Restaurant/ Campus Carry Heads For Senate Floor
This just in from Grassroots North Carolina:
| Senate improves on HB 937
House Bill 937 passed the NC Senate Judiciary I Committee yesterday and will head for the Senate floor as early as today. Please see below for immediate actions required. Due to the efforts of Senator Buck Newton (R- , GRNC ****), Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger (R-Guilford, Rockingham, ****) and Senate Rules Chair Tom Apodaca (R, Henderson, ****), the version passed by the committee was far stronger than what left the House. Although debate was limited, when asked for public comment, the chief of security for the University of North Carolina, along with security heads from all 17 campuses stood, in uniform, to express “concerns” about the bill’s campus provisions. Afterward, GRNC president Paul Valone addressed the committee by noting that UNC objections to campus carry on the premise that it would harm their ability to “protect” students rang false in light of the fact that violent crime on campuses across the state, plus attempts by two schools to suppress reports of violent crime, reveal that UNC is doing a poor job of “protecting” anyone. GRNC wishes to thank Senate leadership for working with our organization to strengthen laws, better enabling lawful North Carolinians to protect themselves and their families. Improvements to HB 937 In addition to restaurant carry, guns in locked vehicles in state-owned parking lots and a limited provision for guns in locked vehicles on state college campuses, all of which were in the House version of the bill, the Proposed Committee Substitute passed by the Senate:
|
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED! |
|
|
Austin.Allran@ncleg.net, Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net, Chad.Barefoot@ncleg.net, Tamara.Barringer@ncleg.net, Phil.Berger@ncleg.net, Stan.Bingham@ncleg.net, Dan.Blue@ncleg.net, Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net, Harry.Brown@ncleg.net, Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net, Angela.Bryant@ncleg.net, Ben.Clark@ncleg.net, Daniel.Clodfelter@ncleg.net, Bill.Cook@ncleg.net, David.Curtis@ncleg.net, Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net, Don.Davis@ncleg.net, Jim.Davis@ncleg.net, Joel.Ford@ncleg.net, Thom.Goolsby@ncleg.net, Malcolm.Graham@ncleg.net, Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net, Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net, Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net, Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net, Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net, Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net, Clark.Jenkins@ncleg.net, Ellie.Kinnaird@ncleg.net, Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net, Gene.McLaurin@ncleg.net, Wesley.Meredith@ncleg.net, Martin.Nesbitt@ncleg.net, Buck.Newton@ncleg.net, Earline.Parmon@ncleg.net, Louis.Pate@ncleg.net, Ron.Rabin@ncleg.net, Bill.Rabon@ncleg.net, Shirley.Randleman@ncleg.net, Gladys.Robinson@ncleg.net, Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net, Norman.Sanderson@ncleg.net, Dan.Soucek@ncleg.net, Josh.Stein@ncleg.net, Jeff.Tarte@ncleg.net, Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net, Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net, Trudy.Wade@ncleg.net, Michael.Walters@ncleg.net, Mike.Woodard@ncleg.net
Pure lunacy.
Hi Zon. Welcome to PunditHouse. Unique name, so I assume the same from the Observer forums? Care to expand your thoughts here? I view the ability to carry a firearm as the tangible wherewithall of expressing my God given right to self defense. The act itself causes no harm and I see no reason for restrictions at all. Harming others by any means should be punishable, but carrying a firearm…especially a concealed firearm…should never be a crime.
The people should have the right to possess any firearm which is available. This idea of limiting the people while enabling government is the opposite of freedom, and leads to tyranny. We can see the beginnings in the actions of various government agencies already.
Hi Christian – I was unaware that God was writing legislation or even had a position on self-defense. I have no problem with responsible gun ownership and self-defense. Considering the ease with which firearms are possessed, now made easier with this legislation, my concern is that in the process of easing restrictions further on law-abiding citizens they are also easing restrictions on the people we do not want to possess firearms; criminals and the insane. Further, they are removing access to public records that show people who are ineligible for gun ownership, convicted felons, and taking away the decision from local sheriffs who have to deal with the often deadly ramifications of a gun in the wrong hands.
