GRNC Alert 06-24-08: SB 2081 - They're Waiting For You To Sleep
R. LaCasse
Subject: GRNC Alert 06-24-08: SB 2081 - They're Waiting For You To Sleep
From: ny...@teap.bet
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:38:48 -0600
Grass Roots North Carolina(r), P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605
919-664-8565, www.grnc.org, GRNC Alert Hotline: (919) 562-4137
GRNC Alert 06-24-08:
SB 2081 - They're Waiting For You To Sleep
The anti-gunners in the Senate know you are watching, so they are
doing what they do best - they are waiting for you to go back to
sleep. Will you oblige them or will you stand your ground and keep
your watch? We will recap you on this bill and actions to take and
also would like to share with you an incident that happened to one of
our citizens up in Virginia. Apparently some of their police did not
get the memo about reciprocity.
As we have been informing you over the last few days, SB 2081 -
designed by Attorney General Roy Cooper to add thousands of North
Carolinians who pose NO threat to anyone to the list of prohibited
people - is a stealth attack on your rights.
Please contact Attorney General ROY COOPER (919-716-6400, fax:
919-716-6750) and express your views on his creation.
Please contact your senator and remind him that it was the Attorney
General's campus safety task force that came up with the bill and that
it was the Attorney General himself who stood before the Senate
Judiciary Committee to defend it.
Attorney General Touts 80,000 Barred From Buying Guns
Despite assertions from GRNC and others that serious flaws reside in
the bill, SB 2081 passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee in a
5-4 vote. The bill now resides in the Senate Committee on
Appropriations/Base Budget.
Standing before the committee to defend his bill was none other than
NC Attorney General ROY COOPER (D, GRNC 0-star). If you wonder what he
is after, consider his statement that in 2006, Virginia began
reporting not only people committed to mental health facilities, but
also those remanded by courts to OUTPATIENT care. Said Cooper, in 2006
North Carolina reported (and therefore barred from owning guns) "only"
440 names to the National Instant Check System. Meanwhile, by adding
outpatients, Virginia reported...**80,000.**
80,000 BARRED FROM BUYING GUNS
That's right: 80,000 PEOPLE BARRED FROM BUYING GUNS, and that is FROM
JUST ONE STATE. And given that Virginia's population is smaller than
North Carolina's, under Cooper's scheme an even greater number could
find themselves saddled with a "firearms disability" under federal
law.
VIRGINIA POLICE NEED LAW LESSON
This in from the Virginia Civilian Defense League:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three Fairfax County police officers prove the Keystone Kops are
alive and well
We haven't had any issues with the Fairfax County police in quite a
while now. I have found them to be one of the best run police agencies
in Virginia.
However, three officers tarnished that image last week when they
unlawfully arrested a North Carolina resident who was legally carrying
a handgun and had a North Carolina CHP.
Hold on tight - this is a weird story.
The gun owner was pulled over for running through a red light, a
charge which the gun owner disputes.
The gun owner, believing that he had to disclose he was lawfully
armed as they do in North Carolina, dutifully told the officer he had
a NC CHP and was indeed armed.
The officer seemed to ignore the statement, but very shortly two more
patrol units pulled up. The next thing the gun owner knew he is in a
"felony stop" mode. He was asked to walk backwards towards the
officers, who then disarmed and handcuffed him.
While trying to unloaded his gun, THEY DROPPED IT ONTO THE ROAD!
The two officers and a SERGEANT then proceeded to tell him that he
was under arrested for:
1. Having hollow point bullets, which they claimed were illegal in
Virginia (!)
2. Taking a loaded gun across the state line, which the gun owner was
told was a FELONY (!)
3. Having a concealed gun that the police said he couldn't have since
he was from North Carolina (!!)
His car and gun were impounded and he was taken off to a magistrate.
The magistrate looked at the charges and told the police officers
that they had just made a false arrest.
The officers pointed out the possession of hollow point bullets. The
magistrate asked, "are they teflon coated?"
"No," replied on of the officers.
"Then they are legal."
Trying to find something that would stick and justify the false
arrest, one of the officers said, "We couldn't verify that his North
Carolina permit is valid."
The magistrate looked at the permit, noticed the phone number on the
back where one can call to verify the permit, called the number, and
within a few minutes found out the permit was indeed valid.
The gun owner was ordered to be released.
After being released from custody, the gun owner was given a hard
time by another officer about getting his gun back, but he did finally
get it back.
