I'm pretty sure they have not. When I saw TFred's post, first thing I did was to send the NRA-ILA a "what, are you nuts?" message via their website contact form. I was a more polite than that, but they clearly don't have a clue.
I had another thought about the proposal I wrote. There's all this stuff about codification of the law as it is, and how we need to wait a year to be sure that I'm right about that. But what difference does that make, really, other than to help the political machine feel comfortable about passing a bill. My feeling is that if this is what we want the law to be, regardless of what it's been, then (dammit) pass that bill.
Btw, in response to another post earlier about the no-knock warrants. That provision I wrote doesn't get rid of no-knock entry, nor does it have anything to do with the evidentiary rulings by the U.S. Sup. Ct. having to do with the reasonableness of a search in connection with the Fourth Amendment and the "exclusionary rule". What it does, and this is the heart of the common law castle doctrine, is to provide that a person who, in good faith, uses force to repel invaders, not realizing they're cops on a lawful mission, is not criminally responsible for the use of force. When people dressed like ninja burglars bust in unannounced and shoot the family dog and aim guns at the children, it is not a criminal offense to shoot them. Any bill that does not contain that provision is not the castle doctrine.
exactly right! we need a patron!
Last edited: