think it ought to be a model for every state, because I looked at all the statutes that have been enacted on this subject recently, and they are all seriously deficient - most do not incorporate the castle doctrine at all, despite the use of that phrase in the bills resulting in their enactment.

    I seriously suggest that you get whoever is responsible for those alerts to fire off another one telling the members to wait a bit, because it's much more dangerous to jump in with both feet when people don't know what they're doing, than it is to wait and think about it. A year won't be a problem, because the common law is what it is, whether we codify it or not. But these bills are a complete disaster for people interested in defense of themselves, their homes, and their families.

    The following is an email I shot off to a bunch of folks earlier today. I apologize for the cynical reference to the NRA - I'm a member and a certified instructor, myself. But it explains my position and why these bills are not just not ok, but downright dangerous. The membership needs to know that and tell their legislators to back off!!! PLEASE see that they get the message.

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Daniel L. Hawes, Esq."
    Sent: Friday, January 27, 2012 9:38 AM
    Subject: So-called "castle doctrine" bill


    I am deeply concerned about SB 4, referred to as a "castle doctrine" bill. I have been unable to understand why this bill has been proposed at all, and why there are so many practically identical copies of it in the legislative hopper. To me, that indicates that there is a common source for all these bills, and it is not a source that is friendly to the rights of Virginians.

    The bill does not incorporate the common law castle doctrine as it currently exists in Virginia law, also called the affirmative defense of "defense of habitation". So it appears to me that the only reason for calling it a "castle doctrine" bill is to sugar-coat its real effect in order to make it palatable to those who would oppose it if they knew what it really does. This may not be what any of the bill's patrons really do intend, but that does not matter, since a court's determination will be made independently. It may be that people wish the bill would do something in particular that is not stated in the text of the proposed statute, but when it gets to court, it is usually only the exact text that is considered by that court.

    I am deeply troubled by this bill, and fear it will turn Virginia into a "pro-crime" capital in the form of Prince George's County, Maryland, because it has the effect of removing almost all of the personal defense rights Virginian now enjoy in their own homes. The following paragraphs state my objections:

    1) If it purports to immunize a homeowner from civil liability, why is it designated as a section proposed to go into title 18.2, which is not a procedural title at all; the purpose of that title is to define crimes and offenses. If the bill were really about civil liability, it would have been designated to go into 8.01, probably under Chapter 4, "Limitations on Actions". It omits any reference to other common law defenses, and fails to say something like, "All powers, rights, and defenses existing heretofore at common law are continued, and nothing herein shall be taken to deny or disparage such powers, rights, and defenses." The clear intent of the statute, according to the rules of judicial construction, is to remove rights, not to add them, specifically in the context of criminal charges. "Expressio unius alterius exclusio est."

    2) By its failure to make provision for defenses against criminal charges, the proposed bill effectively repeals the affirmative defenses now available as a matter of law: self defense, defense of others, defense of habitation, and stopping a serious felony in progress. This purported "castle doctrine" bill actually revokes the castle doctrine (defense of habitation).

    3) The state of the law at present only requires that a person have a "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" that someone posing a threat must be dealt with through the use of potentially lethal force. Because this proposal fails to make any reference to that criterion in sub-paragraph "i", a person will have to be absolutely certain of the situation before he responds to an attack or intrusion after the passage of this bill. Because the same rule applies generally, whether within the home or without, and to all persons regardless of status, it applies to police officers in the field. It is not uncommon, in an otherwise routine traffic stop, for someone to be shot and killed by police because he suddenly took out a cell phone or cigarette lighter, and all the police officer knew was that the person suddenly pulled out a shiny metallic object that made a clicking noise like the sound of pulling back the hammer on a revolver or chambering a round in a semiautomatic pistol. And, having a "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" that he or another innocent person was faced with the threat of imminent serious bodily injury, shot and killed the "assailant". This bill would revoke that defense for homeowners. A person wishing to make use of the proposed statute in litigation would be required, as a matter of scientific veracity, to show that the intruder was unlawfully present and that he had already made an aggressive attack. This will probably require expensive expert witnesses.

