Win for Gun Rights
It’s not exactly a secret that I’ve had some serious disagreements with our new “super-majority” in Raleigh. The GOP has indeed let me down on a number of issues. (Ahem, toll roads, ahem.) That said, when something good happens, I’m just as happy to lavish praise as I am criticism. Frankly, I’d sleep better at night if the praise outweighed the criticism!
As this session of the general assembly winds to a close, we finally saw the movement on gun rights that we have been hoping for…mostly.
This from the News and Observer:
Legislation that expands the public places where people with permits to carry concealed handguns can bring their weapons, toughens the penalties for some gun crimes, and strengthens federal background checks passed the House and Senate on Tuesday night.
Missing from the compromise bill worked out between the two chambers was the Senate’s controversial provision that would have repealed the current law that requires county sheriffs to conduct background checks and issue handgun purchase permits.
The votes were largely along party lines. The House voted 73-41, and the Senate 32-14.
The bill allows those with concealed-carry permits to bring their guns onto school campuses – from kindergarten to college – if they keep the weapons in a closed compartment in their locked vehicles. Police chiefs from public university campuses across the state opposed the provision.
It also allows concealed-carry permit-holders to bring their weapons into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and to parades and funerals. And it restricts local government from banning concealed handguns in parks and greenways.
The state’s sheriffs dropped their opposition to House Bill 937 after the provision repealing the pistol permits was dropped. In its place is a provision allowing sheriffs to revoke the five-year licenses if someone subsequently becomes ineligible for qualifying for a permit, such as committing a serious crime.
Sheriffs will also be required to keep a list of the number of permits they deny and the reason for denying them; but the identities of the applicants will not be public.
The legislation also speeds up the requirement for court clerks to report to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System disqualifying mental health findings. The bill now goes to the governor.
Staff writer Craig Jarvis
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/07/23/3052086/nc-gun-bill-compromise-keeps-background.html
All that’s lacking now is the signature of Governor McCrory, but that is (fingers crossed) sure to come.
We recently had a tussle here in Mecklenburg regarding gun rights when the Parks and Recreation Department decided to seek additional restrictions to concealed carry in public parks. Ultimately, 2nd amendment supporters scored a victory when the request was turned down by the County Commission.
That discussion made a clear distinction between any random person carrying a firearm and concealed carry permit holders who have taken it upon themselves to seek additional training and certification of their ability to safely exercise their rights to self-defense. As I argued at the time, one’s right to self-defense should never be dependent on the location that one happens to find oneself in.
Now, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t even need a permit to carry. That, however, is a separate discussion.
Thanks to this move by our legislators, the ability for a concealed carry permit holder to actually exercise his/her carry privileges is enhanced. No longer does a parent who carries risk breaking the law for picking up their child from school with a handgun in the car. No longer does a non-drinker have to disarm before joining friends in the local bar after work.
There were simply too many scenarios in which a best intentioned law abiding citizen could be guilty of a crime due to the complex nature of the law. The easing of those restrictions not only makes North Carolina safer, but it helps to reduce the possibility of “guilt by technicality”…creating criminals out of thin air.
The compromise that allowed this through, however, is abysmal. Dating back to Jim Crow era politics is the idea that the County Sheriff must issue a purchase permit for a non CCW holder seeking to purchase a firearm. Heaven forbid a “person of color” be allowed to own a firearm… This legislature attempted to remove the purchase permit procedure, but after being bullied into compliance by the Sheriff lobby, the system remains intact…though somewhat weakened. Denials by local sheriffs will need to include specific reasons for the denial on record. They can also no longer restrict the number of permits authorized in a year.
All things considered, this is a terrific move by our legislators. I give total credit where credit is due.
We are all criminal now…and Ellmers and Pittenger agree …http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll412.xml
No, you’re not a criminal. You’re just having your rights violated and watching the Rule of Law (via the Bill of Rights) being destroyed.
Another example of the State infringing on the rights of cities to set policy on public lands.
I’m glad the local component preserving sheriff’s responsibilities to locally control gun possession was preserved. Cities know best how to set policy. I am not at all comfortable being in a crowded place where there are people allowed to be armed with dangerous weapons. I will vote with my wallet, unless an establishment expressly forbids dangerous weapons, I won’t patronize it.
Urban and rural areas have differing sets of priorities and problems associated with carrying a dangerous weapon. Rural areas have less dense populations and therefore gun possession is less threatening. Urban areas have higher concentrations of people and a gun is more threatening. Cities should have a right to make their own decisions with respect to who is legally allowed to conceal a weapon in their borders.
Zon, are you supporting the 10th amendment to the US Constitution and all that implies? It sure seems so.