All that adds up to lunacy.
uh,the criminals and the insane(govment) already possess firearms.
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” — Thomas Jefferson
Zon,
Help me understand how any of the proposed legislation targeting distribution of guns with universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole and greater penalties for trafficking in any way impedes a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun to defend themselves.
One, if (as I believe) the exercise of self-defense is independent of the technology used, then I don’t need anyone’s permission to purchase, sell, or possess such technology. Two, the costs of background checks, licensing, sin taxes on ammo and firearms, greater regulations on imports and manufacturing, etc., all do one thing – increase the cost of legal ownership. These costs are especially onerous to poor people, who a) often cannot afford these costs (leaving them defenseless), and b) they are the ones who need armed protection from violent criminals the most (based on where they live). Just because you can afford a gun and don’t need one doesn’t mean a poor who does can. With the highest percentage of poor, urban folk being black, one could almost make the argument that increased gun control is racist.
===============
Help me understand how that proposal equates with a tyrannical government bent on coming to take away your guns. Why is it that trigger-nuts have such a penchant for talking about their rights to a gun should be unlimited, but have nothing to say about their responsibilities as gun owners?
You have obviously have not talked to many responsible gun owners. I would suggest you stay away from those people. With ALL rights come responsibilities. The greatest responsibility we have is to DO NO HARM. If you do, you pay the price which includes having your rights oppressed by the state. As for tyranny, the most insidious tyrant does not come crashing in overnight and destroy your liberty, he takes it away bit by bit over years (and even decades), until one day you wake up and realize not only do you not have a firearm, but you can’t speak openly, you can’t pursue the career you want, you can’t openly love the person you want to love (don’t believe me? Ask a gay person). The best course against tyranny is to not allow one tiny bit, ever.
===============
And what about my rights to a safe environment?
You have no rights to a safe environment. Try going into an inner city some night after midnight and see if your “right” to a safe environment is upheld.
==============
What if I do not want to go to a public place where people have guns strapped to themselves and waiting for a fight to break out?
Uh, don’t go to that public place – same as the inner city neighborhood after dark. There’s an old saying, “Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it smart.” Or, join me in my movement to privatize ALL land – roads, parks, etc. Then you can purchase your park and make whatever rules you want. Meanwhile, I can purchase my own park and make my own rules. Everyone wins. Secondly, again, you don’t understand responsible gun ownership. To me, carrying a firearm makes me practice avoidance of situations that might lead to my having to discharge my weapon. In other words, because I carry I am more polite, more deferential, and more aware of my manners, etc. At least for me and the people I choose to hang around, the more guns there are, the more polite the people.
==============
What if I do not want to be caught in the cross-fire between two trigger-nuts whose only solution to a dispute is to pull out the heat and start shooting?
Again you seem to think you have some right to move about safely. That said, when’s the last time you EVER heard about two law-abiding people pulling out the heat in public and going at it? Give me one example. What you’re A LOT more likely to hear about is an unlawful person who pulls a gun in order to rob someone (maybe you) and a law-abiding citizen who pulls his own gun and stops the bad guy from shooting you.
=============
In closing, I understand your point of view but looking at the stats and odds of being a violent crime victim in the US, unless you’re black and live in a poor area, or you hang out in those areas a lot, or you hang around with those who would mix drugs, alcohol and guns, the fears you have of getting caught in the cross-fire of a public shoot out are more fantasy than reality. And lastly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of single gun owner saying they want the law to read such that you are forced to own and carry a gun. So what makes you think you have the right to tell me what I can do?
Don’t feed the trolls. He’s uninterested in debate as you can tell from his scripted comments and his ad hominem attacks. He just wants a response and a smug though false feeling of moral and mental supremacy.
