NAGR is the enemy of gun rights in North Carolina

[fr33]

That said, as far as NAGR in Texas goes I do have something to add. NAGR and their state affiliate here TXGR are the good guys. the leaders here are respectable grassroots liberty advocates. They are one of the few groups supporting our CC bill here.

TXGR are one of a few groups who supported open carry from the start.

The NRA and TSRA jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute when it was obvious their members were getting annoyed at them dragging their feet. I remember Charles Cotton (Mr. NRA of Texas), after Open Carry passed, was lamenting on his own forum that getting open carry passed was a waste of gun rights energy. You'll notice that the NRA and TSRA are not at all supporting the Constitutional Carry bill for this legislature session. They (Charles Cotton) spend their time criticizing Jonathan Stickland and Don Huffines, who are the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters we have in Texas. They also love Speaker of the House Joe Straus; the guy who almost killed Open Carry and the guy who will make sure Constitutional Carry never sees a vote this session.

IMO groups like NAGR are great for forcing the NRA to actually support gun rights in these state fights. All the hand-wringing over OCT in Texas was just whiny babies scared to fight for our rights.

[pcosmar]

No, NAGR does not support a police state,

You are as full of $#@! as the day is long.

There is NO gun organization that does not..
Every one supports Police.. and more police. and tools for police.. and Regulation of Guns..

Every Phucking One.

None call for less Police.
None insist on Leashes for the Dog.

All insist on keeping guns from some.

[Matt Collins]

Google tells me that open carry is already legal in NC. It's confusing to have it called constitutional carry when they only seem to reference concealed carry in the bill's description.

This is going to be your best resource on the subject: http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/northcarolina.pdf

[Matt Collins]

You are as full of $#@! as the day is long.

There is NO gun organization that does not..
Every one supports Police.. and more police. and tools for police.. and Regulation of Guns..

Every Phucking One.

None call for less Police.
None insist on Leashes for the Dog.

All insist on keeping guns from some.

Nope, you are wrong. NAGR routinely fights sheriff and police associations when trying to pass Constitutional Carry.

[Matt Collins]

TXGR are one of a few groups who supported open carry from the start.

The NRA and TSRA jumped on the bandwagon at the last minute when it was obvious their members were getting annoyed at them dragging their feet. I remember Charles Cotton (Mr. NRA of Texas), after Open Carry passed, was lamenting on his own forum that getting open carry passed was a waste of gun rights energy. You'll notice that the NRA and TSRA are not at all supporting the Constitutional Carry bill for this legislature session. They (Charles Cotton) spend their time criticizing Jonathan Stickland and Don Huffines, who are the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters we have in Texas. They also love Speaker of the House Joe Straus; the guy who almost killed Open Carry and the guy who will make sure Constitutional Carry never sees a vote this session.

IMO groups like NAGR are great for forcing the NRA to actually support gun rights in these state fights. All the hand-wringing over OCT in Texas was just whiny babies scared to fight for our rights.

Yep it was disgusting what they did to Jonathan, who is one of the best legislators in the country. I watched this happen live and was about to come unglued:








As far as the NRA goes, they started actively lobbying for ConCarry in WV too once we got involved. Of course they sold out to the Sheriff's Association and compromised to exclude 18-21 year old adults from being able to carry without a permit.

[TheTexan]

Yep it was disgusting what they did to Jonathan, who is one of the best legislators in the country. I watched this happen live and was about to come unglued:

It's absolutely disgraceful - and shameful - that they would not allow a vote on his amendment, or even a vote on whether or not they should vote on it.

I expect much better voting from my representatives. I will write a letter to them, in the appropriate tone, diction, and style, that such a travesty would require.

[GunnyFreedom]

From Paul Valone:

Dear Gun Rights Supporter:

Unfortunately, the operatives from the long-discredited “National Association for Gun Rights” (appropriately enough, “NAGR”) are at it again.

The culprits are Noel Fritsch and Reilly O’Neal, both “formerly” of NAGR (but likely still working on NAGR’s behalf). And their playbook -- straight from NAGR -- is not to actually pass legislation, but rather to tell lies about pro-gun legislators and organizations, branding them “not pro-gun enough.” Why? To raise money, of course.

