In my blog post earlier today, I neglected to refute one of Sugarmann's "points" in his latest diatribe against the NRA--one which is in dire need of being addressed. Sugarmann provides readers with his version of some NRA history, describing the 1977 shift of focus from being mainly a sporting organization to gun rights advocacy group.
That day, the membership ousted a leadership suspected of being soft on gun control and replaced them with no-compromise, pro-gun hardliners led by Harlon Carter. (A piece of personal history on Carter, as a 17-year-old the future NRA head shot and killed another child. He was convicted of murder, but was later freed on appeal on a technicality.)It's Sugarmann's parenthetical reference to Carter's personal history that I take issue with.
Dave Kopel has a bit more information than Josh was interested in sharing. Kopel's piece, having been written years ago, was in response to a fundraising letter circulated by Handgun Control, Inc. (now known as the Brady Bunch). This letter also mentioned the shooting in which Carter was involved, and HCI's description was quite similar to Sugarmann's.
The Handgun Control letter continued: "50 years ago, Carter shot and killed a 15-year-old boy and was convicted of murder."There is, however, rather more to the story than either Sugarmann now, or HCI before him, want readers to know.
The letter omitted the fact that Carter was defending his mother's ranch against a gang of intruders led by the "boy," and that the "boy" was menacing Carter with a knife. At the trial, the judge was the prosecutor's father-in-law, and he refused to let Carter introduce evidence of self-defense.At least Sugarmann didn't have much credibility to lose.
Having left out the crucial facts about Carter's innocence, the Handgun Control letter complained that the conviction "was reversed on the technical grounds that the judge had not given the jurors adequate instructions about the law of self-defense." Actually, it wasn't just the instructions that were inadequate; all the evidence about self-defense had been excluded.
Most people would think that a citizen's shooting of a criminal should be judged by whether the citizen was acting in self-defense. But Handgun Control apparently considers innocent persons who shoot criminals to be as bad as common murderers — since self-defense is only a "technicality."
Stumble it!
7 comments:
Gee, Judge Jimm Larry Hendren seems to have glommed onto that strategy of insuring conviction. Do not allow the defendant to present a defense.
Anybody else ready to have him impeached.
Good catch, SA--I hadn't considered the similar strategies used in the application of "justice."
I support the right to own guns and the right to self-defense, but didn't the NRA start out as an extension of the KKK?
. . . but didn't the NRA start out as an extension of the KKK?
Can't imagine where you got that idea. The NRA's first president was General Ambrose Burnside, of the Union Army. It was formed by two other Union Army officers, Colonel William C. Church, and General George Wingate, who were not happy with the rifle marksmanship of the troops they had seen during the Civil War, and started the organization in order to provide marksmanship instruction to the body of people from whom armies would be formed (the general populace, in other words).
Rather unlikely KKK members.
"but didn't the NRA start out as an extension of the KKK?
------
Can't imagine where you got that idea."
______________________________
Sorry, but I've been busy with work and didn't notice this before. That tripe came from Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine propaganda piece. All hail the power of Hollywood!
However, the KKK, itself, can be said to have been an extension of another well-known organization (which I'd rather not slander at the moment) formed by CSA generals. So it can be said that the KKK was the southern generals' organization while the NRA was the northern generals' organization. But then, that would make it much harder to impugn the NRA for its "liberal" enemies.
Thanks, '57. I actually saw Michael Moore's propaganda piece several years ago, but I guess I must have tuned out the KKK references. Come to think of it, that was probably a fairly wise (although not really conscious) decision on my part.
If you did watch it, then you've a stronger stomach than I, 45superman. Can no longer bring myself to watch any of that hypocrite's garbage, not even one about gun rights. I only know it's from the movie because I've read up a bit on Moore.
Post a Comment