You may recall that the NRA cancelled its annual meeting just days before it was to happened, and said it would not be rescheduled. Then they very quietly — I hear most folks missed the notice — did schedule a new, scaled back meeting. In a different city.
A NRA spokesman tweeted the results of the vote, which took place in Charlotte, North Carolina, Saturday. The organization did not share its vote tally.
[Permission to republish this article is granted so long as it is not edited, and the author and The Zelman Partisans are credited.]
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, and general living expenses. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
There’s a fad for “red flag” extreme risk protective orders that makes the pet rock craze look rational. Even the Vichy NRA backs this supposed tool to keep guns away from “dangerous” people.
Except when they claim they don’t. Oh no, says the VNRA, we only back ERPOs with “due process.” Except when they don’t.
Why the demand for ERPOs, with their intended lack of due process? If the goal is to prevent a potentially dangerous person from harming himself or others, one could implement a Florida-style Baker Act.
The Baker Act allows an adult to be involuntarily held for mental health evaluation for up to 72 hours (12 hours for a minor). The 72 hour limit conforms to the usual 72 hour maximum that criminal suspects may be held without charges.
Neither a 72 hour questioning period nor a 72 hour mental health evaluation result in a permanent or semi-permanent loss of Second Amendment human/civil rights. In either case, a loss or suspension of rights would come only after a due process hearing (indictment or involuntary committal), resulting from the outcome of the questioning or evaluation.
It is noteworthy that victim disarmament advocates, and the VNRA, do not see any need for due process before rights are violated. In fact, typical “red flag” laws do not require that the allegedly dangerous person be taken into custody at all (the VNRA suggests this as an option available to a judge in an ex parte proceeding). The target is merely one class of weapons, not the person allegedly in need of help.
One class of weapons: firearms. Not baseball bats, knives, nor even motor vehicles, which in 2016 were implicated in almost 2,000 more deaths than firearms, even though estimates of the number of motor vehicles is 138,360,614 less than the number of firearms in America. ERPOs take firearms useful for defense, but not statistically more deadly automobiles. Not even the driver’s license.
Does that sound like something meant to ensure safety?
Another difference between a Baker Act hold (or hold for questioning) and “red flag” laws is that a person held for evaluation or questioning is allowed representation and communication. The subject of a “red flag” order never has the chance for either, because the first he knws about the order is when the police show up to seize his property, or kill him. And where is the due process for someone whose firearms are taken, because someone else was subject to a “red flag” order?
Further, standard “red flag” law language imposes a long-term loss of 2A rights even if the person is never found to require treatment, nor accused of an actual crime. Typically, the accused may petition for restoral of rights after a set period. In contrast, a criminal suspect released from custody without charge retains all of the rights he enjoyed prior to questioning.
“Red flag” extreme risk protective orders protect no one. Not the accused, not anyone else whom he allegedly might harm.
ERPOs are designed from the ground up to violate the rights of gun owners without pesky things like hearings or trial. ERPOs are legislatively and judicially blessed SWATting, no guilt required.
So why does the VNRA support “red flag” ERPOs, with ex parte proceedings instead of a simple Baker Act-style law in which no one loses their constitutionally-protected rights until adjudication has occurred?
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Call them extreme risk protective orders, red flag orders, gun violence protection orders, or what have you, they had been floated for years, but became particularly popular after the Parkland school shooting. Rather irrationally, since the local, state, and federal authorities had plenty of time and warnings to stop the murder before he escalated to the deaths of humans (per reports, he’d been killing animals for years). The point was to deflect attention from their own failures. If only we’d had ERPOs (in addition to unused protective orders, unused Baker Act, unused arrests/indictments/convictions for what he’d already done, maybe even ignored prohibited person status), we could have stopped him.
Of course, the VNRA was blamed, too. So the VNRA had to put up their own deflector shields. They jumped on the ERPO bandwagon. Yeah, red flag laws are a great idea!
And the knowledgeable gun community — for once — exploded.
ERPOs have a little constitutional and moral problem.
I’m going to generalize, because the specifics vary from state to state. Getting a regular protective order is relatively easy. The person who thinks they may be threatened goes to a judge and asks for an order keeping the accused away from them. The court sets a hearing date. Parties involved show up and speak their piece. The judge decides if the order is justified, and if so issues it. He may set special conditions: some monitored contact, maybe zero contact, no threats, if he sees a particular danger he may order the accused to turn in any firearms he possesses. And with the order in place, he cannot lawfully obtain another firearm.
Whoa. Wait. Full stop. I’ll bet newcomers to this thought newly empowering judges to take those guns was the point of ERPOs. Victim disarmament advocates — like the mainstream media — have certainly done their best to convey that impression. But, generally, judges already have that power.
Though adjudication, a hearing in which the accused has the chance to defend himself before hand.
ERPO laws don’t change that power. What they do change is:
The accused doesn’t get the chance to defend himself. He isn’t even told of any hearing before his firearms are taken.
The claim that the accused is dangerous doesn’t have to come from anyone who feels threatened. In fact, as some laws have been written, the accused and accuser need never have met. The accused might not even know of the accuser’s existence
ERPOs have even been executed against people who aren’t accused of being “dangerous” (they took firearms from an innocent third party because the accused thought he might be able to steal guns from him; might, not “could”).
That is what ERPOs are. And that is what the VNRA endorsed. Initially.
When gun owners (and even the ACLU) noted due process problem with ex parte proceedings, and the whole “to be confronted with the witnesses against him” thing, the VNRA backed off. Oh, no! What we MEANT was that we back ERPOs with due process.
Just in case they decide to retroactively edit reality, here’s a screencap showing their support for ex parte proceedings.
Any ex parte proceeding should include admitting the individual for treatment.
A person’s Second Amendment rights should only be temporarily deprived after a hearing before a judge, in which the person has notice of the hearing and is given an opportunity to offer evidence on his or her behalf.
Make up your minds, VNRA. Stop weasel-wording on the issue. Would the VNRA allow ex parte (the accused not given the opportunity to participate) hearings or not?
Again, the NRA will continue to oppose any proposal that does not fully protect due process rights. We will only support an ERPO process that strongly protects both Second Amendment rights and due process rights at the same time.
Due process is defined in 5 U.S. Code § 554 – Adjudications. It requires the subject to be informed of the hearing before it is held. That excludes any ex parte action.
And yet, the VNRA is still (as of January 8, 2019) allowing for ex parte hearings with no due process.
If the VNRA wants due process hearings for protection orders, then “red flag” ERPOs are exactly what they should oppose.
Smart people — which seems to exclude VNRA “leadership” — understand that. The framers of the Constitution certainly did.
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them, often without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person’s civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and thus pass it on to heirs)
[…]
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the right to due process, the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather than a specific individual or group, and the separation of powers.
No trial: Check.
Nullifies civil rights: First Amendment rights to speak in a hearing denied, Second Amendment rights to firearm denied. Check.
Takes property: Check.
Heck; 4A, 5A, 6A, and 9A gone. Check.
The VNRA officially supports unconstitutional Bills of Attainder which strip anonymously accused people of their rights and property with no due process.
The Vichy NRA officially supports Star Chamber-ordered SWATting with no due process.
Not only do they fail to provide any sort of mental health treatment but they allow the state to deny law-abiding gun owners their due process of rights. If the state can deny due process to these law-abiding residents then what’s to stop them from denying any right to any group of people?”
Which is exactly why I am calling out the VNRA’s hypocrisy in supporting ex parte proceedings lacking in participation, before the deprivation of 2A human/civil rights, by the accused.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Firearm Companies Bump NRA Following Bump Stock Ban
“We’ve decided to put our money where our beliefs are,” started the Instagram post made by Blue Alpha Gear. The tactical and EDC belt company, along with suppressor cover maker, Cole-TAC, co-announced on social media they were pulling out of the 148th NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits scheduled for April 26-28, 2019 in Indianapolis, Indiana.
[…]
“Today we’re canceling our booth reservation at the National Rifle Association show and instead we’re donating that $1,350 to [the] Firearms Policy Coalition so they can use it to fight for the 2nd Amendment,” the post continued. Cole-TAC made their own post echoing the message of Blue Alpha Gear and further criticizing the political lobbying organization for failing to stand “as a champion in stopping or changing new policy.” Policies such as the recent ban of bump stocks, of which the NRA openly supported.
My dear, it’s time to admit it. You are in an abusive relationship. He doesn’t really love you. He loves controlling you. You may even suffer from a form of Stockholm Syndrome, in which you’ve come to believe that he does this for your own good.
He is manipulating you with fear. He tells you that you have to give up some things, or freedoms, or you risk losing more.
That’s his modus operandi. “Just give them what they want, or they’ll take everything.”
It’s time for you to take your family and escape from his abuse. You can’t save this “relationship.” It isn’t a relationship, it’s enslavement. Get out, and go to a shelter that will protect you.
It’s time to leave the NRA.
In 1934, the NRA backed the National Firearms Act. They told you they did it to save handguns. But what it did was make militia grade weapons unaffordable, inaccessible, for most militia members. A black eye.
In 1968, the NRA compromised on the the Gun Control Act. They told you it was to prevent worse infringements. But it established licensing and large classes of “prohibited persons” with no constitutional rights. It effectively ended mail order of firearms. Bruises.
The NRA compromised on the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act. They told you it “protected’ you from unconstitutional state abuses. Those abuses still exist. And what you got was a complete ban on new machineguns, making the few in circulation far more expensive. A missing tooth.
The NRA rolled over on the Undetectable Firearms Act. They told you it was to protect existing guns. But it killed research and development of new firearms technologies. A broken, bloody nose.
Gun Free School Zone Act: For the children. But it could make you a felon for walking in the area of a school you couldn’t even see. More bruises, a cracked rib.
Brady: It’ll keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the NRA told you. They didn’t tell you that a supermajority of criminals get guns through unlawful channels bypassing background checks. You got a prior restraint on your human/civil rights, more expensive guns, delays, and the FBI keeping records of purchases. A concussion.
The NRA helped write an “assault weapon” ban. They told you it was because if they didn’t write it, it would have been worse. The NRA’s ban included SKSes with fixed ten-round magazines. Is that blood leaking from your ear?
Remember when the NRA thought constitutional carry — honest folks being armed for defense without begging the state’s permission, and paying for the privilege — was bad? The NRA actively sabotaged state-level CC efforts; successfully in New Hampshire. Slap. Punch.
The NRA supported Fix NICS, which includes language that encourages states to add people to NICS without any trial, hearing, or notice; for non-criminal activities. Boom. Coma.
The NRA petitioned the federal government to “regulate” bump-fire stocks as machineguns, then feigned surprise when they discovered that bump-fire stocks would now be banned post-1986 machineguns… thanks to the NRA’s FOPA compromise. And if bump-fire stocks “easily convert” semiautomatic rifles to machineguns… The all semiautomatic rifles are machineguns under the same open-bolt ban, or ban of semiauto ARs that could accept an M-16 trigger group. The NRA is punching and kicking your unconscious body.
The NRA has endorsed no-due process extreme risk protection orders, so-called “red flag” laws, allowing the confiscation of firearm from someone not accused of a crime. And now they’ve been used to confiscate firearms from folks who simply know someone who wasn’t accused of a crime. Oooh. Fractured skull.
So, my dear, it’s time to wake up and escape your abuser, while you still can. The NRA isn’t beating on you because it loves you; just your money. And when your abusive partner demands money to fix the injuries he inflicted upon you, find something creative to do with those NRA fundraising letters.
Leave the National Rifle Association. For good. That marriage cannot be saved.
(edit: corrected “by passing” to “bypassing”)
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
The NRA has released a Statement on Bump Fire Stock Rule. Feel free to read it, but I can paraphrase their five paragraphs in a few words:
Don’t blame us. We only wanted regulation under the NFA, registration, taxes, and a ban on new stocks. And our compromise saved us from other bans. Let’s work together.
Wayne LaPierre, or Chris Cox. It’s hard to tell them apart sometimes.
The preemptive surrender monkeys of the NRA asked for the ATF to regulate bump-fire stocks as National Firearms Act items. They asked for this as nearly the entire politico-media industrial complex was saying that bump-fire stocks turn semiautomatic rifles into machineguns.
And just in case it wasn’t clear enough, the NRA told them: “The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.”
What type of NFA item did the NRA think the ATF would call them? I recall when the NRA helped draft a city “assault weapon ban” and similarly claimed they were preventing something worse. It didn’t. And the NRA version even banned SKSs with fixed ten-round magazines.
Capitulating on “bump-fire stocks turn guns into machineguns” before anyone even entered a bill merely signalled to the gun control crowd that they’re fair game, and open season. It told their pet RINOs that they would not be held responsible for human/civil rights infringement. Semiauto ban bills were then entered.
The NRA claims there could have been an amnesty for existing bump-fire stocks, as provided for in the Gun Control Act of 1968, and gives an example from 1981. Apparently they completely forgot their complicity in the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 that completely closed off any possible amnesty for anything built or imported after the May 1986 deadline. (For that matter, the NRA was complicit in the NFA, claiming it would have been worse without them caving on militia grade weapons for militia members.)
If the NRA wanted an amnesty to register existing bump-fire stocks, it had to be through legislation to change the complete ban on new machineguns in FOPA. By going the ATF regulation route, they guaranteed a ban on bumpfire stocks. The Zelman Partisans have been pointing out this problem for months. The NRA didn’t notice until the rule was signed (and the problem of a semi-auto ban because they can be easily converted to “machinegun” with bump-fire stocks, the same way we lost open-bolt semi-autos)?
The NRA told the ATF to regulate these inert chunks of plastic as machineguns, and then act shocked that FOPA applies.
Either the NRA is staffed with complete idiots, or it was just another cunning plan to push rights violations so they could then fundraise to “fight” the rights violation. Or buy Wayne a limo; whichever makes him happier.
“It’s critical that all gun owners unite and prevent the Bloomberg-bought Congress from dismantling our Second Amendment freedom.”
It is critical for all gun owners to unite. Folks, it isn’t your grand dad’s NRA anymore, and it’s too far gone to ever fix and make into whatever you imagine the NRA once was. The NRA has been doing this for more than two decades. I quit the NRA over it in the mid ’90s. It’s past time to tell them you aren’t buying this load of manure anymore.
Take your time, money, and effort to someone who will work for you, instead of the NRA which consistently — NFA, GCA, FOPA, GFSZA, Brady, constitutional carry, ERPOs, bump-fire — works against you and your rights.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
I’m going to be posting another column tonight. This is going to be background material for it.
Some people are defending the NRA’s call for regulating bump-fire stocks under the National Firearms Act; the NRA’s… thinking… being that there could have been an amnesty to grandfather in existing stocks.
An interesting theory. The Gun Control Act of 1968 did allow for amnesty and registration periods.
But then, just 18 years later, we got the Firearms Owners “Protection” Act of 1986.
FOPA flat out slammed the door on registration of “machineguns” manufactured or imported — for civilians — after the May 1986 deadline. The possibility for other NFA items — suppressors, short-barrel firearms, etc. — might still be there. One might even argue that machineguns that had, at some point, been lawfully possessed prior to the ’86 deadline (had been registered, but somehow got improperly transferred) could still get an amnesty.
But nothing manufactured or imported after ’86. Like bump-fire stocks, which suddenly became “machineguns.”
Sorry, NRA. You should have read those laws, in which you are complicit, a little more closely.
I did. In fact, I always read legislation as, “What’s the worst possible interpretation an abusive ATF or administration could make of this?” The NRA should do the same. You aren’t going to be fundraising on your screw-ups forever; folks are getting tired of your backstabbing.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills. And the rabbits need feed. Truck insurance, lest I be forced to sell it. Click here to donate via PayPal.
(More Tip Jar Options)
19% of that group: 14,125,392 claim to be NRA members, per Pew
Per the NRA: Approximately 6,000,000 members. Less than half that number (which many people believe to be unrealistically inflated to begin with).
And I stopped reading there. I suspect they’re polling mostly MSNBC hosts.
That’s a bit like like polling automobile owners, “discovering” that 19% drive M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks to work, and not noticing a problem with your methodology.
Lessee… that’s an inflation rate of 2.354232x. If we apply that to the usual “90% want this 2A infringement” BS, we see something more like 38%. Which, allowing for urban idiocy strongholds, I find rather more believable.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.
Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!
The Trace: The NRA Has Been Making the Same Slippery Slope Argument Since 1934
Confronted with federal regulation that sought to restrict access to certain types of military-style firearms, as well as taxes on handguns, the NRA rallied its members in opposition. Its stance was less categorical than it is today, as the organization declared itself “absolutely favorable to reasonable legislation” that confined itself to submachine guns and sawed-off shotguns, exclusively. At the same time, the group was developing the argument that gun restrictions on any kind of firearm were the first step on a slippery slope to a federal registry and excessive gun taxes.
Since then, the slippery slope apparently hasn’t included mail order bans, age limits, a new class of prohibited persons, ex post facto misdemeanor prohibitions, prior restraint background checks, “gun-free” zones, an “assault weapon ban,” arbitrary new definitions of machine gun, state-level bump-fire bans, and an upcoming federal ban on bump-fire stocks that would make any semi-auto a machine gun.
The NFA is also notable as the first major federal victim disarmament legislation for which the NRA rolled over and bared its belly.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and recurring bills.
Please note that the NRA leadership has supported all these (except raising age limits to 21), too. LaPierre and Cox still seem to be there, so don’t tell me about the new Board.
Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could use the money, what with truck repairs and bills.
Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.
Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.