    4) The proposal, by its terms, eliminates the presently existing rights of Virginians in their own homes to the defenses of self defense, defense of others, defense of habitation (the real castle doctrine), and stopping a serious felony in progress. It requires that, before a homeowner may use deadly force against a burglar, he must first determine BOTH a) that the person has entered the home unlawfully; and b) that the person has already committed an overtly aggressive act; where any one of the four defenses now extant would suffice. Paradoxically, the homeowner must also have a reasonable belief that the intruder is about to attack someone, which makes very little sense if the statute requires that the intruder has already committed "an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling". All of which means that the homeowner has to wait until he's already been shot or his daughter raped, before he can shoot a burglar at 2:00 a.m. in his own bedroom, and he may still be charged with murder, since the defenses otherwise presently available to the homeowner finding himself criminally charged in such an incident will also have been removed by this statute.

    5) The word, "immune", as used in the last sentence, is presently undefined. Does that mean he has an affirmative defense (which he already has), does it mean that the complaint will be dismissed on a plea in bar or demurrer, or does it mean that prospective complainants will be prevented from even filing the complaint? Does this resurrect the plea in abatement, which has been abolished by statute as to civil cases? How, exactly, does a dwelling result from the use of "such force"? The sentence makes no sense, in terms of practical litigation.

    This proposal is designed to create and foster litigation where none exists at present. It will create a burden on our judiciary, and extraordinary expense to the parties. I have recently been telling people that this bill is actually good for lawyers, because it will generate so much new work. But seriously, I fear this proposal, if approved, will eliminate all of the rights of personal defense a person now has in his own home and substitute a new, stricter rule designed to limit his ability to defend himself, his home, and his family. It will therefore result in an increase in violent home intrusions. It is a very bad bill for Virginians, and I request that it be withdrawn.

    Daniel L. Hawes, Esq. [Admitted in all Virginia courts, U.S. Sup. Ct., 4th Circuit Ct. Apps., & Fed. Dist. Cts. in the Eastern District of Va.; about 90% of the firm's civil and criminal litigation practice involves firearms; NRA certified firearms instructor; approved attorney for members of the United States Concealed Carry Association and the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, author and principal presenter of "the Deadly Force Seminar" (tm). Former vice-chair, Fairfax Republican Committee, former president of the Southeast Fairfax Citizens' Association.]

    Virginia Legal Defense
    P.O. Box 100,
    Broad Run, VA 20137-0100
    540 347 2430
    Last edited by user; 01-31-2012 at 05:28 PM.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  5. #5
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Thanks for the letter and thanks for posting it here.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I'm having second thoughts. I may cancel my membership, as well as my trainer certifications. I am wondering whether the NRA hasn't become too enmeshed and is now part of "the system" and is engaging in strategic compromise in order to further a political agenda inconsistent with my rights as a citizen of Virginia.

    I've written to John Frazer, an attorney at NRA who seems to be in charge of Virginia issues.

    No response as yet. Here's what I said:

    I am also a NRA member, and I've expressed my own reservations/frustrations in other posts not worth repeating here. I'm torn, leave (not renew) and does that then eliminate any possibility that I have of trying to influence them to do the "right thing" or stay and continue to feel frustrated.

    I think that in my mind the BIG QUESTION is that if we all seem to accept what User says and gives as advice (I have no problem with that) and we run the risk of losing what we now have if this moves forward (and I believe that what User lays out as possible is what can happen) then how can we as collective members here and in NRA to influence them.

    And at the same time I'm concerned about VDCL (of which I'm also a member) because if what I've read is what I'm remembering correctly VDCL has not taken the same stand as User has (or have I missed that?).

    I guess I'm asking what can we do to get answers to User's questions/concerns? How can we collectively get something done to stop the train? Should we be setting up some sort of petition or whatever? I suspect at minimum that we should have a thread in which we can start discussing how/when/where NRA's position is not in sync with those of us here who are members.