If all of that isn't bad enough, the arresting officer went ahead and
gave the gun owner a ticket for the alleged offense of running a red
light!
In essence, with that brilliant move, the officer was practically
BEGGING the gun owner to PLEASE sue Fairfax Count for the false
arrest!
I have already talked to my high-level contact with the Fairfax
County PD about this entire situation and the gun owner has filed a
formal complaint.
In the past, Fairfax County PD has been very good when such internal
investigations are required. Now we will wait and see what happens.
What is clear is that Fairfax County PD needs to educate its officers
on:
1. Possession of hollow point bullets
2. Reciprocity laws
3. Lawful carriage of firearms across state lines
4. Safe gun handling (a few years ago unsafe gun handling by an
officer cause a gun to discharge, killing an unarmed, handcuffed man)
[Note: GRNC will keep you posted on further updates.]
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
Whether or not you have previously sent a message to legislators,
SEND ONE NOW. The bill has now moved to a different committee. Not
only do they need to hear from you, so does Attorney General Cooper.
* SEND A MESSAGE TO LEGISLATORS by going to
http://grnc.org/alerts/email6_16_08.htm. The automated e-mail will
then go to all members of the Senate Appropriations/Base Budget
Committee as well as to Attorney General Cooper.
* CALL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT 919-716-6725 and tell Attorney General
Roy Cooper to stop attacking the rights of people who neither have a
federal firearms disability, nor are a threat to anyone.
CALL YOUR STATE SENATOR: Tell them SB 2081 is a power grab that will
saddle tens of thousands with a federal firearms disability. To
identify your state senator, go to:
http://www.grnc.org/contact_reps.htm.
DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
Dear Senator:
SB 2081, "NICS Reporting/Restoration" has now been referred to the
Committee on Appropriations/Base Budget. If implemented, the bill will
result in thousands of people who are a danger to no one being barred
from owning guns.
The recently passed "National Instant Check System (NICS) Improvement
Act" requires states to report involuntary commitments to mental
institutions for the purpose of gun purchase background checks. By
insisting that people remanded to OUTPATIENT care be included among
those reported to the National Instant Check System (NICS), Attorney
General Roy Cooper is twisting federal law to suit his needs and, in
all likelihood, violating federal law.
To report outpatient commitments to NICS, the Attorney General is
relying on a May, 2007 letter from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives which says: "adjudication that a person was
mentally ill AND A DANGER TO HIMSELF OR OTHERS would result in a
Federal firearms disability, WHETHER THE COURT-ORDERED TREATMENT WAS
ON AN INPATIENT OR OUTPATIENT BASIS..." .
What Cooper fails to say, however, is that in North Carolina, people
remanded to OUTPATIENT treatment are by statutory definition NOT
DANGEROUS. Specifically, NC General Statute 122C-263(d)(1) permits
commitment to OUTPATIENT treatment only for people "capable of
surviving safely in the community..." By contrast, under NCGS
122C-263(d)(2), DANGEROUS people must be committed to INPATIENT
treatment in a mental health facility.
Equally disingenuous are attempts by the Attorney General to justify
the bill based on U.S. v. B.H., 466 F.Supp.2d 1139 (2006). This case
law - from an obscure court in Iowa, meaning it is not binding
precedent in North Carolina - tortures the English language by lumping
OUTPATIENT treatment into the federal stipulation that those
"committed to a mental institution" be barred from owning guns.
Apparently, for both the Iowa court and Roy Cooper, English is a
second language.
Dangerously unstable people should be committed to mental
institutions. People who are NOT a danger to themselves or others
should suffer no curtailment of their civil liberties. I strongly urge
you to oppose SB 2081.
Respectfully,
A Concerned Voter
CONTACT THESE STATE SENATORS
If your Senator is among this list (you may find yours at:
http://www.grnc.org/contact_reps.htm) please CALL that Senator. You
may find individual contact information by going here:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/members/memberList.pl?sChamber=Senate
and clicking on that person's name.
Sen. Charles W. Albertson, Sen. Charlie S. Dannelly, Sen. Linda
Garrou, Sen. Tom Apodaca, Sen. Bob Atwater, Sen. Doug Berger, Sen.
Philip E. Berger, Sen. Stan Bingham, Sen. Harris Blake, Sen. Julia
Boseman, Sen. Andrew C. Brock, Sen. Harry Brown, Sen. Peter S.