Recently, North Carolina Gun Rights (“NCGR”, which is likely a deliberately misleading anagram of GRNC) and one of O’Neal’s other entities, “firstinfreedomdaily,” have obliquely referred to GRNC as a “fraudulent gun rights organization,” attempted to bill brand House Bill 69 for constitutional carry as “compromise carry,” and lied about veterans supposedly being denied their rights under the bill.

Meet the scammers

To give you the flavor of the two operatives involved, O’Neal, formerly a campaign manager for Greg Brannon’s US Senate bid, and also formerly a Ron Paul campaign staffer (in conjunction with NAGR, whose principals consulted for Paul), has reportedly been disavowed by Brannon.

In addition to other dubious fundraising organizations on a variety of issues here in North Carolina, O’Neal was the subject of ethics complaints for his “Defense of Liberty PAC” (“DOLPAC”) in Maine and has been caught doing predatory fundraising in Louisiana.

Then we have Mr. Fritsch. Considered by some as responsible for sinking the US Senate bid by pro-gun Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel, for whom he served as communications director, Fritsch was reportedly a subject of a grand jury investigation into whether he or others paid someone to lie about vote buying by McDaniel’s opponent. Indeed, Fritsch was so “popular” in Mississippi during the debate over constitutional carry there that his own bill sponsor threatened to call capitol police on him.

To give you a feel for Fritsch’s stability, one Mississippi reporter called Fritsch’s propensity to yell at and then hang up on reporters -- later calling them back as if they were old friends -- “Sybil-like.”

But a Mississippi legislator said it best: “I think this is just a fundraising group — a shield, a sham, a ruse," Gipson said…They're doing what they've done in other states, going after the most conservative, pro-gun rights people…”

The scam in question

The most recent (among many) fundraising letter from “The Boys From NAGR” makes a number of assertions about HB 69 which range from selectively misleading to downright false.

Scam #1: “…H.B. 69 includes numerous statutes that strip law-abiding North Carolina citizens of their God-given right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Truth: HB 69 does not create any new restrictions. In order to be narrowly crafted (and more likely passed into law), the new Section 54C mirrors language in our existing concealed handgun statute, differing only in that people would no longer need permits. Meanwhile, GRNC has drafted language and recruited sponsors to remove many restrictions in OTHER legislation.

Scam #2: “…under H.B. 69, a veteran who gets a divorce or is found guilty of committing adultery could be DENIED their right to carry in North Carolina…”

Truth: Nice try, fellas, but wrong again. Under NC’s original concealed handgun statute, flawed language bars applicants who were discharged from the military under “other than honorable” conditions. GRNC has been the ONLY organization involved in trying to get that language changed as recently as the last session of the legislature, and will do so again this year. However, HB 69 does NOT MIRROR THIS LANGUAGE, instead applying only to people who were DISHONORABLY discharged, a category which does not include adultery or other minor offenses, but instead only serious crimes subject to courts martial.

Scam #3: The Boys from NAGR intimate that a new, better constitutional carry bill will be introduced by Rep. Chris Millis at their behest.

Truth: As Hertz commercials put it, “Not exactly.” While Rep. Millis (R-Onslow, Pender, GRNC ****) does plan to introduce legislation (which, presuming it is well crafted, GRNC will support), according to Millis, “The Boys from NAGR” had nothing to do with it. If Millis introduces a good bill, what will likely happen is that bits and pieces of both bills will be melded into a committee substitute which is acceptable to enough parties to secure passage. (Expect to hear lots of Fritsch-like wailing when that happens.)

The scammers are spammers: Don’t sign petition!

Straight out of the NAGR playbook (and following what they’ve done in Mississippi and elsewhere), the single and only thing The Boys from NAGR are doing is to push a “petition” for which they claim a ridiculously inflated number of signatures.

But here is their dirty little secret: While we may disagree on the effectiveness of petitions as political weapons (many argue they are too easily ignored), a petition makes an excellent ruse for predatory fundraising.

You see, the scammers are also spammers. If you sign their petition, you will receive endless spam dunning you for money. And if The Boys from NAGR are anything like the folks who trained them, the “thanks” you receive for signing or contributing will likely be to have your email sold to other spammers.

What you can do to pass constitutional carry

Our problem is that HB 69 is currently assigned to the NC House Judiciary I Committee, chaired by Rep. Ted Davis (R-New Hanover, GRNC *), who will likely deny it a hearing, killing it. Accordingly, we need to move the bill to the Judiciary II Committee, chaired by Rep. John Blust (R-Guilford, ***) who, thanks to your input in response to GRNC’s alert last weekend, has promised to give the bill a hearing.

