National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre on Thursday offered a rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union, featuring a range of intensely paranoid — and utterly incorrect — assertions about Obama’s proposals to strengthen gun laws.

LaPierre’s speech came just one day after publishing a race-baiting, paranoid op-ed on the same topic. And Thursday’s appearance, while less overtly crazy than the op-ed, was also clearly meant to confuse its viewers and skew the information in favor of the NRA. Here were the two biggest, craziest, most paranoid lies in LaPierre’s speech:

“Bans on private transfers, even between family members.” President Obama wants to require background checks on all private sales and transfers of firearms, but he has absolutely no intention of banning such sales. The only reason a person would be unable to buy a gun from a family member would be if the recipient has a criminal record.

“A national registration of every single gun owner in this country.” Again, totally off base. This is the same attempt by LaPierre to conflate background checks with registries or bans. By requiring universal background checks, Obama wouldn’t be requiring a database of gun owners; simply, he would be mandating that the list of criminals in the already-existent National Instant Criminal Background Check System be maintained, updated, and used for all sales.

LaPierre’s speech the latest in a long line of attempts by the NRA to terrify gun owners and try to coerce them into joining his organization, thus raising their revenue — an obvious benefit for the NRA. By misrepresenting Obama’s proposals, LaPierre is trying to shore up the influence that is slipping from the NRA elsewhere.

Watch the full speech:

Nation Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre’s recent op-ed, which argues that guns are necessary because civilization is on the verge of collapse and also we’re all in danger of being killed by terrorists and violent Latinos, has been widely mocked. Yet, buried in LaPierre’s fantasies about a Mad Max landscape where the only thing standing between a man and certain death at the hands of swarthy gang members is his trusty assault rifle, is a fairly detailed road map explaining how the NRA will protect future residents of this dystopia from the scourge of universal background checks.

Item #1 on his list — file a blizzard of lawsuits while the judiciary is still controlled by the kind of judges who think there’s absolutely no difference between a corporation and a human being:

[W]e are going to devise legal capability like never before. I fervently hope that President Obama does not get to appoint another anti-gun Supreme Court justice like Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan. But he probably will, and we must meet that challenge. His chances of appointing a replacement for one of the five pro-rights justices in the 5-4 Heller and McDonald majorities are high. And there’s no doubt he is going to appoint a huge number of new judges to lifetime positions in the lower federal courts.

That means the federal courts are going to get worse and worse. So some cases, on which we might have improved our chances of victory by waiting a while, are going to have to be brought now.

It should be noted that the NRA isn’t just trying to lock in victories with the judge’s they have, they’ve also demanded a veto power over new judges — and Republicans appear all too eager to give it to them. In 2011, Senate Republicans voted almost unanimously to filibuster a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit named Caitlan Halligan. Although the GOP’s case against Halligan was thin, their top argument against her was that she is unfit for the bench because she argued a position the NRA disagrees with when she was Solicitor General of New York.

The conservative Wisconsin justice who allegedly grabbed fellow justice Ann Walsh Bradley by the neck during an argument in her chambers was perceived as a threat long before that June 2011 incident, according to a filing by Bradley recusing herself from the related judicial ethics proceeding.

Two months earlier, Bradley and Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson had developed a security plan that included locking themselves in their offices on nights and weekends, and securing more frequent police patrols. Other incidents that led them to be concerned included a 2010 correspondence in which Prosser reportedly called Abrahamson a “total bitch” and said, “There will be a war against you and it will not be a ground war.” Bradley explains in her filing:

Contrary to Justice Prosser’s answer to the Judicial Commission complaint and to recent public comments, what happened in my office on June 13, 2011 is not an isolated event. Rather, it is one event in a history of abusive behavior in our workplace that has escalated from tantrums and rages, to threats, and now to physical contact. [...]