Remove God from the conversation and rights still exist. Whatever created us – even if it was just a big freaking accident – gave us the ability to defend ourselves. Even if with nothing more than our hands, or, in the case of flight from danger, our feet we have the natural born ability to self-defense. Secondly, a right (versus a privilege) is something you can do without the aid or permission of another human being. Again, self-defense passes the test; if you were the only human on the planet and were attacked by a bear you could defend yourself. Thus, self defense is unarguably a right. Therefore, the manner in which one exercises that right (i.e., through the use of a particular technology) is immaterial, the concept of which has been supported by the SCOTUS throughout the decades. In the end, regulating the right to armed self-defense via gun controls laws would be like regulating the right to free speech by restricting such exercise to the use of an ink well and a feather. Besides, the really bad bad, violent criminals are only about 3% of the population. Why do we need to spend billions on the legal, justice, penal, and enforcement systems for such a minority of people? When one really thinks about, not only do gun control laws violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, they actually INCREASE crime, while at the same time having the ‘upside’ of lining a lot of people’s pockets with money that could be vastly better spent elsewhere in some productive manner that would actually serve the public good. No, the increased legislative recognition of armed self defense is not lunacy; the true lunacy is in supporting the status quo which is not only expensive and incompetent but also tramples on the COTUS and the rights of American citizens. Al for a lousy three percent of the population.
Help me understand how any of the proposed legislation targeting distribution of guns with universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole and greater penalties for trafficking in any way impedes a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun to defend themselves. Help me understand how that proposal equates with a tyrannical government bent on coming to take away your guns. Why is it that trigger-nuts have such a penchant for talking about their rights to a gun should be unlimited, but have nothing to say about their responsibilities as gun owners?
And what about my rights to a safe environment? What if I do not want to go to a public place where people have guns strapped to themselves and waiting for a fight to break out? What if I do not want to be caught in the cross-fire between two trigger-nuts whose only solution to a dispute is to pull out the heat and start shooting?
Zon,
Help me understand how any of the proposed legislation targeting distribution of guns with universal background checks, closing the gun show loophole and greater penalties for trafficking in any way impedes a law-abiding citizen from obtaining a gun to defend themselves.
One, if (as I believe) the exercise of self-defense is independent of the technology used, then I don’t need anyone’s permission to purchase, sell, or possess such technology. Two, the costs of background checks, licensing, sin taxes on ammo and firearms, greater regulations on imports and manufacturing, etc., all do one thing – increase the cost of legal ownership. These costs are especially onerous to poor people, who a) often cannot afford these costs (leaving them defenseless), and b) they are the ones who need armed protection from violent criminals the most (based on where they live). Just because you can afford a gun and don’t need one doesn’t mean a poor who does can. With the highest percentage of poor, urban folk being black, one could almost make the argument that increased gun control is racist.
===============
Help me understand how that proposal equates with a tyrannical government bent on coming to take away your guns. Why is it that trigger-nuts have such a penchant for talking about their rights to a gun should be unlimited, but have nothing to say about their responsibilities as gun owners?
You have obviously have not talked to many responsible gun owners. I would suggest you stay away from those people. With ALL rights come responsibilities. The greatest responsibility we have is to DO NO HARM. If you do, you pay the price which includes having your rights oppressed by the state. As for tyranny, the most insidious tyrant does not come crashing in overnight and destroy your liberty, he takes it away bit by bit over years (and even decades), until one day you wake up and realize not only do you not have a firearm, but you can’t speak openly, you can’t pursue the career you want, you can’t openly love the person you want to love (don’t believe me? Ask a gay person). The best course against tyranny is to not allow one tiny bit, ever.
===============
And what about my rights to a safe environment?
You have no rights to a safe environment. Try going into an inner city some night after midnight and see if your “right” to a safe environment is upheld.
==============
What if I do not want to go to a public place where people have guns strapped to themselves and waiting for a fight to break out?