    But I'm concerned that this is a train that has left the station and is moving down the tracks.

    Added: I've been a NRA member for a couple of years. I've never had any interaction with them. I don't know how responsive they are to members, or if they have a person designated to input member concerns/issues. But I am a member of enough other organizations to suspect that as a member we do get some sort of say, probably are legally entitled to that. Anyone here know the inner workings of the NRA (not asking for slams, etc., just whether someone knows how to work the organization)?
    Last edited by Glockster; 01-31-2012 at 06:17 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member ocholsteroc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia, Hampton Roads, NC 9 miles away
    Posts
    1,317
    I am stuck on the NRA, I was a member for one year, I have been a VCDL member since 2010 September. I have seen the VCDL do more things for us than the NRA, IMO.

    NRA needs to step it up, repeal some of these dumb laws.
    How come a DUI you can get your driver licence back, which it is a privilege. But if commiting a felon, even something non violent like stealing, you are denied your constitutional rights for the rest of your life?
    If you don't support the Second Amendment to the Constitution, what other parts of the Constitution do you reject?
    More restrictions on guns? how about restrictions on chainsaws and knives?

  8. #8
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896
    Is this the same NRA that sends junk mail to my house warning that Hillary and a legion of blue helmeted U.N. soldiers are coming to my door to take my guns away, shoot my dog and rape my children? The same one that begs for money with apocalyptic scenarios unfolding if the money runs dry whilst paying King Wayne a salary north of 1 MILLION dollars a year? The same NRA that didn't lift a finger to overturn Chicago & DC's draconian gun laws for 30 YEARS and actually tried to kill the lawsuit that ultimately became Heller?

    The NRA is not interested in changing the status quo. Think about it: If a cure for cancer were found tomorrow, would Americans continue to donate money to the American Cancer Society? (I'm positive the ACS would be THRILLED to be in that position BTW [cancer cured]) If the NRA actually DID fight to change the laws and defend the 2A they would quickly find themselves without a funding source: uninformed American gun owners who are too lazy to engage in boots-on-the-ground activism and feel a $35 check to Fairfax is sufficient. The NRA claims 4 million members, with that kind of dues paying warchest (4 million * $35 = 140 million/yr) our gun laws should have been fixed (by the NRA) DECADES ago.

    If you want to send money somewhere, send it to VCDL or SAF. Become a member. Get involved.

    Sending money to the NRA only helps them fund more junk mail, and diverts funds away from the real 2A defenders.

    I know some of you feel the same way as me, and other do not. Let's keep the discussion civil. My flame suit is on.

    PS, I realize the NRA has life members and cheaper dues plans (such as proshooters $25 offer) so $140 million per year is not accurate. But if you think the NRA doesn't collect at least $100M per year you're crazy.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I'm having second thoughts. I may cancel my membership, as well as my trainer certifications.
    Good luck with that. I tried cancelling ours, and after getting the complete run around, a representative finally told me that their policy is to not refund memberships.

    Unless you meant you simply weren't going to renew...

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by ocholsteroc View Post
    I am stuck on the NRA, I was a member for one year, I have been a VCDL member since 2010 September. I have seen the VCDL do more things for us than the NRA, IMO.

    NRA needs to step it up, repeal some of these dumb laws.
    I've seen the same thing happen in WI. Wisconsin Carry has defended us far more than the NRA ever has. They seem to always conceed to the liberals.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  11. #11
    Regular Member 2a4all's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, VA, ,
    Posts
    1,586
    User, don't resign from the NRA just yet. It's impossible to change things from the outside.

    Did you cc PVC on your letter to them? VCDL has taken a neutral stand on this, for unexplained reasons.

    I'm wedded to the NRA because my gun club requires it for membership.
    A law-abiding citizen should be able to carry his personal protection firearm anywhere that an armed criminal might go.

    Member VCDL, NRA

  12. #12
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,233
    Once I joined the NRA I quickly got the impression that their major reason for existing is to make money for the NRA.