In late March 2011—two months before the incident in my office—it appeared to me and others that Justice Prosser’s behavior was becoming increasingly agitated. One newspaper editorial characterized his comments as “odd,” “troubling” and “unsettling.” A then, but now retired, Deputy Director of State Courts contacted me to warn of her concern that Justice Prosser may endanger my physical safety as well as that of the Chief Justice. [...]

To this day, the Chief Justice and I continue to lock ourselves inside our private offices when working alone because of concerns for our physical safety due to Justice Prosser’s behavior. That is not a satisfactory solution. Our court needs to address and solve its workplace safety issue. If nothing is done, I wonder what will happen next in this escalating pattern of abusive behavior.

It appears, however, that nothing will be done in the immediate future. Although ethics charges were filed against Prosser after the June 2011 incident in which Prosser admitted putting his hands around Bradley’s neck “to protect himself,” Prosser had already convinced three of his fellow conservatives on the court to recuse themselves from the case — eliminating the necessary quorum to appoint a three-judge panel and effectively immunizing him from any disciplinary action. And his fellow justices replaced an ethics official who supported the probe with one who had called the ethics allegations “unfairly directed.” In her memo, Bradley urged reform of the judicial discipline process in which “justices sitting in judgment of their closest colleagues.” “In any other place of employment,” she reasons “there likely would be serious consequences for such a response.”

 

 

Yesterday, the Senate voted 88-12 to confirm Judge William Kayatta Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. Kayatta, who President Obama nominated for this job more than a year ago, is the first federal appellate judge confirmed since Senate Republicans unilaterally declared they would block every single appellate nominee — regardless of their background or qualifications — last June.

In June, Republicans falsely claimed that the opposition party has historically blocked court of appeals nominees during the six months before a presidential election, and thus they were justified in obstructing Obama’s nominees. In reality, the Senate confirmed appellate judges during the pre-election period in every single recent election year except for President Clinton’s first term. President Reagan had 7 appellate judges confirmed during the six months before his reelection, and the first President Bush also saw 7 of his appellate judges confirmed in the half year before he was defeated by Clinton.

Notably, Republicans did not remove their blockade during the lame duck period even after President Obama was reelected.

Late last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied a for-profit company’s request for an order permitting it to ignore federal regulations requiring it to provide birth control coverage to its employees. As with many of these cases filed in other courts, the corporation argued that it should be immune to the law because the companies’ shareholders object to birth control on religious grounds. It should be noted that this is a preliminary order and that the court’s ultimate resolution of the case could be different. Nevertheless, a majority of the three judge panel concludes that “a secular, for-profit corporation, Conestoga has no free exercise rights under the First Amendment, and is not a ‘person’” for purposes of a federal law enhancing the protection available to people with religious objections to federal laws.

In a concurring opinion, Nixon-appointed Judge Leonard Garth explains why the owners of a for-profit corporation should not be able to impose their religious beliefs on the corporation’s employees:

[F]or-profit corporate entities, unlike religious non-profit organizations, do not—and cannot—legally claim a right to exercise or establish a “corporate” religion under the First Amendment or the RFRA. As the District Court noted, “[g]eneral business corporations … do not pray, worship, observe sacraments or take other religiously motivated actions separate and apart from the intention and direction of their individual actors.” Unlike religious non-profit corporations or organizations, the religious liberty relevant in the context of for-profit corporations is the liberty of its individuals, not of a profit-seeking corporate entity.

Conestoga further claims that it should be construed as holding the religious beliefs of its owners. This claim is belied by the fact that, as the District Court correctly noted, “‘[i]ncorporation’s basic purpose is to create a distinct legal entity, with legal rights, obligations, powers, and privileges different from those of the natural individuals who created it, who own it, or whom it employs’ . . . . It would be entirely inconsistent to allow the Hahns to enjoy the benefits of incorporation, while simultaneously piercing the corporate veil for the limited purpose of challenging these regulations.”

To date, two other courts of appeal have rejected, at least for the time being, for-profit corporations’ claims that they should be immune from the birth control rules — although on varying grounds. Two other appeals courts have granted such immunity at least on a temporary basis.

It should be noted that these cases do not present a particularly difficult question under existing law. As the Supreme Court explained in United States v. Lee, religious liberty does not allow a commercial employer to “impose the employer’s religious faith on the employees,” such as by forcing employees to give up their own legal right to health care because of their employer’s objections to birth control.

It’s been nearly a year since George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old on his way back to his father’s townhouse. In the weeks following the shooting, the story captured the nation’s attention, culminating with Zimmerman being charged with second-degree murder last April.

But as the story has receded from the headlines, the legal case has plodded along and the trial is likely to be completed this summer. Here’s what you may have missed:

1. Zimmerman has spent over $300,000 in donations over the last year and is desperate for more funds to finance his defense. Zimmerman has “spent more than $125,000″ on living expenses — not including security — over the last year. His lawyer acknowledged that “Zimmerman’s personal spending may seem exorbitant.” Zimmerman is considering asking the court to declare him “indigent, meaning the public would have to pay for Zimmerman’s defense.” Zimmerman was also sued by a security company for unpaid bills. [Orlando Sentinel, 1/20/2013; Miami Herald, 12/27/12]

2. The trial has been set for June 10. Zimmerman recently asked for a delay of the trial until November but a judge denied his request. Zimmerman’s lawyer says it is “physically impossible for us to be prepared” for trial at that time. A separate proceeding, essentially a mini-trial, to determine whether Zimmerman is immune from prosecution due to Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, is scheduled for April 22. [Orlando Sentinel, 2/5/13; Headline News, 2/13/13]

3. New forensic analysis “casts doubt on Zimmerman’s timeline on the night he shot and killed the unarmed teen.” The analysis was done by “Michael Knox, a retired Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office detective and crime scene investigator.” According to Knox, “based on the times and distances Zimmerman said he covered, Zimmerman would have still been on the phone with Sanford police when he claims he was attacked by Martin.” Knox says that other aspects of Zimmerman’s story, like the claim Martin was leaning over him at the time the shot was fired, are supported by forensic evidence. [News 4 Jacksonville, 2/10/13]

4. Zimmerman has gained 105 pounds. [Orlando Sentinel, 1/20/2013]

Zimmerman in February 2013. AP Images.

5. The defense team acquired Trayvon Martin’s school records. According to Zimmerman’s lawyers “some information in Trayvon Martin’s file could be relevant in the defense of George Zimmerman.” State prosecutors and the Martin family attorney opposed Zimmerman’s efforts to acquire the records arguing “because Zimmerman did not know Trayvon before the Feb. 26 shooting, the teen’s past was not a factor in the case.” [Orlando Sentinel, 1/16/13]

6. Zimmerman is suing NBC News. In the suit, Zimmerman claims NBC unfairly portrayed him as a “racist and predatory villain.” [ABC News, 12/6/12]

7. The judged denied Zimmerman’s request to be removed from GPS tracking. [Fox Orlando, 12/11/12]

8. Trayvon Martin would have turned 18 on February 5. [Huffington Post, 2/5/13]

AURORA, Colorado—In the past 13 years, few states have witnessed the horrific bloodshed from mass shootings that Colorado has. The state grieved in 1999 when 13 innocent people were killed at Columbine High School, and it mourned again last year when 12 people were gunned down as they watched The Dark Knight Rises in an Aurora movie theater.

After the Columbine massacre, Colorado residents pushed to close the gun show loophole, whereby anyone can buy a weapon from a private dealer at a gun show without having to undergo a background check first. When the legislature wouldn’t even pass the bill in committee, residents took matters into their own hands, organizing a drive to put the issue up to a statewide referendum in the 2000 election. Over 70 percent of Coloradans voted to close the loophole.