Uh, don’t go to that public place – same as the inner city neighborhood after dark. There’s an old saying, “Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it smart.” Or, join me in my movement to privatize ALL land – roads, parks, etc. Then you can purchase your park and make whatever rules you want. Meanwhile, I can purchase my own park and make my own rules. Everyone wins. Secondly, again, you don’t understand responsible gun ownership. To me, carrying a firearm makes me practice avoidance of situations that might lead to my having to discharge my weapon. In other words, because I carry I am more polite, more deferential, and more aware of my manners, etc. At least for me and the people I choose to hang around, the more guns there are, the more polite the people.
==============
What if I do not want to be caught in the cross-fire between two trigger-nuts whose only solution to a dispute is to pull out the heat and start shooting?
Again you seem to think you have some right to move about safely. That said, when’s the last time you EVER heard about two law-abiding people pulling out the heat in public and going at it? Give me one example. What you’re A LOT more likely to hear about is an unlawful person who pulls a gun in order to rob someone (maybe you) and a law-abiding citizen who pulls his own gun and stops the bad guy from shooting you.
=============
In closing, I understand your point of view but looking at the stats and odds of being a violent crime victim in the US, unless you’re black and live in a poor area, or you hang out in those areas a lot, or you hang around with those who would mix drugs, alcohol and guns, the fears you have of getting caught in the cross-fire of a public shoot out are more fantasy than reality. And lastly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of single gun owner saying they want the law to read such that you are forced to own and carry a gun. So what makes you think you have the right to tell me what I can do?
Adjust your foil cap. The government is not coming for your precious manhood…er…guns.
Zon,
You asked some good questions. I took the time to post a thoughtful reply. And then the best you can do is throw out a slur? Weak Sauce, dude. Weak sauce.
i would challenge you to do some additional research of the motives and consequences of “gun/people” control.i suggest the late aaron zelman’s work and organization.plenty of important material;
http://jpfo.org/
“When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are safe;” luke 11:21
So, all gun people are righteous with high moral fiber. And all people that want more controls on gun sales are evil and bad. Got it.
I generally don’t engage with people that quote scripture, they use text 2,000 years old as a substitute for rational inquiry because they lack the intelligence to have discourse otherwise.
This Zon person is not interested in discussion but in personal attacks. Why? Perhaps because he is unable to do otherwise. I suppose if you had quoted Aristotle or Plato he would object. Would he be happier if you quoted Dan Brown, instead using something 3,000 years old.
The shooting at my Alma mater Pearl High School was stopped by a teacher who ran to his car parked off campus and got his gun.
Mass shootings were rare before 24 hour news stations made the shooters famous. Perhaps banning CNN and FOXNEWS would do more to stop the shootings than Gun Control. If we are going to ignore the 2nd Amendment we can ignore the 1st too.
Zon makes the comment “And what about my rights to a safe environment? ” I must ask where this “right” comes from. Is it God given? Does the Constitution prescribe it? A safe environment indeed. Safe from what:mosquitoes, ants, roaches, or from his fellow humans? Let’s make up some more rights. How about a right to sunny, mild days when I play golf? Is that a similar right?
wow,the 39 second time from my post to your response certainly allowed plenty of time for consideration of the material.i see now that ignorance is also accompanied with moral retardation.
you stated you were unaware of god’s position for self defense,thus the passage.if you don’t want the answer why engage in the pretense of exchange.if you do indeed know the wickedness of your position and are just a schill for tyranny,then woe unto you.
“don’t tread on me”
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
— Patrick Henry
“People who object to weapons aren’t abolishing violence, they’re begging for rule by brute force, when the biggest, strongest animals among men were always automatically ‘right.’ Guns ended that, and social democracy is a hollow farce without an armed populace to make it work.” — L. Neil Smith
Poor Zon… He stepped out of his comfort zone and got a good dose of reality.
Ooooo. Impressive. Did you think that up all by yourself? Come on back when you figure out how to make an argument with more than someone else’ words.
Well, you didn’t reply to my post above in which I laid out specific answers to each of your questions. What say you? Open to some in-depth dialog or just here for one liners?