Brunstetter, Sen. Daniel G. Clodfelter, Sen. Janet Cowell, Sen. Walter
H. Dalton, Sen. Katie G. Dorsett, Sen. Don East, Sen. Tony Foriest,
Sen. James Forrester, Sen. Steve Goss, Sen. Malcolm Graham, Sen. Kay
R. Hagan, Sen. Fletcher L. Hartsell, Jr., Sen. David W. Hoyle, Sen.
Neal Hunt, Sen. Jim Jacumin, Sen. Clark Jenkins, Sen. Ed Jones, Sen.
John H. Kerr III, Sen. Eleanor Kinnaird, Sen. Vernon Malone, Sen.
Floyd B. McKissick, Jr., Sen. Martin L. Nesbitt, Jr., Sen. Jean
Preston, Sen. William R. Purcell, Sen. Joe Sam Queen, Sen. Tony Rand,
Sen. Bob Rucho, Sen. Larry Shaw, Sen. Fred Smith, Sen. John Snow, Sen.
R. C. Soles, Jr., Sen. Richard Stevens, Sen. A. B Swindell, Sen. Jerry
W. Tillman, Sen. David F. Weinstein
----------------------
You may find your NC 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/
-------------------
Support Merchants Who Support Your Rights!
Hyatt Coin & Gun Shop, 3332 Wilkinson Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28208,
704-663-5656, http://www.hyattguns.com/
Duncan Gun & Pawn, 414 Second St., North Wilkesboro, NC 28659,
336-667-6303, http://www.duncangun.com/
Shooter's Express, 2 Caldwell Dr., Belmont, NC 28012, 800-358-GUNS,
http://www.shootersexpress.com/
The Aisle Pawn Shop, 216 N. Main St., Mooresville, NC 28115,
704-663-5656, 704-663-4561 (fax)
Gunner's Alley, LLC, 200 Parkthrough St., Cary, NC 27511,
http://www.gunnersalley.com/, 919-388-1991, contact: Ed Gurearo,
r...@thaarefnyyrl.pbz
--
Triad Productions-Fantalla~EZine~ParaNovel
National Hand Gun Association (nhga)
(http://*remove*members.fortunecity.com/vampire34/htmlconc.html)
R. LaCasse
To: ME
Subject: Re: GRNC Alert 06-24-08: SB 2081 - They're Waiting For You To Sleep
From: Mbzo.............ROT
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:29:09 -0400
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:52:57 -0700, R. LaCasse <mk2...@us-mail.info>
wrote:
>
>Subject: GRNC Alert 06-24-08: SB 2081 - They're Waiting For You To Sleep
>From: ny...@teap.bet
>Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 19:38:48 -0600
>
>Grass Roots North Carolina(r), P.O. Box 10684, Raleigh, NC 27605
>
>919-664-8565, www.grnc.org, GRNC Alert Hotline: (919) 562-4137
>
>GRNC Alert 06-24-08:
>
>SB 2081 - They're Waiting For You To Sleep
>
>The anti-gunners in the Senate know you are watching, so they are
>doing what they do best - they are waiting for you to go back to
>sleep. Will you oblige them or will you stand your ground and keep
>your watch? We will recap you on this bill and actions to take and
>also would like to share with you an incident that happened to one of
>our citizens up in Virginia. Apparently some of their police did not
>get the memo about reciprocity.
>
Some, even if they did get the Memo, might not even have understood
it, or the meaning of the word reciprocity. These are Police Officers
we are talking about, not lawyers or Rocket Scientists. When new
states are added to the reciprocity list, at a minimum it should be
announced & explained at roll-call.
>
>As we have been informing you over the last few days, SB 2081 -
>designed by Attorney General Roy Cooper to add thousands of North
>Carolinians who pose NO threat to anyone to the list of prohibited
>people - is a stealth attack on your rights.
>
If they pose "NO" threat, why is the phrase "Adjudicated" used. To me
at least it means someone has been determined to be a "threat" to
somebody & the course & method of medical treatment (in-patient or
out-patient) is semi-moot. Whack-a-doodles "Adjudicated"
whack-a-doodles need to have restrictions placed on them. However,
there also needs to be a nullification process in place for restoring
the rights of those who are no longer a threat. Now personally if
they are simply a threat to themselves I don't see that big of an
issue and think Darwin's theories come into play.
>
>Please contact Attorney General ROY COOPER (919-716-6400, fax:
>919-716-6750) and express your views on his creation.
>
>Please contact your senator and remind him that it was the Attorney
>General's campus safety task force that came up with the bill and that
>it was the Attorney General himself who stood before the Senate
>Judiciary Committee to defend it.
>
>Attorney General Touts 80,000 Barred From Buying Guns
>
>Despite assertions from GRNC and others that serious flaws reside in
>the bill, SB 2081 passed through the Senate Judiciary Committee in a
>5-4 vote. The bill now resides in the Senate Committee on
>Appropriations/Base Budget.
>
>Standing before the committee to defend his bill was none other than
>NC Attorney General ROY COOPER (D, GRNC 0-star). If you wonder what he
>is after, consider his statement that in 2006, Virginia began
>reporting not only people committed to mental health facilities, but
>also those remanded by courts to OUTPATIENT care. Said Cooper, in 2006
>North Carolina reported (and therefore barred from owning guns) "only"
>440 names to the National Instant Check System. Meanwhile, by adding
>outpatients, Virginia reported...**80,000.**
>
Even though I am an active & avid supporter of the Second Amendment (
and each Sate's version thereof), unfortunately some restrictions need
to be applied to those "Adjudicated" as a danger to themselves' or
others (especially the others part) regardless of what the disposition
of the Adjudication was. Either in-patient or out-patient just doesn't
matter if the decision was based on a "Threat to self or others".
Although as I said earlier if it is simply to self, let Darwin's
theories kick in.
Now once "cured" or "stabilized" they do need to be readjudicated by
the courts to have their status updated. Being Adjudicated as a
danger to one's self or others is the big issue here, not whether the
care was in-patient or out-patient. If a competent Judge/Magistrate
determines you are a whack-a-doodle then the place of treatment really
doesn't matter. Out-Patient can be for any number of reasons to
include the cost of treatment to the severity of the issue. Cho, the
VA Tech Shooter, sort of proved this out.
>
>80,000 BARRED FROM BUYING GUNS
>
>That's right: 80,000 PEOPLE BARRED FROM BUYING GUNS, and that is FROM
>JUST ONE STATE. And given that Virginia's population is smaller than
>North Carolina's, under Cooper's scheme an even greater number could
>find themselves saddled with a "firearms disability" under federal
>law.
>
If one has a "Firearms Disability" then one should not be allowed to
own & operate functional firearms until said disability has been dealt
with and a determination of the persons fitness to purchase has been
determined by those in a position to do so. Usually one does not end
up in front of a judge and assigned into treatment simply for walking
down the street. Some level of behavior got you to this point. What
was that behavior?
**Opinion** or in my personal opinion even have the possession of ones
previously purchased. Persons with irrational thought processes
usually do not make the safest of firearms owners.
>
How can & do you defend allowing an Adjudicated Whack-A-Doodle own &
operate a Firearm be it in Virginia or any other state? And yes I do
get the "Shall not be infringed part", but a restriction based on a
disability really isn't an infringement, but a group <Society>
protection scheme.
>
>VIRGINIA POLICE NEED LAW LESSON
>
As do way to many other Police Officers on numerous things.
>
>This in from the Virginia Civilian Defense League:
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Three Fairfax County police officers prove the Keystone Kops are
>alive and well
>
"Most" Law Enforcement Agency usually manage to prove they have little
to no knowledge on the supposed Laws the are charged with enforcing.
>
>We haven't had any issues with the Fairfax County police in quite a
>while now. I have found them to be one of the best run police agencies
>in Virginia.
>
>However, three officers tarnished that image last week when they
>unlawfully arrested a North Carolina resident who was legally carrying
>a handgun and had a North Carolina CHP.
>
>Hold on tight - this is a weird story.
>
Not as weird as you might believe. I've heard, seen & even been a
participant in weirder ones.
>
>The gun owner was pulled over for running through a red light, a
>charge which the gun owner disputes.
>
Almost everyone disputes Traffic Violations.
>The gun owner, believing that he had to disclose he was lawfully
>armed as they do in North Carolina, dutifully told the officer he had
>a NC CHP and was indeed armed.
>
>The officer seemed to ignore the statement, but very shortly two more
>patrol units pulled up. The next thing the gun owner knew he is in a
>"felony stop" mode. He was asked to walk backwards towards the
>officers, who then disarmed and handcuffed him.
>
>While trying to unloaded his gun, THEY DROPPED IT ONTO THE ROAD!
>
But what else would they do with a weapon the are unfamiliar with?
Most Police Officers know little to anything about firearms other then
their "Duty" weapons, and then even that can be "iffy".
>
>The two officers and a SERGEANT then proceeded to tell him that he
>was under arrested for:
>
Arrrgh, a Sergeant as well? Now we are getting into "Keystone Cops"
territory.
>
>1. Having hollow point bullets, which they claimed were illegal in
>Virginia (!)
>
Not even close.
>
>2. Taking a loaded gun across the state line, which the gun owner was
>told was a FELONY (!)
>
Again, not even close as a NC CHP holder with reciprocity with VA.
>
>3. Having a concealed gun that the police said he couldn't have since
>he was from North Carolina (!!)
>
See #2.
>
>His car and gun were impounded and he was taken off to a magistrate.
>
Him & the gun I sort of understand <even though they were wrong>. I
wonder what was the reason behind impounding the vehicle?
>
>The magistrate looked at the charges and told the police officers
>that they had just made a false arrest.
>
Was the exact term "False Arrest" used, or was a different phrase like
Faulty, or made a "Bad Arrest". For a Magistrate (who in this case
sounds both intelligent & reasonable) I doubt he would use the term
"False Arrest" which most police officers are shielded from under
qualified immunity when engaged in "discretionary" actions such as
arrests of suspects.
>
>The officers pointed out the possession of hollow point bullets. The
>magistrate asked, "are they teflon coated?"
>
>"No," replied on of the officers.
>
>"Then they are legal."
>
>Trying to find something that would stick and justify the false
>arrest, one of the officers said, "We couldn't verify that his North
>Carolina permit is valid."
>
>The magistrate looked at the permit, noticed the phone number on the
>back where one can call to verify the permit, called the number, and
>within a few minutes found out the permit was indeed valid.
>
So that makes Magistrates slightly more intelligent then the Police
Officers, no big surprise there.
>
>The gun owner was ordered to be released.
>
As well he should be.
>
>After being released from custody, the gun owner was given a hard
>time by another officer about getting his gun back, but he did finally
>get it back.
>
One man's hard-time, is another mans wading through forms, proof of
ownership & identity.
>
>If all of that isn't bad enough, the arresting officer went ahead and
>gave the gun owner a ticket for the alleged offense of running a red
>light!
>
Until he has his day in court on this charge, it is still an alleged
offense. Even if found innocent of the charge, no impact
interrelation to the other "bad" charges.
>
>In essence, with that brilliant move, the officer was practically
>BEGGING the gun owner to PLEASE sue Fairfax Count for the false
>arrest!
>
In the United States and other jurisdictions, police officers and
other government officials are shielded from false arrest lawsuits
through a process known as qualified immunity. This doctrine protects
such officials from liability when engaged in discretionary actions
such as arrests of suspects. However, the officer's actions must still
not violate "clearly established law," or this protection is void.
This includes executing an arrest warrant against the wrong person.
Therefore, this case does not meet the above criteria for "False
Arrest".
>
>I have already talked to my high-level contact with the Fairfax
>County PD about this entire situation and the gun owner has filed a
>formal complaint.
>
As well he should. He unfortunately was dealing with very poorly
trained officers.
>
>In the past, Fairfax County PD has been very good when such internal
>investigations are required. Now we will wait and see what happens.
>
>What is clear is that Fairfax County PD needs to educate its officers
>on:
>
>1. Possession of hollow point bullets
>
>2. Reciprocity laws
>
>3. Lawful carriage of firearms across state lines
>
>4. Safe gun handling (a few years ago unsafe gun handling by an
>officer cause a gun to discharge, killing an unarmed, handcuffed man)
>
And numerous other things.
In closing, to me the proper way to license & enforce Concealed
Weapons Permits should be done the exact same way as the Driver
License Agreement (DLA) see http://tinyurl.com/5avvlq. If there was
ONE standard for the issuing of Concealed Weapons Permits with it
being added to your Drivers License just like the need to wear glasses
for example, issues like the Fairfax case you mentioned could be
avoided & law-abiding citizens could stay law-abiding citizens with
nothing to fear from a Traffic Stop or other interaction with Law
Enforcement outside of your home and or issuing state. We need a
"National" level Concealed Weapons Permit with consistent standards.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."