    I used to get calls from NRA-ILA almost weekly asking for contributions to help them fight Obama, Hillary, the UN, Joe Biden, the Pope, and Shaggy & Scooby-Doo. I found a way to stop them from calling me and, so far (6 months later), it still appears to be working. I basically informed the person calling me of two things.

    Firstly, that I was only a member of the NRA because the gun club I belong to has being 'a current NRA member' as a condition of their membership and secondly I asked him if he was aware that it was illegal for a non US citizen to make any financial contributions to any US political faction AND illegal for any of those factions to solicit for financial contributions from non US citizens [don't ask me to cite, I think I read it somewhere ages ago, whether true or not they haven't called me again]. The guy said he didn't know that, so I adopted a confident tone and mentioned that if he was going to involve himself in campaigning for political funds perhaps he should make sure he knew all the laws about it first, as pleading ignorance would be unlikely to help him in a trial [again, I don't have a cite, my intention was to convince him I knew more than he did and prevent further calls, again it appears to be working].

    I do, however, enjoy reading the magazines they send me every month.
    Last edited by scouser; 01-31-2012 at 10:42 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Hampton, Va, ,
    Posts
    623
    Quote Originally Posted by 2a4all View Post
    User, don't resign from the NRA just yet. It's impossible to change things from the outside.

    Did you cc PVC on your letter to them? VCDL has taken a neutral stand on this, for unexplained reasons.

    I'm wedded to the NRA because my gun club requires it for membership.
    I believe VCDL became neutral for now based on the things User has pointed out. See the following thread. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...E-FOR-VIRGINIA
    Last edited by mobeewan; 02-01-2012 at 03:19 AM.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate peter nap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13,580
    Quote Originally Posted by mobeewan View Post
    I believe VCDL became neutral for now based on the things User has pointed out. See the following thread. http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...E-FOR-VIRGINIA
    Jim, my apologies first. I had not posted any comments out of respect for your fine training and dedication to All types of firearms carry...but since it has invoked a response.

    Some of you are aware that I was an NRA lifer until they began to show their true colors. The AWB, Columbine and several other traumatic events peeled away the outer layer showing that the NRA was not what I remembered, rather an overweight organization more concerned with easy legislation and groundless claims of promoting 2nd amendment rights than with the well being of it's membership.

    I insisted I be removed from the rolls which I might add, they resisted doing.

    mobeewan, there is a lot more to VCDL's neutral position than meets the eye. While I am a proud member of VCDl, I also realize that they sometimes forget the 80% of Virginia's gun owners that don't live in NOVA.

    I have not been a part of the Castle Doctrine fiasco but like most of these issues, have kept up with the proceedings. It is an extremely important matter and if not worded properly can do a great deal of harm and undo the core of Virginia's self defense law.

    The NRA and to an extent, VCDL has proceeded like they were rewriting the seat belt law. Dan Hawes has invested considerable research and time in wording his proposed statute and from what I've seen, has been met with such complete blind refusal to even accept what the intended result of the bill is....I get a little sick at thinking about the harm if one of the NRA approved versions becomes law.

    Anyway....I hope people accept Proshooter's classes for what they are and that's thorough training at a reasonable cost by a man who lives for the right to keep and bear arms for everyone....... but not for his NRA discount.

  15. #15
    Regular Member scouser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by peter nap View Post
    ..... Anyway....I hope people accept Proshooter's classes for what they are and that's thorough training at a reasonable cost by a man who lives for the right to keep and bear arms for everyone.......
    Agreed, I've taken several of his classes and found them to be informative, interesting and fun. While I know that LEGALLY I could have 'trained' online for my CHP, I'm pleased that I took the extra time and extra expense to attend ProShooter's classes and I'd recommend them to anyone who asks for my opinion.

    I was at a gunshow in December at the Showplace with my friend and his wife and she had been telling me that their girls wanted to get CHPs and live training. We saw one guy in the back corner of the hall who was offering low priced lessons and while I'm sure he's a fine person and offers the required training none of us walked away thinking that a couple of college aged would feel 100% comfortable in his presence, although none of us said that to one another until about an hour later we stopped at Jim's table and I introduced them. As we walked away my friend's wife said "now I like him so much better and I think the girls will have a much better time and feel more comfortable with him than the other guy we spoke to.

    Guy 1, while remaining polite at all times, had an air of good ole boy arrogance. On the other hand, Jim had an air of professionalism even though he's met me several times.
    Last edited by scouser; 02-01-2012 at 07:53 AM. Reason: added the gunshow story

  16. #16
    Regular Member ProShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    www.ProactiveShooters.com, Richmond, Va., , USA
    Posts
    4,671
    Thank you for the nice comments about the training, everyone. I truly do appreciate that.....




    Now, if we could just keep the "NRA bashing" to a minimum and perhaps let this thread get back on the track, that would be great! It was only intended to offer discounts to those who want one...not to be a NRA vs. VCDL argument.
    James Reynolds

    NRA Certified Firearms Instructor - Pistol, Shotgun, Home Firearms Safety, Refuse To Be A Victim
    Concealed Firearms Instructor for Virginia, Florida & Utah permits.
    NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
    Sabre Red Pepper Spray Instructor
    Glock Certified Armorer
    Instructor Bio - http://proactiveshooters.com/about-us/

  17. #17
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    My Apologies...

    Sorry for derailing the thread, Jim. No slight intended with respect to your services, which all agree are among the best available. And as pointed out already, the official position of the VCDL and I don't match, and I do not speak for the VCDL.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    NRA = largest gun control organization out there.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,322
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    NRA = largest gun control organization out there.
    Private organization yes, otherwise the federal government is larger.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  20. #20
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Lightbulb Send a copy of Dan's letter.

    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Dear Senator and or Delegate,

    Subject: So-called "castle doctrine" bill


    I am deeply concerned about SB 4, referred to as a "castle doctrine" bill. I have been unable to understand why this bill has been proposed at all, and why there are so many practically identical copies of it in the legislative hopper. To me, that indicates that there is a common source for all these bills, and it is not a source that is friendly to the rights of Virginians.

    The bill does not incorporate the common law castle doctrine as it currently exists in Virginia law, also called the affirmative defense of "defense of habitation". So it appears to me that the only reason for calling it a "castle doctrine" bill is to sugar-coat its real effect in order to make it palatable to those who would oppose it if they knew what it really does. This may not be what any of the bill's patrons really do intend, but that does not matter, since a court's determination will be made independently. It may be that people wish the bill would do something in particular that is not stated in the text of the proposed statute, but when it gets to court, it is usually only the exact text that is considered by that court.

    I am deeply troubled by this bill, and fear it will turn Virginia into a "pro-crime" capital in the form of Prince George's County, Maryland, because it has the effect of removing almost all of the personal defense rights Virginian now enjoy in their own homes. The following paragraphs state my objections:

    1) If it purports to immunize a homeowner from civil liability, why is it designated as a section proposed to go into title 18.2, which is not a procedural title at all; the purpose of that title is to define crimes and offenses. If the bill were really about civil liability, it would have been designated to go into 8.01, probably under Chapter 4, "Limitations on Actions". It omits any reference to other common law defenses, and fails to say something like, "All powers, rights, and defenses existing heretofore at common law are continued, and nothing herein shall be taken to deny or disparage such powers, rights, and defenses." The clear intent of the statute, according to the rules of judicial construction, is to remove rights, not to add them, specifically in the context of criminal charges. "Expressio unius alterius exclusio est."

    2) By its failure to make provision for defenses against criminal charges, the proposed bill effectively repeals the affirmative defenses now available as a matter of law: self defense, defense of others, defense of habitation, and stopping a serious felony in progress. This purported "castle doctrine" bill actually revokes the castle doctrine (defense of habitation).

