Jan 29: Senator Boseman lies to constituent

KEY PHRASE: “The current version of SB 8, Expanding Safe Zone Around Schools, [sic] does not include firearms limits. It is aimed at preventing drug dealers and their contraband from getting closer to child-oriented areas. However, I am worried to think that there are volumes of "armed parents" in our playgrounds and child care centers prepared for gun battle by carrying concealed weapons as they go to play with their kids.”—Senator Julia Boseman.

--- "Sen. Julia Boseman" <Juliab@ncleg.net> wrote:

> Subject: RE: STOP VICTIM DISARMAMENT NOW
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:14:34 -0500
> From: "Sen. Julia Boseman" <Juliab@ncleg.net>
> To:

Thank you for your comments on the SB 8, Expanding Safe Zone, and SB 9, Prohibit Firearm Purchase under a Protective Order, bills. I do appreciate input from constituents on issues of importance to them, even when we disagree. I would also like to clarify your misunderstanding of my bills.

Your understanding of Senate Bill 9 is incorrect. Senate Bill 9 requires that the judge prohibit the DEFENDANT (NOT the abused victim) from purchasing a firearm. Therefore, your statement that
> the bill would "disarm" victims is not only incorrect, it is misleading to anyone who receives it.

Under current federal law, a domestic violence protective order must meet several requirements before the Defendant is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. The bill DOES NOT prohibit the plaintiff from purchasing a gun and does exactly opposite from what your e-mail states--it provides greater protection for the victim. Senator Boseman is Co-Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Domestic Violence, and has
> been working hard to protect victims of domestic violence.

If you have any questions on this bill, please feel free to contact our office for further explanation. We would hope that now that you are aware of the actual effect of this bill, you will pass this message along to others and strongly support its passage this session.

The current version of SB 8, Expanding Safe Zone Around Schools, does not include firearms limits. It is aimed at preventing drug dealers and their contraband from getting closer to child-oriented areas. However, I am worried to think that there are volumes of "armed parents" in our playgrounds and child care centers prepared for gun battle by carrying concealed weapons as they go to play with their kids.

Thanks again for your comments. I hope you now have better understanding of the bills, and will share this information with all concerned.

Jan 30: E-mail exchange between Boseman and GRNC president Paul Valone

Senator Boseman:
 
Glad to see we have your attention. Specifics follow.
 
In a message dated 1/30/2007 2:27:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, Juliab@ncleg.net writes:

BOSEMAN: Please contact my office so that my staff can correctly explain my bill to you. You, and the rest of the Grass Roots Organization, are misinterpreting the bill. If you are against this bill, then why have you not protested against the existing domestic violence bill prior to now?

VALONE: Actually, we did. Ask former Representatives Wilma Sherrill and Don Munford. In 2003, I testified against the bill in committee, not because it prohibited the defendant from possessing firearms, but because it did so in ex parte hearings in which the defendant might not even have an opportunity to participate, and because it lacked other protections necessary for defendants whose firearms are seized. In fact, the N&O noted our opposition.
 
BOSEMAN: The only thing I changed, as you demonstrate some understanding of by the strikethrough, is that the judge no longer has the discretion of prohibiting either  "party" from purchasing a firearm. The judge has always had the discretion of prohibiting EITHER PARTY from buying a gun. Now he STILL has the DISCRETION of prohibiting the plaintiff, but IS REQUIRED TO PROHIBIT THE DEFENDANT. I did not add PLAINTIFF to the bill, I took PARTY out of the bill. Party indicating more than one. When I took the DEFENDANT out of party, that left only the plaintiff. It is up to the judge to decide if the plaintiff should be restricted. Just like always. 

VALONE: Thank you for your condescension, Senator Boseman. I have drafted several bills enacted into law, so yes, I do have "some understanding" of the strikethrough. And actually, your change does both: It removes "party" and adds "plaintiff."
 
While one can debate the use of "party" in other parts of what is a poorly worded statute, I have several questions: Since the defendant is already prohibited from purchasing firearms under §50B-3.1(d)(1), why bother with the change? Could it be that by specifically stipulating that the "plaintiff" be prohibited from purchasing guns, you intend that judges do precisely that? Could it be that the bill we passed into law in the last session, HB 1311: "Domestic Violence Victims' Empowerment Act" (which I drafted) so bothers some of your supporters that they decided to give you a means to undermine it?
 
Any time somebody more clearly stipulates a prohibition which, by your interpretation, already exists, I would argue that far from merely allowing it, they are encouraging it.

[ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION: For an example of when a legislator runs unnecessary working in a bill in order to encourage the actions cited, recall that during the debate over concealed carry, then-Senator Fountain Odom added a provision purporting to “allow” merchants to post against concealed handguns. In truth, it was intended to encourage posting. Immediately, Governor Hunt allocated money for printing posting signs, and law enforcement agencies encouraged merchants to post. Only the highly successful “GRNC Don’t Buy List” broke the trend toward posting.

Similarly, even if it can be argued that a judge may already prohibit “a party”—including plaintiffs seeking restraining order—specifically stipulating it encourages the practice. Rest assured that if SB 9 becomes law, judges will routinely disarm domestic violence VICTIMS.

Moreover, a review of existing law has revealed that although judges may now prohibit domestic offenders who have perpetrated or threatened violence to buy guns and to further surrender firearms in his or her possession, Boseman’s bill expands the purchase prohibition to include ALL protective orders, even if the defendant has threatened no violence whatsoever, and even if he or she was denied an opportunity to participate in an emergency “ex parte” hearing for issuance of the order.]
 
BOSEMAN: I cannot make that anymore clear. You are distributing false information. I will stand by this bill, and would appreciate you sending this response to your organization along with your letter. I defend you right to disagree with the bill. I defend my right to support it. I will use all my legislative power to support this bill as it provides additional protection to domestic violence victims and children. If there are gun owners who are also abusers, they will get caught by this bill. If the gun owner is a law-abiding citizen not involved in a 50B Protective Order, then they have nothing to worry about.

VALONE: They have nothing to worry about unless, say, they are a *plaintiff* who has sought a 50B order and now wants to buy a firearm knowing full well that literally dozens domestic homicides (I can cite them) have been perpetrated by abusers (i.e. "defendants") who knowingly and willingly violated those orders.
 
The bottom line is that you expect people to believe that the presence of a piece of paper will stop domestic homicides. Reams of evidence suggest otherwise.
 
BOSEMAN: Your misunderstanding and refusal to get an accurate interpretation is worrisome. Please contact my office should you need further explanation.

VALONE: To the contrary, I understand exactly what you are after, and from your response to constituents, I know exactly how you think.
 
More important, you have carefully failed to address the more egregious of the two bills: SB 8, which would create such a huge patchwork quilt of "no carry" zones that it would essentially gut North Carolina's concealed handgun law. This is the bill that you told constituents "does not include firearms limits."
 
We do not need your explanation, Senator Boseman. We need your acquiescence. As for posting your letter, along with my reply, it will be my pleasure.
 
F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International

Boseman Throws a Bone

KEY PHRASE: “It also increases the penalty for carrying a deadly weapon on educational property, and makes it an offense to possess or carry a gun, rifle, or pistol in a public park, child care center, or playground. Because of concerns that retail outlets with playgrounds might fall under these provisions, it is likely that the playground provision may be removed from the bill during committee consideration.”—Senator Julia Boseman

Response from Sen Boseman for your information>
> > From: "Sen. Julia Boseman" <Juliab@ncleg.net>
> > Date: 2007/01/31 Wed PM 01:41:40 EST
> > To: < >
> > Subject: RE: Sen. Boseman Misleads on SB 8 & SB 9

Bills I introduced in the Senate recently were designed to (1) protect victims of domestic abuse,(2) protect children from illegal drugs by increasing safe zones, (3) increase the penalty for possessing or carrying a
weapon on educational properties, and (4) create an offense of carrying weapons on playgrounds, in child care centers, and in public parks.

enate Bill 9, Prohibit Firearm Purchase under a Protective Order, requires that judges prohibit the DEFENDANT (NOT the abused victim) from purchasing a firearm. Therefore, any concern that the bill would "disarm" victims is incorrect.

Under current federal law, a domestic violence protective order must meet several requirements before the abuser/defendant is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. SB 9 would not prohibit the victim/plaintiff from
purchasing a gun, it would provide greater protection from the abuser/defendant. I have been Co-Chair of the Joint Select Committee on Domestic Violence, and have been working hard to protect victims of domestic violence. If you have any further questions on this bill, please feel free to contact my office for further explanation.

Senate Bill 8, Expand Safe Zone/Schools, Parks, Child Ctrs., expands the current safe zone in regard to illegal drug sales. It also increases the penalty for carrying a deadly weapon on educational property, and makes it an offense to possess or carry a gun, rifle, or pistol in a public park, child care center, or playground. Because of concerns that retail outlets with playgrounds might fall under these provisions, it is likely that the playground provision may be removed from the bill during committee consideration.

We hope that now that you are aware of the intent of these bills, you will pass this message along to others and strongly support their passage this session to protect children and victims of domestic abuse.

Thanks again for your comments.