NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => Laws and Legislation => Topic started by: Sotex on October 13, 2010, 05:28:21 PM
-
Just what the title says. I have some questions about candidates in the upcoming election. Mods, if this belongs elsewhere, please move it wherever appropriate.
-
Are you referring to the Board of Directors election this month, or the national election on Nov. 2nd?
Either way this board will work
-
Not the board...the general election.
In the district 16 race, I was under the impression that Rogert was supportive of our causes. However, I just received information that his opponent has received endorsements from (among others) the governor and attorney general, who are definitely friends of ours.
So, I am just wondering if anyone here has any insight into either canidate. Have any questionaires been sent to any candidates on RKBA issues?
-
Mr. Rogert is a Democrat, that is why he is not endorsed by the Governor or AG. He has been pretty darn good on guns, but has had a bit of a problem with his boat and sales taxes(see the Nebraska Watchdog website for details) and it seems Ms. Brasch is poised to make it a close contest come November.
This is NOT an endorsement, but here is the communication I had with Ms. Brasch a couple weeks ago:
Hello. I?d like to know your stance on 2nd Amendment issues, especially in regards to legal Concealed Carry, Castle Doctrine, and a Montana-style Firearms Freedom Act for Nebraska.
Thank you for your time,
FarmerRick
Hello FarmerRick,
Most of my time is door to door in the district. I hope to personally meet you.This morning I am catching up on many emails, thank you for your patience and understanding. This is a very important question and issue indeed.
I support our U.S. Constitution and our U.S. Bill of Rights and Amendment II; protecting an individual's right to possess a firearm and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within our homes.
I also support the Castle Doctrine legislation (LB 889, Senator Christensen) that switches the burden of proof from the homeowner to the prosecutor and protects our homeowner from being sued in civil court (even if found justified in defending their home). Unfortunately, currently our homeowners are presumed guilty and the burden of proof is on the homeowner to prove that they were justified in defending their home and loved ones.
I will work to represent our District, from people I have met with and listened to I understand and agree with others to support the Castle Doctrine in Montana as described, copied and pasted below:
HB 228, the ?Castle Doctrine? bill, has been signed into law by Gov. Schweitzer.
Section 1. No duty to summon help or flee. Except as provided in 45-3-105, a person who is lawfully in a place or location and who is threatened with bodily injury or loss of life has no duty to retreat from a threat or summon law enforcement assistance prior to using force. The provisions of this section apply to a person offering evidence of justifiable use of force under 45-3-102, 45-3-103, or 45-3-104.
Section 2. Openly carrying weapon?display?exemption. (1) Any person who is not otherwise prohibited from doing so by federal or state law may openly carry a weapon and may communicate to another person the fact that the person has a weapon. (2) If a person reasonably believes that the person or another person is threatened with bodily harm, the person may warn or threaten the use of force, including deadly force, against the aggressor, including drawing or presenting a weapon. (3) This section does not limit the authority of the board of regents or other postsecondary institutions to regulate the carrying of weapons, as defined in 45-8-361(5)(b), on their campuses.
Section 3. Investigation of alleged offense involving claim of justifiable use of force. When an investigation is conducted by a peace officer of an incident that appears to have or is alleged to have involved justifiable use of force, the investigation must be conducted so as to disclose all evidence, including testimony concerning the alleged offense and that might support the apparent or alleged justifiable use of force
Please let me know if you have other questions. I completed the NRA survey this week and they plan to post it next week.
Thank you again, kindest regards,
Lydia Brasch
http://www.lydiabrasch.com/ (http://www.lydiabrasch.com/)
-
...including self-defense within our homes.
I did not see anything about concealed carry. It looks like Mr. Brasch is all for defense of/in a home, but may be shying away from the concealed carry issue.
Fly
-
...including self-defense within our homes.
I did not see anything about concealed carry. It looks like Mr. Brasch is all for defense of/in a home, but may be shying away from the concealed carry issue.
Fly
This is what I gather also, we need to legally protect ourselves outside the home. We have always had the right to protect ourselves in our home, that has never been an issue.
-
According to her website, itt appears Lydia is a "she", OnTheFly
-
I personally was trying to lure Mr Rogert over to our side because he sits on the Judiciary committee. He has been somewhat supportive of our issues, but I think that he is more anti big gov than he is RKBA
-
I would agree with Dan's assessment of Kent Rogert. He is a political pragmatist, who seems to have some contempt for (or maybe distrust of) the government. .. or maybe just the executive and judicial agents, thereof.
-
The American Rifleman came out with their endorsements in this month's issue. I question their criteria.....
-
The American Rifleman came out with their endorsements in this month's issue. I question their criteria.....
What I question is the NRA stance that we can ignore the rest of the bill of rights while promoting the RKBA. They would silence groups like the NFOA so that the NRA can continue to exist, even as we loose the rest of our freedoms
-
The American Rifleman came out with their endorsements in this month's issue. I question their criteria.....
