To register for this course http://www.nrainstructors.org/SignupStudent.aspx?id=31078

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan’s confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee.  Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment.  As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year’s confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment.  After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

NRA members and other interested parties are encouraged to visit www.NRAPVF.org for more information as Election Day draws near.

The House passed the bill in 2009 with the NRA supported amendment by a voice vote, but it was not taken up by the Senate and was only recently revived.

The National Rifle Association and Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association sought to include this amendment because Delaware’s law-abiding permit holders have been delayed by the Court and or the  Attorney General’s office in renewing their licenses.

Thank  you to all those members who contacted their legislators during this process.

Joint Statement by Wayne LaPierre, NRA Executive Vice President & CEO,
and Chris Cox, Executive Director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action

Phoenix, Arizona:  Responding to court papers filed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in opposition to legal claims brought by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), on Friday June 4, 2010 CBD revised its lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (BLM, FWS) regarding  BLM and FWS’ management of federal lands in northern Arizona (Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt, et al., 3:09-cv-08011-PCT-PGR).

CBD’s original lawsuit, first filed January 27, 2009 [Read original Complaint here], alleged that BLM and FWS are illegally mismanaging federal lands in Arizona.

CBD’s claims were based in part on an incorrect belief that “any take of [California] condors from the use of lead ammunition would be a per se violation of the ESA.” [Read First Amended Complaint here] CBD’s revised lawsuit drops the ESA claims that CBD was primarily using to seek a ban on the use of lead ammunition for hunting on those federal lands. [Read Second Amended Complaint here]

Although several legal theories under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) that could be used by CBD to try to ban the use of lead ammunition for hunting remain in the lawsuit, CBD is drastically backing off from the stronger ESA based legal theories that it typically employs in its frequent lawsuits against hunting and hunters. CBD’s retreat is a result of NRA intervening in the case. On April 28, 2010, NRA filed court papers detailing how a 1996 federal law protects hunting with lead ammunition in Arizona despite the California condor being “reintroduced” to Arizona that year.[Read NRA's Motion Here] On May 18, 2010, the federal court in Phoenix granted NRA “full intervention” to contest the claims in CBD’s lawsuit that implicated hunting and condors. Ten days later, CBD dropped its condor-related claims brought under ESA.    

CBD contends that California condors in Arizona and elsewhere are becoming ill or dying as a result of eating lead in scavenged game after being shot by hunters with lead shot or bullets.  Thousands of documents collected by NRA through public records act requests over the last year dispute that claim and the faulty science it is based on, and plainly show that California condors were reintroduced to Arizona based in large part on express promises by FWS and other agencies that the “reintroduction” would not impact hunting.  

Because CBD has stated on the record that it “doesn’t make any apologies about” its “goal to ban lead ammunition[,]” the lead ammunition component of CBD’s lawsuit is likely to resurface in a different form or a different lawsuit. So the issue remains to be litigated. But NRA has at least been partially successful in getting CBD to back away from its most commonly used ESA based claims attacking hunters using lead ammunition.

The lawsuit is just one example of NRA’s efforts on behalf of hunters throughout the country. NRA will remain vigilant in fighting against CBD’s lead ban initiatives in this and other lawsuits, as well as in legislatures throughout the country.

 In the past, through the courts and in Congress, the NRA has opposed any effort to restrict the rights of its four million members to speak and have their voices heard on behalf of gun owners nationwide.

 The NRA’s opposition to restrictions on political speech includes its May 26, 2010 letter to Members of Congress expressing strong concerns about H.R.

5175, the DISCLOSE Act. As it stood at the time of that letter, the measure would have undermined or obliterated virtually all of the NRA’s right to free political speech and, therefore, jeopardized the Second Amendment rights of every law-abiding American.

 The most potent defense of the Second Amendment requires the most adamant exercise of the First Amendment. The NRA stands absolutely obligated to its members to ensure maximum access to the First Amendment, in order to protect and preserve the freedom of the Second Amendment.

 The NRA must preserve its ability to speak. It cannot risk a strategy that would deny its rights, for the Second Amendment cannot be defended without them.

 Thus, the NRA’s first obligation must be to its members and to its most ardent defense of firearms freedom for America’s lawful gun owners.

 On June 14, 2010, Democratic leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives pledged that H.R. 5175 would be amended to exempt groups like the NRA, that meet certain criteria, from its onerous restrictions on political speech. As a result, and as long as that remains the case, the NRA will not be involved in final consideration of the House bill.

 The NRA cannot defend the Second Amendment from the attacks we face in the local, state, federal, international and judicial arenas without the ability to speak.  We will not allow ourselves to be silenced while the national news media, politicians and others are allowed to attack us freely.

 The NRA will continue to fight for its right to speak out in defense of the Second Amendment. Any efforts to silence the political speech of NRA members will, as has been the case in the past, be met with strong opposition.

—nra—

June 1, 2010 by Lee Williams

 The Wilmington Housing Authority has hired Barry M. Willoughby to defend the agency against the civil rights lawsuit filed last week by the National Rifle Association.

I have been asked several times in recent weeks  why a Delaware resident would want to go through the bureaucratic hassles of applying for a license to carry a concealed weapon under Delaware’s discretionary “may issue” system, when it is so easy to obtain a license from a “shall issue” state such as Florida, a state with which Delaware has “reciprocity. After having this question posed to me on numerous occasions, and after reading several recent “letters to the editor” and perusing various internet postings concerning this issue, I felt compelled to write this column in the hope that otherwise law-abiding Delawareans would not fall victim to this potentially dangerous urban legend.

Yes, it is true that Delaware enjoys “concealed carry reciprocity” with Florida and several other states. And, yes, it is true that Florida and several other “shall issue” states allow non-residents to apply for and receive permits from those states. And, yes, it is true that Florida and several other states that issue concealed carry permits to non-residents do have reciprocity agreements with far more states than does Delaware. However, that is where the truth of this urban legend ends, and the danger of the “legend” begins.

Subsection (j) of Section 1441 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code reads in pertinent part as follows:

“…(T)he State of Delaware shall give full faith and credit and shall otherwise honor and give full force and effect to all licenses/permits issued to the citizens of other states where those issuing states also give full faith and credit and otherwise honor the licenses issued by the State of Delaware….” (Emphasis added).

Notice where the statute speaks in terms of licenses issued to citizens of other states.

While there appears to have been no reported cases interpreting subsection (j) of Section 1441, it would also appear from the plain language of the statute that a Delaware resident attempting to rely upon a Concealed Carry License/Permit issued by Florida or some other state and who does not hold a valid Delaware license issued pursuant to Section 1441 of Title 11 of the Delaware Code, places himself in grave peril of criminal prosecution and the potential for a felony conviction which would then make that Delaware resident a convicted felon and a “person prohibited”, for life.

The bottom line is this: Unless and until the law is changed or a court rules to the contrary – or unless Delaware’s Attorney General issues an AG’s Opinion to the contrary – if you are a non-law enforcement resident of the State of Delaware and you want to carry a concealed deadly weapon in this State, you must have a valid Delaware Concealed Carry License.

Don’t be the victim of an urban legend – obey the law, get a Delaware CCDW permit before you carry concealed in Delaware – it really isn’t that hard. If you have questions concerning this matter, I strongly suggest that you seek legal counsel from a lawyer you trust.