To get HB 69 moved to J-2, please contact Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland, ****) and Rules Chair David Lewis (R-Harnett, ***) and tell them to re-assign the bill.

GRNC: Kicking butt since 1994!

• Since 1994, only one truly “no-compromise” North Carolina gun rights organization has defended your rights;

• One organization has been primarily responsible for passing concealed carry, concealed handgun reciprocity, the purchase permit bypass, Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground, expansion of concealed carry into parks, restaurants, public assemblies and elsewhere;

• One organization has killed scores of proposed anti-gun bills;

• One organization sued Winston-Salem and forced dozens of municipalities to repeal illegal anti-gun ordinances and remove posting signs from parks and elsewhere;

• One organization forced hundreds of stores and restaurants to remove “no firearms signs”

• One NC organization has sued to overturn NC’s “state of emergency” gun ban, reinforcing your right to self protection during riots and natural disasters ...

...and only one organization can get constitutional carry passed in North Carolina.

That organization is Grass Roots North Carolina.

And unlike the poseurs, GRNC vows to put your money to use more efficiently and effectively than any other organization in defending your rights.

Armatissimi e liberissimi,


F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International

[GunnyFreedom]

These are the people whom NAGR is attacking, and whom Matt Collins is here attacking as "not pro gun enough:"

Michael Speciale
8 hrs ·
I submitted four bills today to allow the voters to clean up some NC Constitutional issues. If passed by both houses, they will be on the ballot in Nov 2018 for you to decide.
1. Remove the literacy test required to vote in Article VI section 4. This is no longer done and was put in the constitution by democrats during the jim crow era to keep blacks from voting. It needs to be removed.
2. Remove the reconstruction era mandate forever prohibiting secession in Article I section 4. This is not a bill to secede.
3. Remove the authority of the General Assembly to regulate concealed carry at the end of Article I section 30. This is necessary for constitutional carry in NC.
4. Remove the words '...and government...' from Article I section 5. It currently reads "Every citizen of this state owes paramount allegiance to the Constitution and government of the United States...". We DO NOT owe the government our allegiance, we owe our country and constitution our allegiance. This needs to be corrected.

http://ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookU...17&BillID=H145

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO REPEAL THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING THE REGULATION OF CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Section 30 of Article I of the North Carolina Constitution reads as rewritten:

"Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."

SECTION 2. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act shall be submitted to the qualified voters of the State at a statewide election to be conducted in November of 2018, which election shall be conducted under the laws then governing elections in the State. The question to be used in the voting systems and ballots shall be:

"[ ] FOR [ ] AGAINST
A constitutional amendment to repeal the provision which provides that the General Assembly may prohibit the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

SECTION 3. If a majority of votes cast on the question are in favor of the amendment set out in Section 1 of this act, the State Board of Elections shall certify the amendment to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall enroll the amendment so certified among the permanent records of that office. The amendment set out in Section 1 of this act becomes effective upon certification.

SECTION 4. This act is effective when it becomes law.

[pcosmar]

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO REPEAL THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING THE REGULATION OF CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON.

I like that idea.
Several states had prohibition to concealed carry written n their State Constitution.
While Open Carry was common and acceptable,,, concealing a weapon was considered dishonest. and was prohibited.

I am personally in favor of open carry. (were I allowed) but it should be wholly up to the individual..

and NONE of the "states" business.

[Matt Collins]

These are the people whom NAGR is attacking, and whom Matt Collins is here attacking as "not pro gun enough:"

I don't know anything about them... are they willing to force a full recorded floor vote on Constitutional Carry?

[Matt Collins]

Straight out of the NAGR playbook (and following what they’ve done in Mississippi and elsewhere)

Oh you mean like actually making Constitutional Carry law?

[phill4paul]

I don't know anything about them... are they willing to force a full recorded floor vote on Constitutional Carry?

Perhaps that is the whole problem. NCGR moved into GRNC space without even....consulting? Didn't call them on the phone? No? They were just going to adopt the acronym and start $#@!? Does that sound like a winning plan? Or does it seem like a sleazy money grabbing slime.
As a Cackalackian it seems pretty sleazy money grabbing operation to me.
So tell me, if these guys are so good why is the word spreading that they are shysters?