Still, another glaring loophole exists: private sales outside of gun shows. Even though private sellers at gun shows are required to run background checks, anyone can still purchase a weapon—no background check required—from private sellers online and elsewhere. ThinkProgress showed recently how anyone could purchase 4 AR-15s, the same weapon used in the Aurora massacre, in 20 minutes with no background check by contacting private online sellers.

Now, just like after Columbine, the Aurora shooting has galvanized Colorado residents to close the private seller loophole once and for all by requiring universal background checks on all gun sales.

ThinkProgress recently traveled to Colorado and spoke with lawmakers, family members of people killed at Columbine and Aurora, and gun owners about the push for universal background checks. They shared their own personal stories and how the state is rallying around the push for smarter gun laws. “We make it too doggone easy for the wrong people to get guns,” Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed at Columbine, told ThinkProgress. “So the question is, are we gonna do prevention, or are we not? Otherwise, we’re going to continue reporting these stories and say, ‘gee, why couldn’t we do something?’”

We also spoke with Don Macalady, a lifelong gun owner who founded a group Hunters Against Gun Violence to push for stronger gun laws, State Rep. Rhonda Fields, who represents Aurora and is leading the push in the Colorado legislature to crack down on gun violence, Dave Hoover, whose nephew AJ Boik was shot and killed in the Aurora massacre, and attendees at a Colorado Springs gun show.

Watch their story:

As the nation engages in a long-overdue debate about gun violence, ThinkProgress has documented examples of how the NRA’s influence over Congress and public opinion may be exaggerated. The NRA may, however, exercise more influence in state elections, where candidates are less well known and political ads can have more impact. The NRA has funneled millions of dollars to a front group that spends its money electing judges and state attorneys general who are tough on crime—unless those crimes involve gun control laws.

The Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) was founded with NRA funding in 1991. The LEAA opposes common-sense measures such as background checks and keeping guns away from people on the federal government’s “Terrorist Watchlist.”

The LEAA adamantly refuses to disclose its donors, but the NRA’s tax documents reveal that it gave the group at least $2 million between 2004 and 2010. Previous reports say the NRA gave the group $500,000 annually from 1995 to 2004, which would total more than $6 million.

The LEAA, in turn, has spent big on state supreme court races, shelling out millions of dollars for attack ads that distorted the rulings of judges in criminal cases. One judge was accused of “voting for” a rapist and a “baby killer.” An African American judge in Michigan was described as “soft on crime for rappers, lawyers, and child pornographers.” The LEAA’s attack ads helped give Republicans a majority on high courts in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Three judges on the Mississippi Supreme Court were elected with LEAA support, and the court recently ruled that a Wal-Mart store was not liable for a murder committed with bullets the store had knowingly and illegally sold to a “straw purchaser” who gave them to an underage friend. A few months after the ruling, the LEAA spent nearly half a million dollars to elect a judge to the Mississippi high court.

The attorneys general elected with help from LEAA have struck down limits on guns. Former Virginia Attorney General Jerry Kilgore, a Republican, moved to limit the reach of the “Uniform Machine Gun Act.” In 2011, Republican Attorney General Bill Schuette of Michigan granted gun owners in his state the right to use silencers if licensed by the ATF. Schuette’s office quoted an NRA spokesperson describing silencers as “useful safety devices.”

The NRA has also donated millions of dollars directly to state candidates. In 2009, 23 attorneys general publicly opposed renewal of the federal ban on assault weapons. Of the 21 elected attorneys general who signed the letter, 14 had received campaign cash from the NRA.

The LEAA is refusing to disclose its donors in a lawsuit stemming from the money laundering scandal connected to former Rep. Tom Delay (TX). Media reports have alleged that some of the LEAA’s attack ads were funded by the Chamber of Commerce. So in addition to pushing for more guns on the street, the LEAA could be doing the bidding of corporate interest groups—a far cry from its professed mission of representing the “average cop.”