Of course I support the 10th amendment, as it’s written. What’s your point?
As written! Perfect. Then that would be as it was intended, not ignored as it has been. That would immediately reduce the size of the fed to what it was, relatively speaking, in the late 1800’s. Happy to have you on board. Are you going to join your local TEA Party?
Zon I would think most places of business would be glad if people of your ilk did not patronize them. I was wanting to axe you a question- how is gun control working out for Chicago?
My ilk? Really? Is that all you’ve got?
Zon- what do you think the word “Ilk” means? I’ll axe you again- how is gun control working in Obama’s hometown?
Not very well, Rick. Because there is no gun control. Crazies and criminals can get their guns online, from gun shows and easily from straw-buyers. Hence the reason for universal background checks on all gun sales.
I suppose your solution is to arm everyone to the teeth and have shoot-outs to resolve our differences. See aforementioned crazies.
Though, from the previous discussion, you (and others here) would probably have no problem with a state mandating zoning laws, right?
Zon,
If someone decides to disobey a bar’s prohibition on firearms, which of the following is most likely to disarm that individual:
a) an unarmed bartender;
b) a policeman who arrives twenty minutes after being called;
c) an armed patron.
Um, if the bar has a prohibition on firearms, none of the customers are armed. That’s the point. It’s why we don’t have a problem with people getting drunk and starting shootouts in bars.
Really? Schools have a prohibition on firearms. Therefore nobody has brought a gun to school, right? Nope, they are “gun free zones” so you’d never see a reason to defend yourself at a public school…
I would prefer not to have to defend myself at a school. Hence the more effective tool to require universal background checks to prevent crazies and criminals from getting guns legally in the first place.
Zon, You have accused me in the past of advocating unrealistic and idealistic solutions based on my principles. Here, I have to do the same of you.
Of course we’d all prefer not to have to defend ourselves at a school (or anywhere else for that matter). And of course we’d all prefer that crazies and criminals not get guns – legally or otherwise. But that’s simply not reality. The shooter at Sandy Hook obtained the firearms he used by murdering his mother and stealing her (legally owned) guns. The shooter that killed all those firemen (after setting the fires as bait) did so after the state released him from detainment for beating his grandmother to death with a hammer. The point is, crazies and criminals WILL obtain and use whatever weapon is available to them – legally or otherwise, and often they are able to do so because the state failed to prevent them from being on the street in the first place. This is not to blame govco entirely; often they are simply reacting to the people pushing leniency and compassion for mental health victims. Yet these are the same people who scream for gun control when the crazies get hold of a gun and do harm to themselves and others. The point is, and sad as it is, we DO have to defend ourselves against those who would do us harm, and in the real world they will always have guns. Therefore, until we address our reluctance to lock up (and throw away the key) people up who would do harm, we will continue to see these killings occur, and thus the need to defend ourselves with equal force (guns) will be necessary to prevent becoming a victim.
As for the current bill, it does not allow guns in school buildings. It allows guns to be stored in a locked container in an unattended and locked vehicle on school property, or lawfully concealed while the owner is in the vehicle. Does this make schools safer? The parking lot maybe, the buildings not so much. What it DOES do is allow school employees and parents to defend themselves in public on the way to and from the school, which I believe is more likely to be needed than at the school. For several teachers and staff I know that are CCLs, this will greatly improve their chances of surviving a life threatening situation while running errands before and after work.
UNCC (University of North Carolina Charlotte) is showing its liberal bias concerning CCW (carrying a concealed weapon). The campus would be safer with CCW. I refer you to an article written in the Collegiate Times. About 4 killing by CCW in a year compared thousands. About 16 people were killed in Chicago during the Zimmerman trial criminals that do not register their guns and carry them despite the law in Chicago against having a gun.
NIU as are all the universities in Illinois gun free zones. My daughter was going to Northern Illinois University Thrusday Feb. 14, 2008 when 6 students were shot dead and 22 people shot. At 3:04 p.m. Central time, Steven Kazmierczak kicked in the door of a lecture hall at Cole Hall on campus. Kazmierczak, 27, stepped out onto the stage at the front of the auditorium, pulled out a shotgun, and started shooting into the middle of a class of over 100.
The NIU Police Chief described him as “an outstanding student” who reportedly stopped taking medication recently and became “somewhat erratic”.
He would not have met the requirements for CCW but obtained the guns and did not care. The data shows that most mass killing occur there CCW is not allowed. The killer do not want to be stopped so they choose soft targets. UNCC is a soft target and allowing guns in cars is as the police say is an invitation for crime.