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't know anything about them... are they willing to force a full recorded floor vote on Constitutional Carry?

No $#@! you don't know anything about them. And yet you accused them of being anti gun. That should be all any rational person needs to know about you.

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh you mean like actually making Constitutional Carry law?

No.

[GunnyFreedom]

Perhaps that is the whole problem. NCGR moved into GRNC space without even....consulting? Didn't call them on the phone? No? They were just going to adopt the acronym and start $#@!? Does that sound like a winning plan? Or does it seem like a sleazy money grabbing slime.
As a Cackalackian it seems pretty sleazy money grabbing operation to me.
So tell me, if these guys are so good why is the word spreading that they are shysters?

Well they pissed me off pretty good but now that Matt Collins has compounded it I will be devoting my 2nd Amendment speech to the NCRLC tomorrow night to exposing these criminals as the enemies of NC gun owners they are.

[phill4paul]

Well they pissed me off pretty good but now that Matt Collins has compounded it I will be devoting my 2nd Amendment speech to the NCRLC tomorrow night to exposing these criminals as the enemies of NC gun owners they are.

I'm going to get something condensed together and send to social media friends. This $#@! just pisses me off.

[Matt Collins]

No $#@! you don't know anything about them. And yet you accused them of being anti gun. That should be all any rational person needs to know about you.

Answer the question: are they willing to force a full recorded roll call vote to the floor? Yes, or no?

[Matt Collins]

Perhaps that is the whole problem. NCGR moved into GRNC space without even....consulting?

This statement presupposes that GRNC has some sort of monopoly or ownership over the pro-gun rights movement in NC.

Didn't call them on the phone?

Honestly, no, they probably didn't. And when I worked there I did encourage them to do more outreach like that in order to prevent or at least minimize butthurt like this. See my next line below:

So tell me, if these guys are so good why is the word spreading that they are shysters?

Because people get emotional when the professionals move in after years and years of doing the same thing. It's like a band that suddenly becomes popular and mainstream, the original fan base accuses them of selling out. It's just human nature. People have vested interests in keeping their little fiefdom and are tribal and territorial.


That being said, even if NAGR did do some grassroots warming up in advance, as I recommended when I worked there, it probably wouldn't change some people's attitudes because of the jealousy aspect (see Gunny). I had the same problem in WV with the locals too though.

I guess over the years they have found it better just to not pre-warn the local groups that they are setting up shop so that the local groups get less advance notice to be able to undermine their efforts.

[Matt Collins]

Well they pissed me off pretty good but now that Matt Collins has compounded it I will be devoting my 2nd Amendment speech to the NCRLC tomorrow night to exposing these criminals as the enemies of NC gun owners they are.

LOL, I am sure that will make a huge difference ha ha ha

[phill4paul]

This statement presupposes that GRNC has some sort of monopoly or ownership over the pro-gun rights movement in NC.

They are the local/state advocates. Glen made clear the situation. To steal an acronym and make the local grass roots org. seem like bad guys is going to fail. And I'm going to help it fail.[/QUOTE]

Have fun. I'm spreading the word. And those I know will spread the word.

[Matt Collins]

To steal an acronym and make the local grass roots org. seem like bad guys is going to fail. And I'm going to help it fail.

You have no clue how things work. NAGR's list is at LEAST 10 times bigger than the list that the local group has, guaranteed.


Nice to see you being a traitor to the cause of freedom though.

[Matt Collins]

To steal an acronym and make the local grass roots org. seem like bad guys is going to fail. And I'm going to help it fail.

You have no clue how things work. NAGR's list is at LEAST 10 times bigger than the list that the local group has, guaranteed.


Nice to see you being a traitor to the cause of freedom though.

[pcosmar]

You have no clue how things work. NAGR's list is at LEAST 10 times bigger than the list that the local group has, guaranteed.

Oh,, you know something about lists of donors?

[phill4paul]

You have no clue how things work. NAGR's list is at LEAST 10 times bigger than the list that the local group has, guaranteed.


Nice to see you being a traitor to the cause of freedom though.

Oh,, you know something about lists of donors?

If you call a man that conceals, and open carries, without a license or government approve a traitor then I think you need to re-define your definition of "traitor." Stay the $#@! out of my state Matt. I'm pretty sure at this point your affiliations just hit a brick wall.