    3) The state of the law at present only requires that a person have a "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" that someone posing a threat must be dealt with through the use of potentially lethal force. Because this proposal fails to make any reference to that criterion in sub-paragraph "i", a person will have to be absolutely certain of the situation before he responds to an attack or intrusion after the passage of this bill. Because the same rule applies generally, whether within the home or without, and to all persons regardless of status, it applies to police officers in the field. It is not uncommon, in an otherwise routine traffic stop, for someone to be shot and killed by police because he suddenly took out a cell phone or cigarette lighter, and all the police officer knew was that the person suddenly pulled out a shiny metallic object that made a clicking noise like the sound of pulling back the hammer on a revolver or chambering a round in a semiautomatic pistol. And, having a "reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact" that he or another innocent person was faced with the threat of imminent serious bodily injury, shot and killed the "assailant". This bill would revoke that defense for homeowners. A person wishing to make use of the proposed statute in litigation would be required, as a matter of scientific veracity, to show that the intruder was unlawfully present and that he had already made an aggressive attack. This will probably require expensive expert witnesses.

    4) The proposal, by its terms, eliminates the presently existing rights of Virginians in their own homes to the defenses of self defense, defense of others, defense of habitation (the real castle doctrine), and stopping a serious felony in progress. It requires that, before a homeowner may use deadly force against a burglar, he must first determine BOTH a) that the person has entered the home unlawfully; and b) that the person has already committed an overtly aggressive act; where any one of the four defenses now extant would suffice. Paradoxically, the homeowner must also have a reasonable belief that the intruder is about to attack someone, which makes very little sense if the statute requires that the intruder has already committed "an overt act toward the occupant or another person in the dwelling". All of which means that the homeowner has to wait until he's already been shot or his daughter raped, before he can shoot a burglar at 2:00 a.m. in his own bedroom, and he may still be charged with murder, since the defenses otherwise presently available to the homeowner finding himself criminally charged in such an incident will also have been removed by this statute.

    5) The word, "immune", as used in the last sentence, is presently undefined. Does that mean he has an affirmative defense (which he already has), does it mean that the complaint will be dismissed on a plea in bar or demurrer, or does it mean that prospective complainants will be prevented from even filing the complaint? Does this resurrect the plea in abatement, which has been abolished by statute as to civil cases? How, exactly, does a dwelling result from the use of "such force"? The sentence makes no sense, in terms of practical litigation.

    This proposal is designed to create and foster litigation where none exists at present. It will create a burden on our judiciary, and extraordinary expense to the parties. I have recently been telling people that this bill is actually good for lawyers, because it will generate so much new work. But seriously, I fear this proposal, if approved, will eliminate all of the rights of personal defense a person now has in his own home and substitute a new, stricter rule designed to limit his ability to defend himself, his home, and his family. It will therefore result in an increase in violent home intrusions. It is a very bad bill for Virginians, and I request that it be withdrawn.

    Daniel L. Hawes, Esq. [Admitted in all Virginia courts, U.S. Sup. Ct., 4th Circuit Ct. Apps., & Fed. Dist. Cts. in the Eastern District of Va.; about 90% of the firm's civil and criminal litigation practice involves firearms; NRA certified firearms instructor; approved attorney for members of the United States Concealed Carry Association and the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, author and principal presenter of "the Deadly Force Seminar" (tm). Former vice-chair, Fairfax Republican Committee, former president of the Southeast Fairfax Citizens' Association.]

    Virginia Legal Defense
    P.O. Box 100,
    Broad Run, VA 20137-0100
    540 347 2430




    ps.
    Dan Hawes Esg. is the author of the letter, I concur completely with his analysis

    I think every last one of us should send a copy of his letter to our VA reps so they can get educated.

    Unfortunately, I think we are going to get a bad castle Doctrine bill passed this yr. Hopefully we can get them educated so it can be fixed next yr.

    I/we have Dan's permission to use.


    I sent mine, also sent a copy to conservative radio host Joe Thomas WCHV 107.5

    A version of the castle doctrine is to be heard today 2/1/2012
    Who's my legislator.

    SWBOT:
    I plan to have my wife attend at least one of Jim's classes before this yr ends.
    Last edited by Marco; 02-01-2012 at 01:11 PM. Reason: update
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

Posting Permissions

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