Read more: http://www.dreamindemon.com/2008/02/14/shooting-at-northern-illinois-university/#ixzz2a44JyDpO
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/14664/statistics-show-concealed-carry-saves-many-lives-takes-few
Statistics show concealed carry saves many lives, takes few
People who wish to do harm usually do not go through the process to become CCW permit holders.
collegiatetimes.com
So if a bar has “No guns” signs posted and you conceal and carry, and get caught, you can be kicked out. Fair enough, it’s private property and that fits with Private Property Rights. But some say, “concealed is concealed” and if you don’t get caught then, “no harm, no foul.” But even if you DON’T get caught, are you not still violating the bar’s Private Property Rights? I think you are. Thus, wouldn’t not going to that bar at all be the right thing to do? I think so. It will be interesting to see how many bars and restaurants lose my business under this new twist as I will not – on principle – violate their Private Property Rights.
I guess that means since criminals are going to get guns anyway we should do nothing to try and stop them. We have laws against drug use and people still do it, so I guess that means we should have no drug laws. We have laws against murder and people still do it, so does that mean we should not have laws against killing other people.
The whole concept of not putting controls on the distribution of guns because some people are going to get around them anyway is an argument only the feeble-minded would buy into.
What a great idea, actually abiding by the 2nd amendment. People should be able to buy the same weapons the government uses against them.
Oh yeah, that makes sense. Let’s arm everyone with RPG’s and stinger missiles. Why not grenades, too. And I think I need to drive in to work in my own Abrams Tank.
If you think you need weapons to protect yourself from your government, you’re too mentally ill to be armed.
Know anything about SWAT Teams and how many INNOCENT people they have killed – entering the wrong houses, etc. Why does the US Department of Education have a SWAT Team? Explain that away. What are SWAT Teams for except to kill private citizens?
Governments across the globe and across history – including our own – have armed citizens with RPG’s and other military weapons in patent recognition of the fact that when a government turns on its own people, the people REQUIRE those weapons to defend themselves against their government on a level playing ground. The US government routinely arms “rebels” and “freedom fighters” around the globe; perhaps if those people were allowed to own such weapons governments wouldn’t get out of control in the first place and we wouldn’t have to spend our tax dollars on arming these people who are literally fighting for their lives.
Zon- you can’t buy guns on line with out going through a gun dealer who holds an FFL- go to gunbroker.com. and educate yourself. you can’t buy a gun at a gun show without going through a FFL holder- the only exception would be an individual selling to another individual who happened to meet at a gun show. do you really think the colored youths in Chicago who kill each other (10 or 12 every weekend) get their guns at a gun show or online. Q: why doesn’t Obama send his monkey faced wife to their home town to beg and implore these colored kids to quit killing each other? A: because they don’t give a rat’s ass about the colored children in Chi town that kill each other.
That’s a lie. And if it’s not, why are the wing nuts so opposed to universal background checks if they are happening universally today anyway?
What did Rick say that’s a lie? As I understand the laws, Rick’s comments are accurate.
As for why wing nuts are against universal background checks:
1) Criminals aren’t buying their guns legally now and they won’t in the future; more laws are of no benefit in terms of keeping guns out of their hands and only make it harder for law abiding citizens (see # 3) to do the right thing.
2) Any time the government gets put in charge of a process involving citizens’ personal data, it screws it up, leading to stolen data, fraud, abuse, waste, etc. They can’t even get the various agencies and departments to correctly and properly share the information they already have, and we want to put them in charge of more info? I’d rather leave that to my local sheriff.
3) Gun control laws are rooted in racism and class warfare; hoops and fees make it difficult for poor people (and especially inner city poor people of color who need it most) to lawfully obtain the means to protect themselves against the criminals that DO have guns.
4) All of the above and other reasons are shades of grey differing between regulation and infringement. As a restrictive document, the COTUS says “Shall not be infringed”. So the question becomes, what is regulation and where does that cross the line into infringement? Most conservatives and freedom loving people prefer to err on the side of liberty in such questions; perhaps because we’re not scared to take care of ourselves and accept the responsibilities that come with taking control of our own actions.
5) If I have committed no crime, requiring me to turn over all sorts of personal data and pay all sorts of fees in order to simply buy a tool is at best a PITA and at worse a violation of both my rights to self defense and privacy.
6) More people are killed each year in the US with baseball bats, clubs and hammers than rifles. Why aren’t we clamoring for universal background checks, onerous forms, and layers of fees in order to purchase those?
You get marijuana, Crystal meth, and heroin and they are banned too. Works about as well as the Gun Ban. Not even a backgroud check unless your going to try to buy some Allergy Medication .