[GunnyFreedom]

Answer the question: are they willing to force a full recorded roll call vote to the floor? Yes, or no?

You obviously do not know how the North Carolina General Assembly even works. Which is even more evidence that you and your $#@!-stack ilk need to stay the fk out of North Carolina.

[GunnyFreedom]

This statement presupposes that GRNC has some sort of monopoly or ownership over the pro-gun rights movement in NC.




Honestly, no, they probably didn't. And when I worked there I did encourage them to do more outreach like that in order to prevent or at least minimize butthurt like this. See my next line below:


Because people get emotional when the professionals move in after years and years of doing the same thing. It's like a band that suddenly becomes popular and mainstream, the original fan base accuses them of selling out. It's just human nature. People have vested interests in keeping their little fiefdom and are tribal and territorial.


That being said, even if NAGR did do some grassroots warming up in advance, as I recommended when I worked there, it probably wouldn't change some people's attitudes because of the jealousy aspect (see Gunny). I had the same problem in WV with the locals too though.

Bull$#@!. You obviously do not have the first clue about what motivates me. Your constant inaccurate speculation about my jealousy or my drunkenness further demonstrates that you are talking out of your ass.

I guess over the years they have found it better just to not pre-warn the local groups that they are setting up shop so that the local groups get less advance notice to be able to undermine their efforts.

Or they are just grubbing for money against a convenient target, and have discovered that sneak attacks and claiming credit for what they had nothing to do with work better than trying to fool the people who have actually been in the trenches for decades.

[Matt Collins]

Bull$#@!. You obviously do not have the first clue about what motivates me. Your constant inaccurate speculation about my jealousy or my drunkenness further demonstrates that you are talking out of your ass

Actions speak louder than words

[Matt Collins]

You obviously do not know how the North Carolina General Assembly even works. Which is even more evidence that you and your $#@!-stack ilk need to stay the fk out of North Carolina.

In the House rule #39 and in the Senate rule #47. While a discharge in the Senate is not possible unless someone in leadership is on your side, it is possible in the House.


Barring a discharge petition, make a motion to amend a bill on the floor with Constitutional Carry language. If they rule it non-germane then challenge the decision of the chair with a roll call vote. That is the recorded vote for or against ConCarry. Or one could simply push to suspend the rules in order to bring a bill to the floor. That is also the recorded vote you need. Either way, you then have a nice list of legislators who are for and against ConCarry. Procedural votes count too.


Do I have to spell everything out for you?

[GunnyFreedom]

In the House rule #39 and in the Senate rule #47. While a discharge in the Senate is not possible unless someone in leadership is on your side, it is possible in the House.


Barring a discharge petition, make a motion to amend a bill on the floor with Constitutional Carry language. If they rule it non-germane then challenge the decision of the chair with a roll call vote. That is the recorded vote for or against ConCarry. Or one could simply push to suspend the rules in order to bring a bill to the floor. That is also the recorded vote you need. Either way, you then have a nice list of legislators who are for and against ConCarry. Procedural votes count too.


Do I have to spell everything out for you?

First, just because something is possible in the rules does not mean it is possible in reality. I had the Speaker Pro Tem on my Discharge Petition for the NC Jobs Bill in 2011 *AND* I had the necessary signatures, but in reality, the Speaker runs things and does WTF he wants.

Second, North Carolina does not allow off-topic amendments, and the Bill Sponsor must approve any amendment that changes the title. There is no appeal.

Again you have no clue WTF you are talking about, neither did Reilly O'Neil, and neither does NAGR. If any of you lot had two brain cells to rub together you would have sought local allies up front who understand the political landscape in North Carolina. Instead, you will continue to fail, you will continue to set back liberty in NC with your ham-handed thumb-fingered ignorance.

But what's even worse than your ignorance, is your prideful ignorance. You lot keep coming to NC and sticking your dicks in, getting them chopped off, and then trying to blame the people like me who told you that you were doing it wrong.

Honestly I wouldn't even care that your people kept discrediting themselves except they are eroding the very real and thus-far successful long term plans that we have been enacting.

How about you and your kind stay the Fk out of North Carolina where you have no clue what is going on or how to get things done, and stop hindering those of us who DO know from actually doing it eh?

[CPUd]

Second, North Carolina does not allow off-topic amendments, and the Bill Sponsor must approve any amendment that changes the title. There is no appeal.

This seems like something that could solve a lot of problems in the US House.