Stop Pete Brunstetter (R) – Castle Doctrine

February 24th, 2013 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: 2nd Amendment 9 Responses

Action Item: Senator Peter Brunstetter, a Republican, is trying to make it a felony offense in NC to willfully discharge a weapon in any building or vehicle, including your home, to harm another or incite fear. Big government Republicans are just as bad and dangerous as a Liberal. So, with this short bill, Senator Brunstetter is seeking to overturn the Castle Doctrine in NC.
This bill makes a criminal of anyone defending themselves in any building, structure, motor vehicle, or other conveyance, erection, or enclosure with the intent to do harm or incite fear. Call Brunstetter and tell him to rescind: Senate Bill 124.§14-34.10. Which states: Discharge firearm within enclosure to do harm or incite fear. Unless covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who willfully or wantonly discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm within any building, structure, motor vehicle, or other conveyance, erection, or enclosure with the intent to do harm or incite fear shall be punished as a Class E felon.
Link to bill
He and his progressive friends have no right to trample upon our second amendment rights and make felons of us for protecting ourselves or our loved ones. We all have an inalienable right, enshrined in our US Constitution, to keep and bear arms. No government or bureaucrat has the authority to take that away. We will actively seek another to run against him in the next election.
Phone: (919) 733-7850

Fast & Furious Gun Scandal: Is This the Obama Administration’s Greatest Cover-Up?

May 2nd, 2012 by WendyW Categories: Hot Topics, 2nd Amendment, Limited Government, Other Videos, around the nation No Responses
Fast & Furious Gun Scandal: Is This the Obama Administration’s Greatest Cover-Up?

Author and journalist Katie Pavlich talks to Glenn Reynolds about the Fast and Furious firearms scandal that resulted in the murder of a Border Patrol agent. Pavlich’s research shows that the ATF put guns in the hands of criminals, but never planned to track these weapons. Was the Obama Administration using Fast and Furious to undermine the Second Amendment?

GRNC Political Victory Fund: Win a Glock!

February 20th, 2012 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Hot Topics, State, 2nd Amendment, NC House Election 2012, Uncategorized No Responses
GRNC Political Victory Fund: Win a Glock!

We have shared in the past the difference between GRNC and the NRA. Thanks to the efforts of the GRNC and others, the Castle Doctrine became law in North Carolina this past December. Three people tried to hinder that victory. They:

  • Weakened concealed carry in parks by adding language that cities are now exploiting to flout the new state law
  • Killed legislation to allow employees to keep firearms locked in their cars at workplaces; and
  • Voted to make you a felon if you keep a gun in your car while taking your kids to school.

Two of these three people are up for reelection this year. What can be done to ensure that doesn’t happen? Election laws prevents GRNC from using money to “throw the bums out.” So they created GRNC-PVFas a federally-registered political action committee to elect pro-gun candidates and defeat anti-gun candidates. GRNC is going to make it easy for you to support their victory fund with a raffle!

What the GRNC-PVF gun raffle offers you a chance to win:

  • 1st Prize:       Glock 27 (donated by Larry Hyatt of Hyatt Gun Shop)
  • 2nd Prize:       Kahr Arms CW9 (donated by pistol smith Barry Washik of Sterling Pistols)
  • 3rd Prize:       Custom-made holster (donated by
  • 4th & 5th Prize: NC concealed carry classes (donated by instructor Jim Grindstaff and Lake Norman Firearms)

How to win a Glock or Kahr Arms pistol

 Tickets are $5 each, or 3 for each subsequent $10 increment (e.g. 6 for $20, or 12 for $30). You can order tickets by going to:

Drawing will be held at the Fayetteville C&E gun show on August 5, 2012. Because mailing raffle tickets is against postal regulations, tickets will be scanned and the image of the ticket emailed to purchasers.

Read more about the GRNC Political Victory Fund.

Sign up to receive alerts from GRNC.

First ‘Castle Doctrine’ hearing Thursday

February 17th, 2011 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Hot Topics, 2nd Amendment, House Session 2011-2012, Senate Session 2011-2012, Uncategorized One Response
First ‘Castle Doctrine’ hearing Thursday

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.


On February 4, the NRA issued an alert backing SB 34, sponsored by Senators Andrew BrockDoug Bergerand Kathy Harrington. While the pro-gun sponsors have the best of intentions, SB 34 and its companion bill, HB 52, (Reps. Tim SpearBill 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 HiltonShirley RandlemanGeorge 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.


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.


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.


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

Ellmers, Myrick, and Shuler to carry guns at appearances

January 21st, 2011 by WendyW Categories: Hot Topics, State, 2nd Amendment, around the nation 2 Responses
Ellmers, Myrick, and Shuler to carry guns at appearances

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!