NC Constitutional Carry moves forward

I know that a Catawba County rep that's a member of the club said he was optimistic about it passing. This was back about March. He's very pro 2a. Saw him at the range last week and we were talking suppressors. He has a nice collection of cans. I hope he's correct.
 
There sure are a lot of special classes carved out in this bill. I also notice if has wording about places that charge admission and similar nonsense, even if it is muted by the requirement of posting, that I thought was stricken previously.

Haven't gone through it in its entirety, but it sure does have a lot of verbiage for sonething that should be simple. Neither does it appear that anything is being done about educational property and what not, which to me are a MUCH higher priority,
 
MurphyLong said:
I hate to say it, but I don't like this bill. Probably because I'm surrounded by Marines all day, but I swear if you put 5 LCpls in a room with 1 gun, someone is gonna get shot.
Click to expand...

The opposition to every permitless carry law I've heard proposed, in any state, has said blood would flow in the streets or something to that effect. Hasn't happened.
The only current obstructions to lawful Concealed carry are a financial burden and massive waste of time in class and waiting. The concealed carry exam is hardly a test of safety, IQ, or common sense. The 2nd amendment has no intellect or safety clause, nor should it.
To my knowledge NC will still obstruct the people's right and hinder the lawful purchase of handguns if this is passed, so it's not a total loss for those who support the 2nd amendment, but...
 
MacEntyre said:
I predict the Rs will either fail to pass it, or allow the gov'ner to veto it.

Sure hope I'm wrong. If they over-ride a veto, it would be a huge thing in national politics just now.
Click to expand...

IF they do pull off the triple ... Republicans were to pull off passing it - Stooper vetoing - the Republicans overriding the veto ... can you just see NYC, California cities, etc all banning travel to NC. The the NBA will pull the All Star game, the NCAA pull playoffs and others cancel events in NC. They'd forget the fact Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (residents only), Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota (residents only) Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming (residents only) all already allow it ...

And I don't see the Republican Stupid Majority passing it. They are to busy trying to wash the blue tine half of them have showing thru now.
 
Last edited:
MurphyLong said:
According to the wording of the document, there would be no Purchase Permit requirement anymore. (If I read and understood it correctly.)
Click to expand...

Correct.
SECTION 17. G.S. 14-402 through G.S. 14-405 and G.S. 14-407.1 are repealed.
Click to expand...

§ 14-402. Sale of certain weapons without permit forbidden.
§ 14-403. Permit issued by sheriff; form of permit; expiration of permit.
§ 14-404. Issuance or refusal of permit; appeal from refusal; grounds for refusal; sheriff's fee.
§ 14-405. Record of permits kept by sheriff; confidentiality of permit information.
§ 14-407.1. Sale of blank cartridge pistols.

Unfortunately, including repeal of the Pistol Purchase Permit in the bill ensure the North Carolina Sheriffs Association will oppose the bill and nearly guarantees that the bill will not be supported by a veto-proof majority.
 
Last edited:
IrishCannon said:
campus carry
Click to expand...
This is the big one for me. I'm on a campus most days and the only thing between me and some loon is a locked (glass) door.

I just laugh when they tell us to shelter in place. My butt is going out a window.
 
MurphyLong said:
I hate to say it, but I don't like this bill. Probably because I'm surrounded by Marines all day, but I swear if you put 5 LCpls in a room with 1 gun, someone is gonna get shot.
Click to expand...
I bet that if you put 5 guns in that room, all the Marines would come out alive and unhurt.
 
trcubed said:
We give them M4's and more, so how the hell to they keep from accidentally killing each other on the battlefield?
Click to expand...

They think the guys in the "dresses" are females and are too busy trying to hump them to shoot each other?

;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
The only big issue I get kind of upset about is the fact that this bill allows legislators and legislative staff the ability to carry concealed in the general assembly building as long as they have a valid permit but yet, we the general public won't be allowed to still. I understand they have the right to protect themselves especially with the "civil" unrest we have seen on Moral Monday's and various other types of protests, but I should be able to as well if I have to go there for business.
 
