What are differences of Castle Doctrine bills under consideration?

Three “Castle Doctrine” bills to reinforce the right to self defense have thus far been filed in the North Carolina General Assembly, the most recent of which was introduced on Monday. In contrast to previous legislative sessions, November election results predispose the current legislature to pass some form of the proposed law. The big question for North Carolinians is what version will pass.

Depending on varying definitions, “stand-your-ground” laws have been adopted by at least thirteen states. A larger number of states have “castle laws” whose more limited scope stipulates no duty to retreat when attacked in the home, such as North Carolina’s § 14-51.1. “Castle Doctrine” bills being introduced across the country generally include both.

But as the GRNC Castle Doctrine Feature Summary depicts, not all Castle Doctrine laws are created equal. Some states offer few protections outside the home. With the state finally ready to pass something, North Carolinians should become versed on what does or does not make an effective law.

THREE VERSIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION

On February 4, the NRA issued an alert backing SB 34, sponsored by Senators Andrew Brock, Doug Bergerand Kathy Harrington. While the pro-gun sponsors have the best of intentions, SB 34 and its companion bill, HB 52, (Reps. Tim Spear, Bill Owensand Jim Crawford) are dangerously flawed.

SB 34 and HB 52 are substantially similar to SB 928, which passed the Senate in the last session but was killed in the House when Rep. Deborah Rossand former Rep. Hugh Holliman. (Holliman was defeated largely through the efforts of Grass Roots North Carolina in the last election after denying SB 928 a committee hearing. Significantly, Rep. Rayne Brown, who defeated Holliman, is one of the primary sponsors of GRNC-backed HB 74 above.)

The problem is that SB 928 passed the gun-hostile Senate in a greatly weakened fashion: Although Edition 1of the bill offered victims protection both inside and outside the home, including in motor vehicles, the amended Edition 2offered protection only within the home, meaning it offered little beyond what currently exists under § 14-51.1.

By contrast, HB 74, filed by Representatives Mark Hilton, Shirley Randleman, George Cleveland, and Rayne Brown, offers significantly greater protection than SB 34/HB 52. Not only would it offer protection against violent crime in motor vehicles and elsewhere outside the home, but also better protection against civil and criminal liability.

COMMITTEE MEETING ON THURSDAY, FEB. 17

The first bill to get a hearing will be SB 34, which will be heard by the Senate Judiciary II Committee on February 17. Grass Roots North Carolina is promoting amending the bill via a “Proposed Committee Substitute” to change its language to reflect the stronger HB 74. GRNC suggests interested parties contact all members of the committee to encourage adoption of the HB 74 language.

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE BILLS?

Although state laws vary widely, the best offer some version of the following:

“Stand your ground”
This provision states that if faced with a reasonable threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force. The most comprehensive laws stipulate no duty to retreat both in the home and abroad, typically anyplace you have a legal right to be. While HB 74 ads a new § 14-471 with the “no duty to retreat” provision, neither SB 34 nor HB 52 contain any reference to the measure, presumably because it already exists within the home via § 14-51.1.

Presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
Absent a castle law, even if someone breaks into your occupied dwelling you must prove you had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm before responding with deadly force. Under the “presumption” portion of Castle Doctrine, when an attacker unlawfully and forcibly enters a home or (preferably) a dwelling, he is presumed by the law to present a “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm,” freeing the victim from proving it.

In HB 74, a new section § 14-472 includes the measure both for dwellings and occupied vehicles. The far weaker SB 34/HB 52 say only that the attacker to a home – and only a home – is “presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence,” neither of which even justify the use of deadly force under § 14-51.1, meaning that once again, the bills offer nothing beyond current law.

Protection against kidnapping
Like many state laws, HB 74 creates the presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm if the attacker has removed or is attempting to remove another, against his or her will, from a residence or occupied vehicle. Exceptions are made if the person against whom defensive force is used is the parent or lawful guardian of the one being removed. SB 34 / HB 52 offers essentially the same language but again, only to the invasion of a dwelling, not an occupied vehicle.

Protection against malicious prosecution
Some state laws offer immunity for prosecution for justifiable use of deadly force, as do SB 34 and HB 52. HB 74 goes a step further, however, and matches South Carolina law by prohibiting law enforcement agencies from arresting a defender unless there is probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful.

Protection against civil suits
While SB 34 and HB 52 match a number of state laws in giving defenders immunity from civil action (such as by the attacker or his survivors), HB 74 mirrors South Carolina in allowing a lawful defender to recoup legal costs from the plaintiffs who filed the suit.

CONCLUSION

While SB 928 might have been the best bill attainable in the last, gun-hostile session of the legislature, you have worked hard to produce a pro-gun majority this year in both chambers, and you deserve better.

By Paul Valone

———————————-

republished with permission

LILLINGTON, N.C. — In the wake of a mass shooting that critically injured one of her fellow lawmakers, Republican 2nd District Congresswoman Renee Ellmers said Thursday that she plans to carry a gun when making public appearances.