What I question is the NRA stance that we can ignore the rest of the bill of rights while promoting the RKBA. They would silence groups like the NFOA so that the NRA can continue to exist, even as we loose the rest of our freedoms
The fact that they seem to be just fine and dandy with doing that has me questioning my Life Membership in the NRA.
-
As an Endowment Member of the NRA, I agree.....recall earlier this year in an issue of American Rifleman their "orgasmic" lauding of Dingy Harry Ried for his contributions to protecting ranges in NV and his "support" of the 2A, etc.
I was asked about 3 years ago to consider being the NRA rep for Nebraska. My conscience ultimately led me to say no as I could NEVER endorse Big Ben Nelson.
That being said, I still support their overall mission (man, I hate compromise)
-
I glanced at the NRA magazine last night. How on earth can they give Bill Avery and Danielle Conrad a C rating???????? They should be a big fat "F"
-
Look again...They gave Ashford a C, but Avery and Conrad were given A's
-
Dan you are right, I was mixing those letters up. Ashford might be a C, more like a D. No way in**** on Avery or Conrad being an A!!!
-
They probably just go by their voting record, not everything they do that leads up to the vote.
aaaaand... Ashford should most definitely be a D(emocrat).
I keep asking him on his Facebook page when his is going to make an official switch of party affiliation, haven't gotten a response yet for some reason... >:D >:D >:D
-
Rick he already did from D to R...
-
Rick he already did from D to R...
When was that? Must have been a while back...
-
Avery and Conrad an A?
Uh... No.
Conrad likes to talk about hunting and outdoor sports, but does anyone recall the Judiciary Committee hearing on castle doctrine last year (aside from those of us forced to endure it)?
I personal take is that the NRA is trying to get on the good side of two members of a very tight judiciary committee. I know the good-on-guns senators are always leaning on Ashford, but they have little to offer to Conrad and Avery (wrong party).
-
Ashford is iffy. His hot button is to get some training into the schools. If we can work this right, it will definitely benefit the Second Amendment cause.
-
By the way, I have a personal note from Tom saying "2nd amendment & concealed carry - FULLY FAVOR".
So contrary to what you may have read in the NRA publications, he is not a "?"
See you at the polls.
-
I thought I had mentioned this before but maybe not. Here's an e-mail exchange I had with Tom Dierks last spring.
Bill,
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. People should be able to carry concealed weapons. I'm more in favor of the Castle doctrine than against it. Just hope it isn't too dangerous. I work with those who are mentally ill, and believe there could be a case where a person is disorganized and could end up a the wrong place at the wrong time, but not be a danger to others. Not sure what you want to know about hunting and fishing. Will just say that I'm a hunter, and I think hunting is good. Even beneficial for boys who ought to know how to handle guns in a healthy manner. I'm all for fishing if I could just catch bigger catfish, and it didn't have to be in the middle of the night!
Tom
P.S. Do you live in the district, in 26?
- Hide quoted text -
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:06 AM, wrote:
Hello Tom,
I would like to hear your position on a people being able to carry
concealed weapons, the movement to bring the Castle doctrine to
Nebraska statutes, and hunting and fishing.
Thank you,
Bill
Tom was on my doorstep last week and we had a nice conversation. I think he will be a huge upgrade over McGill.
-
I've always thought that IF the libs were serious about 'protecting' kids, then firearm instruction should be mandatory in schools. Start with something similar to the NRA's "Eddie the Eagle" program and then work up to just being able to clear any type of weapon whether you're interested in shooting or not. Most kids know what end of a knife, saw or other common tools to hold, why not a firearm?
But that's going back to rule one of firearm safety: "Treat every firearm like it is loaded."
But the libs aren't really 'serious' about protecting kids anyway are they... just amassing power for themselves at the cost of everyone else's civil rights (which they also claim to defend).
Gotta love the hypocracy.
-
I've always thought that IF the libs were serious about 'protecting' kids, then firearm instruction should be mandatory in schools. Start with something similar to the NRA's "Eddie the Eagle" program and then work up to just being able to clear any type of weapon whether you're interested in shooting or not. Most kids know what end of a knife, saw or other common tools to hold, why not a firearm?
But that's going back to rule one of firearm safety: "Treat every firearm like it is loaded."
But the libs aren't really 'serious' about protecting kids anyway are they... just amassing power for themselves at the cost of everyone else's civil rights (which they also claim to defend).
Gotta love the hypocracy.
Agreed. It would definitely be great to pass some sort of legislation in Nebraska to bring gun safety/training to our public schools. I've always believed this is the answer to the firearms accidents the anti-gun groups use to argue against guns. Society has been ignorant of gun safety for too long and the media has been an accomplice in this matter as well by demonizing guns rather than to educate people of the bigger positive side of gun ownership and how to use guns correctly.