Last edited:
Cpippen said:
I understand they have the right to protect themselves especially with the "civil" unrest we have seen on Moral Monday's and various other types of protests, but I should be able to as well if I have to go there for business.
Click to expand...
Why should they get this special treatment? How us their need to protect themselves any more then yours? For that matter, why are they acting in a manner that should cause them to feel such need? Me thinks that it's an admission that they know what they're doing is wrong.
 
noway2 said:
Why should they get this special treatment? How us their need to protect themselves any more then yours? For that matter, why are they acting in a manner that should cause them to feel such need? Me thinks that it's an admission that they know what they're doing is wrong.
Click to expand...
So you wouldn't take advantage of it if you were one? - I sure as hell would, and I would support your right to do the same. Just because they use it doesn't mean they believe they have a special privelage.

That said, I agree with what you are saying.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G730A using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
IrishCannon said:
So you wouldn't take advantage of it if you were one? - I sure as hell would, and I would support your right to do the same. Just because they use it doesn't mean they believe they have a special privelage.
Click to expand...
And that, dear Sir, is what I've been referring to when I have repeatedly mentioned the inherent problem with "government". It is an absolute guarantee that if you try to take a group of people and bestow upon them the token of "government" that they WILL use it in a corrupt fashion. The answer is to realize that the idea of creating government is irrational and arguably not necessary. The only alternative, save allowing yourself to become a subject, is to attempt to counterbalance that corruption with a threat of force sufficient to alter the equation. This has been an issue since the dawn of time and the King Arthur tome The Once and Future King attempted to analyze the problem by looking at it from the notion of might makes right evolving to might for right (equivalent to our current system of police and courts). Unfortunately, it still fails.
 
Last edited:
Bill passes in House Judiciary Committee, so next up is a House vote.

gc70 said:
Unfortunately, including repeal of the Pistol Purchase Permit in the bill ensure the North Carolina Sheriffs Association will oppose the bill and nearly guarantees that the bill will not be supported by a veto-proof majority.
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the version passed out of the Judiciary Committee does not repeal the PPP, so it has a chance.
 
Last edited:
noway2 said:
Why should they get this special treatment? How us their need to protect themselves any more then yours? For that matter, why are they acting in a manner that should cause them to feel such need? Me thinks that it's an admission that they know what they're doing is wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree with you whole heartedly!
 
drypowder said:
Bill passes in House Judiciary Committee, so next up is a House vote.


As I understand it, the version passed out of the Judiciary Committee does not repeal the PPP, so it has a chance.
Click to expand...
Yep, looks like they put PPP back in.

http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2017/Bills/House/HTML/H746v2.html
Part VI. Pistol Permit/Mental Health Record to Sheriff

SECTION 6.1. G.S. 14‑404 reads as rewritten:

"§ 14‑404. Issuance or refusal of permit; appeal from refusal; grounds for refusal; sheriff's fee.

…

(e1) The application for a permit shall be on a form created by the State Bureau of Investigation in consultation with the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association. This application shall be used by all sheriffs and must be provided by the sheriff both electronically and in paper form. Only the following shall be required to be submitted by an applicant for a permit: No additional documentation or evidence shall be required to be submitted by an applicant for a permit except the following:

(1) The permit application developed pursuant to this subsection.

(2) Five dollars for each permit requested pursuant to subsection (e) of this section.

(3) A government issued identification confirming the identity of the applicant.

(4) Proof of residency.

(5) A signed release, in a form to be prescribed by the Administrative Office of the Court, that authorizes and requires disclosure to the sheriff of any court orders concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant to be used for the sole purpose of determining whether the applicant is disqualified to receive a permit pursuant to this section.

No additional document or evidence shall be required from any applicant.

(e2) The sheriff shall request disclosure to the sheriff of any court orders concerning the mental health or mental capacity of the applicant to be used for the sole purpose of determining whether the applicant is disqualified to receive a permit pursuant to this section. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to increase the documentation an applicant is required to provide under subsection (e1) of this section or to increase the time period set out in subsection (f) of this section.

(e3) The permit application shall also contain a conspicuous warning substantially as follows:

"By filing this permit application, I understand that I am giving the sheriff the authority to obtain all criminal and mental health court orders required by State and federal law to determine permit eligibility."

(i) A person or entity shall promptly disclose to the sheriff, upon presentation by the applicant or sheriff of an original or photocopied release form described in subdivision (5) of subsection (e1) of this section, any court orders concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant who signed the release form."