“We have to protect ourselves. We know that. That is something we have always been cognizant of,” Ellmers said.  “There have been times in the past I have carried my weapon, and I will probably continue to do so. Some days I might have it. Some days I might not.”

She said the Jan. 8 shooting in Tucson, Ariz., in which six people were killed and Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, steeled her resolve to be armed.

“I feel safe with it, and I think we should all be able to defend ourselves as we need to,” Ellmers said.

Democratic 11th District Congressman Heath Shuler also has said that he plans to carry a gun while in public. Republican 9th District Congresswoman Sue Myrick told The Charlotte Observer that she’s a good shot and likely would carry a gun when she felt the need to do so.

(read full article)

——————————————————————

Find us on Facebook and Twitter!

U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler told WLOS-TV that he’ll be carrying a gun for self-protection after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. I believe that’s awesome! You should be able to carry a weapon to protect yourself.  He said he has carried a concealed weapon periodically since someone made a serious threat on his life in 2009. The person who threatened him was mentally ill, which, shows a pattern here that for one to carry out violence against anyone, much less a politician, they must be out of their mind, period. Shuler says he will make it a practice to carry a handgun when he is away from Capitol Hill. While in Capital Hill, he has the protection of Capitol Police for security. He said his staff members have also gone through the training and background checks needed for the legal permit to carry concealed handguns. It is a sad day that our country has come to this, but at the same time, I am glad to see Democrats embracing what 2nd Amendment advocates have been saying all along: If you feel the need to carry a gun for your own protection and that of your loved ones, you should be able to, and not be hindered by your government!

GREENSBORO — In the crowd gathered opposite the monument to Gen. Nathanael Greene, there were a handful of “Don’t Tread on Me” T-shirts and dozens of hip-holstered handguns and rifles slung over shoulders.

On Saturday afternoon, about 175 people gathered at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park to celebrate their right to bear arms — and express a variety of conservative political viewpoints, such as discontent over immigration reform and a desire to give the boot to the Washington elite.

The “Restore the Constitution” rally was in recognition of a law that went into effect this year that allows people to carry guns at federal parks.
In the crowd and among the speakers, there was resounding frustration with the state of the federal government and a concern over a lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution.

read more from the Greensboro News & Record

Bubba, from whatbubbaknows.net, spoke at the event. (Event covered by RedState.com)

Check out Bubba’s blog post with additional pictures and his own commentary about the event.

(continued from: “GRNC vs NRA: The History”)

Now, let’s take a look at each organizations rating system and compare a couple of current candidates. Understand that each organization takes a different approach to rating candidates. Both organizations issue candidates surveys as well as evaluating voting records and previous positions on gun issues.  The NRA opts for the flexibility of choosing which votes to include in their evaluations, key indicators like “critical’ and “key votes” should be noted. However, GRNC takes a purists approach to voting records by tabulating every vote a candidate has cast dealing with Second Amendment issues.

The NRA scores an incumbent with an A+ who “not only has an excellent voting record on [critical] NRA issues, but who has also made a vigorous effort to promote the Second Amendment.”  An “A” rating is issued to incumbents “who have supported NRA positions on [key votes].”

GRNC is much less subjective, by rating a candidate’s position on gun issues “by comparing their views with those of a control group of gun owners. A 4-star candidate agrees with pro-gun voters on at least 90% of gun issues, a 3-star agrees on at least 80%, a 2-star on at least 70%, a 1-star on at least 60%. A 0 star candidate agrees on less than 60% of gun issues.

To be honest, many candidates legitimately share positive ratings from both organizations, as evident by Democratic Sen. Doug Berger and Republican Phil Berger.  However, there are some stark differences and here is where it becomes evident that the NRA panders to incumbents.  For example, the casual pro-gun voter in Mecklenburg County would believe that Sen. Clodfelter’s “A+” rating from the NRA indicates he is a strong pro-gun candidate.  Clodfelter’s GRNC shows that he votes with gun owners only about 60% of the time.  For me and GRNC 60% is a failing grade.  Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

It will be interesting to see how the NRA rates Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this fall and who they endorse.  Reid’s challenger is Tea Party-preferred candidate, Sharron Angle who is decisively conservative and pro gun.  On the other hand, Reid’s long record of voting against the Second Amendment was recently chronicled by Gun Owners of America.  GOA lists 44 reasons why Nevada gun owners should vote against Reid and why freedom loving Americans should support Angle. The question remains, will the NRA sell out to incumbency or will America’s largest pro-gun organization support a pro-gun candidate?

Here in North Carolina voters will know exactly where a candidate stands on gun issues.  GRNC’s “Remember in November” is a comprehensive evaluation that scores each candidate by tabulating their survey results, voting record, and other positions the candidate may have.  This guide will be distributed to approximately 120,000 NC gun owners this fall.

See Also: “GRNC vs. NRA: There is a big difference“

————————————————————————————————

David Regnery
Board Member, Grassroots North Carolina