Her opponent Richard Dietz doesn't believe in gun control:
It is not often that one has the opportunity to hear a talk by someone who has argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. Through the email newsletter of a local gun store and range, Pro Shots, I was fortunate to learn of such an opportunity here in my home town on May 1st. Richard Dietz, a local attorney, spoke at the monthly meeting of the Forsyth County Republican Party about his experience arguing on behalf of the petitioner in Abramski v. United States (No. 12-1493) in January 2014.
Bolding mine, because yes, that is Ted Budd's gun store/range. This blog was written two years before Budd was groomed by Club For Growth and squeezed through the 2016 Republican Primary for Congress with 20% of the vote. Dietz was appointed to the (NC) Court of Appeals later that year (2014) by Pat McCrory, and he's been riding that seat ever since. Here's more on the Abramski case:
Dietz argued that the Gun Control Act of 1968 represented a political compromise between those seeking more gun regulation and those opposed to it. The compromise struck was that licensed firearms dealers would be heavily regulated, but that the activities of private citizens (buying, selling, trading, gifting) would be largely unregulated.
He argued that from 1968 until the 1990s, the idea of a “straw purchaser” applied only to someone who was purchasing a gun on behalf of a prohibited person (which itself was defined in the 1968 Gun Control Act, although the specific phrase is never used there). There was nothing in the law to prohibit a private citizen from buying a firearm for someone who was legally allowed to possess it (whether to re-sell or to gift). Dietz showed an ATF memo from the early 1980s which documented the ATF’s agreement with this position at that time.
Subsequent to the passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993, the Clinton Administration sought to expand the idea of the straw purchaser to include anyone who bought a firearm on behalf of another person, even if the person could legally own a firearm. One reason for this was to create a system in which more people who ended up with firearms would have to go through criminal background checks – a central idea of the Brady Law.
As you can see, application of the law "evolved" over the years, in an effort to make our country safer. Everybody who ends up in possession of a firearm should (at least) pass a background check, but people like Richard Dietz would have it the other way, and exclude as many people as possible from that scrutiny. Dietz argued (wrongly) that there were other safeguards to stop personal gun sales to people who shouldn't have them:
He told Justice Elena Kagan, for example, that compromises in passing the law at issue had shown clearly that Congress did not want to intrude into the wide range of private sales of guns “between citizens.” The law was aimed at the first sale, Dietz argued, but not beyond it, and especially not when a gun is transferred from someone legally entitled to have it to someone else also eligible to be a gun owner.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, with a note of despair in her voice, wondered aloud whether the law was so unclear that it just meant “a buyer is a buyer is a buyer.” She suggested that, if the law were that opaque, could a buyer sell a gun to a person barred from having it? Dietz said there were other laws to take care of that.
Oh, really? What laws are those, and how are they enforced? He lost this argument, and the Court upheld the conviction of the straw purchaser. But this case exposes the wrong-headedness of gun advocates who take the "innocent until proven guilty" approach to procuring lethal firearms. Government has the responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect the public, but if Richard Dietz succeeds to the NC Supreme Court, he would (very likely) vote against such steps.
And before you say, "But Steve, he was merely an attorney representing his client," he wasn't representing anybody but himself when he made these observations at a (County) Republican gathering. And that likely contributed to his subsequent appointment by McCrory. In this day and age of daily mass shootings, Richard Dietz is the very last person who should be sitting on the NC Supreme Court.