SECTION 6.2. G.S. 122C‑54 reads as rewritten:

"§ 122C‑54. Exceptions; abuse reports and court proceedings.

…

(d2) The record of involuntary commitment for inpatient or outpatient mental health treatment or for substance abuse treatment required to be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by G.S. 14‑409.43 shall be accessible only by the sheriff or the sheriff's designee for the purposes of conducting background checks under G.S. 14‑404 and shall remain otherwise confidential as provided by this Article.

(d3) Notwithstanding G.S. 122C‑207 and subsection (d) of this section, when a sheriff notifies the potential holder of a mental health order in writing that a particular individual has completed an application for a pistol purchase permit, the holder of any court orders that concern the mental health or mental capacity of an applicant for a pistol purchase permit shall, upon request, release to the sheriff of the county any and all mental health orders concerning the pistol purchase permit applicant.

…."

SECTION 6.3. This part becomes effective August 1, 2017, and applies to applications for pistol purchases pending or submitted on or after that date.
Click to expand...

Also, for anyone else who might quote parts of the bill, here's how to manually add in strikethrough:
https://xenforo.com/community/help/bb-codes
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
Bill passes in House Judiciary Committee, so next up is a House vote.

As I understand it, the version passed out of the Judiciary Committee does not repeal the PPP, so it has a chance.
Click to expand...

Correct; the substitute bill passed by the Judiciary Committee keeps the Pistol Purchase Permit system - long live Jim Crow.
 
drypowder said:
Bill passes in House Judiciary Committee, so next up is a House vote.


As I understand it, the version passed out of the Judiciary Committee does not repeal the PPP, so it has a chance.
Click to expand...

I got an email back from my legislator that it has to go to the Finance Committee next and then if it passes there to the floor for a vote
 
Cpippen said:
I got an email back from my legislator that it has to go to the Finance Committee next and then if it passes there to the floor for a vote
Click to expand...
Yes, that is correct. I think the Finance Committee process isn't a substantive process that we need to worry about - i.e., it's not going to get killed in that committee. When it gets to the House floor, that's when we'll see the usual dance with opponents from the Marxist Party and the RINOs trying to introduce weakening or poison pill amendments before it gets put to a vote. And if it passes, it will be important to see what the margin is, since we'll ultimately need enough votes in both houses to override Cooper.
 
Last edited:
drypowder said:
Yes, that is correct. I think the Finance Committee process isn't a substantive process that we need to worry about - i.e., it's not going to get killed in that committee. When it gets to the House floor, that's when we'll see the usual dance with opponents from the Marxist Party and the RINOs trying to introduce weakening or poison pill amendments before it gets put to a vote. And if it passes, it will be important to see what the margin is, since we'll ultimately need enough votes in both houses to override Cooper .
Click to expand...

Fixed it lol, but either way, the veto proof majority is what will be needed if it even stands a chance. If Pat was Governor a majority period would have sufficed. Then I am sure without a doubt, If it passes and veto is overridden then, Stein will use tax payer dollars to challenge it in court.
 
Last edited:
That sucks about the PPP not being rescinded, but it likely would have been DOA because of the sheriffs.

I just looked through the bill again and noticed that they actually codified 'Going Armed to the Terror of the People' under 14-277.6
 
MurphyLong said:
Okay, so if the PPP is staying, and I already have a CCP, does that mean in order to prevent having to get PPP's in the future, I would just maintain my CCP?
Click to expand...

Yes that is correct.
 
drypowder said:
As I understand it, the version passed out of the Judiciary Committee does not repeal the PPP, so it has a chance.
Click to expand...
So it's not Constitutional Carry. lol

Anyone want to help me start a smear campaign calling all of the sheriffs that support the PPP's a bunch of racists for supporting the Jim Crow laws?
 
MurphyLong said:
Okay, so if the PPP is staying, and I already have a CCP, does that mean in order to prevent having to get PPP's in the future, I would just maintain my CCP?
Click to expand...
Sadly, yes, also avoids the long phone call, and lets you carry in states that recognize it.
 
MurphyLong said:
Is there a list said Sheriffs? I'm in cahoots with the HMFIC here in Onslow.
Click to expand...
My google-fu is coming up empty right now, but I bet a group like GRNC would be able to put together a fairly accurate list of sheriffs that lobby in favor of PPP's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom