NC House Bill H197 (Constitutional-ish carry)

I'll vote for virtue signaling. Sometimes reps have to publish and push bills to keep up appearances even when they don't stand a chance. Gotta keep the donation dollars flowing.
 
14-415.35. subsection c needs to cut out.

(c)Valid Identification Required; Disclosure to Law Enforcement Officer When 29Carrying Concealed.–When carrying a concealed handgun, a person shall also carry valid 30identification and shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person is carrying a 31concealed handgunwhen approached or addressed by the officer and shall display the proper 32identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer.33(d)Penalty.–Any person who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of a Class 342 misdemeanor for a first offense and is guilty of a Class H felony for a second or subsequent 35offense.Any person who violates subsection (c) of this section commits an infraction and shall 36be punished in accordance with G.S.14-3.1.37"

Criminals are exempt from this under the 5th amendment. Thus it only imposes a burden/threat on good people.
Even police think this is stupid. At least so far. Have not run into any Barney Fife's yet.
 
fishgutzy said:
14-415.35. subsection c needs to cut out.

(c)Valid Identification Required; Disclosure to Law Enforcement Officer When 29Carrying Concealed.–When carrying a concealed handgun, a person shall also carry valid 30identification and shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person is carrying a 31concealed handgunwhen approached or addressed by the officer and shall display the proper 32identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer.33(d)Penalty.–Any person who violates subsection (b) of this section is guilty of a Class 342 misdemeanor for a first offense and is guilty of a Class H felony for a second or subsequent 35offense.Any person who violates subsection (c) of this section commits an infraction and shall 36be punished in accordance with G.S.14-3.1.37"

Criminals are exempt from this under the 5th amendment. Thus it only imposes a burden/threat on good people.
Even police think this is stupid. At least so far. Have not run into any Barney Fife's yet.
Click to expand...
Has anybody ever been charged with that? I'd bet the DA likes it on the books to threaten people with as a aggravating offense to get them to plea, but I also bet nobody with an attorney never faces that charge even a 1st year law student would identify as unconstitutional.
 
Timfoilhat said:
Has anybody ever been charged with that? I'd bet the DA likes it on the books to threaten people with as a aggravating offense to get them to plea, but I also bet nobody with an attorney never faces that charge even a 1st year law student would identify as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Particularly given that it doesn't apply to criminals.
 
Diablos said:
good luck, nc legislature has no gonads. even if passed, king coopa will veto and they'll sit on their super majority thumbs
Click to expand...
I tried a little shame in an email to my rep. Said it was time to cancel Jim Crow laws and reminded him that the law was written to create a barrier to the black community exercising their rights. He's Hispanic. Had lots of social justice buzz words in his ads.
 
They won’t pass it but it’s sure good to see them try
 
They’ll pass it and the Dim Goobernor at the time will sign it ... after Biden and Gun Czar Beto have rammed thru all their gun crap to the point 99% of the people won’t be able to own a gun ...
 
How would something like this effect the way we purchase handguns with a concealed carry permit? Would we then need to go an apply for permits again?
 
What I read on USCCA for Oklahoma a background check is required for any purchase at a Dealer. Individuals is no issue. The little things that change in some of these bills is what scares me as they may seem like they are giving you something but in the fine print they take more away.
 
xRHINOx said:
How would something like this effect the way we purchase handguns with a concealed carry permit? Would we then need to go an apply for permits again?
Click to expand...
I did not dig deep enough but previous versions eliminated that. Instant BCG still happens st point of purchase.
 
Timfoilhat said:
Has anybody ever been charged with that? I'd bet the DA likes it on the books to threaten people with as a aggravating offense to get them to plea, but I also bet nobody with an attorney never faces that charge even a 1st year law student would identify as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Charged or not, it's ridiculous. I once had a cop freak out when I said something along the lines of "i am required by law to disclose that i am licensed to carry a concealed firearm and I do have one with me tonight".
He told me I was lucky he didn't see it because he'd have his gun to my head already and things would be going very differently.
I was like "uh, yessir, that's why it's concealed where you can't see it.. what is the reason for this stop?"
 
K. I sent a letter to my rep/sen

Hello to both of you.

I am writing to you, Representative Weatley, to ask that you join as a supporter of HB197, and to you, Senator deViere, to ask that you support this bill if it goes to the Senate.

I won't go into the reasons why I personally prefer to carry firearms concealed instead of openly, but I did have to carry openly while waiting for my concealed handgun permit. While doing so, I was afraid of something silly - that my shirt might accidentally slip and cover the gun. That would have been an unintentional, yet still illegal act. This is not an unfounded fear of a hypothetical situation, there is very real precedent for this. As somebody who came from Detroit, I am very familiar with the case of Elijah Woody, in which the police just plain didn't like the look of him and fabricated a story to claim that his jacket covered his openly carried pistol. https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/law-and-legal-cases/elijah-woody.html Without the support of the community, Elijah would have been railroaded.

I would also argue that HB197 does not go far enough. I am particularly not fond of the "duty to declare" in section (c), citing Haynes v. United States, which makes any criminal exempt from such declarations. This puts the law-abiding citizen in the uncomfortable, and sometimes dangerous, situation of telling police officers that they have a firearm. For a well-known example of this, read about the shooting of Philando Castille. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile I know this is already written into the law for people legally carrying a firearm under the protection of a concealed handgun permit, but I'd be happy to see it removed.

As a person of Hispanic and Native descent, I can promise you that many minorities fear the moment that they are required to disclose possession of a firearm. While still in Michigan, I myself was once threatened by a police officer during a routine traffic stop after I disclosed, as required by law, that I had a concealed handgun license and was legally carrying a firearm.

I know that no bill is perfect, and it is a longshot to think that NC could adopt a full "constitutional carry" approach at once, especially under the current governor. However, I would be happy with any progress in moving We the People back towards the free exercise of the natural rights that are protected under the Bill of Rights.

Thank you.

Made reference to cops trying to railroad a guy for his jacket "falling over and concealing" his openly carried gun
Dropped a race card and referenced the shooting of Philando Catile
 
Last edited:
DrScaryGuy said:
Charged or not, it's ridiculous. I once had a cop freak out when I said something along the lines of "i am required by law to disclose that i am licensed to carry a concealed firearm and I do have one with me tonight".
He told me I was lucky he didn't see it because he'd have his gun to my head already and things would be going very differently.
I was like "uh, yessir, that's why it's concealed where you can't see it.. what is the reason for this stop?"
Click to expand...
Yep. We didn't have to disclose in Illinois if you can believe that...the communists got it right...but just the same our instructors said we should get in the habit of handing over our "permission slip" along with ID whenever we needed to hand over ID. It was a good way to let him take the lead on the conversation so you don't just blurt out some nonsense about "I have a gun". There was a rub to this method. If you put your wallet in your back pocket and you carry at 3-6 o'clock and don't have ID ready when he gets to the window it might make sense to inform verbally upfront of moving. Sometimes they work in teams and the other one might see the gun as you shift around for the wallet.
Given that the data regularly pops up on the cops computer when he runs your plates or ID he's going to know anyway, likely before he approaches the car. At least it worked that way in Illinois.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
K. I sent a letter to my rep/sen

Hello to both of you.

I am writing to you, Representative Weatley, to ask that you join as a supporter of HB197, and to you, Senator deViere, to ask that you support this bill if it goes to the Senate.

I won't go into the reasons why I personally prefer to carry firearms concealed instead of openly, but I did have to carry openly while waiting for my concealed handgun permit. While doing so, I was afraid of something silly - that my shirt might accidentally slip and cover the gun. That would have been an unintentional, yet still illegal act. This is not an unfounded fear of a hypothetical situation, there is very real precedent for this. As somebody who came from Detroit, I am very familiar with the case of Elijah Woody, in which the police just plain didn't like the look of him and fabricated a story to claim that his jacket covered his openly carried pistol. https://fija.org/library-and-resources/library/law-and-legal-cases/elijah-woody.html Without the support of the community, Elijah would have been railroaded.

I would also argue that HB197 does not go far enough. I am particularly not fond of the "duty to declare" in section (c), citing Haynes v. United States, which makes any criminal exempt from such declarations. This puts the law-abiding citizen in the uncomfortable, and sometimes dangerous, situation of telling police officers that they have a firearm. For a well-known example of this, read about the shooting of Philando Castille. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Philando_Castile I know this is already written into the law for people legally carrying a firearm under the protection of a concealed handgun permit, but I'd be happy to see it removed.

As a person of Hispanic and Native descent, I can promise you that many minorities fear the moment that they are required to disclose possession of a firearm. While still in Michigan, I myself was once threatened by a police officer during a routine traffic stop after I disclosed, as required by law, that I had a concealed handgun license and was legally carrying a firearm.

I know that no bill is perfect, and it is a longshot to think that NC could adopt a full "constitutional carry" approach at once, especially under the current governor. However, I would be happy with any progress in moving We the People back towards the free exercise of the natural rights that are protected under the Bill of Rights.

Thank you.

Made reference to cops trying to railroad a guy for his jacket "falling over and concealing" his openly carried gun
Dropped a race card and referenced the shooting of Philando Catile
Click to expand...
This is the second letter of yours you've posted. You write very well.
 
Timfoilhat said:
This is the second letter of yours you've posted. You write very well.
Click to expand...
Oh, i revise a good few times before hitting send and I know I could still benefit from a few more revisions...
I know they're not likely to read a lot of the letters well anyway - might as well try to be clear and not make them click "delete" earlier than necessary.
I don't make anywhere near as much sense in person.
 
If one person gives up their guns, they need to have their friggin head examined. They will deserve any and all of the left shit show. Shall not be infringed means exactly that, no matter what dumb ass so called law that comes down the pike.
 
Deplorable me said:
If one person gives up their guns, they need to have their friggin head examined. They will deserve any and all of the left shit show. Shall not be infringed means exactly that, no matter what dumb ass so called law that comes down the pike.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with this thread?
 
xRHINOx said:
How would something like this effect the way we purchase handguns with a concealed carry permit? Would we then need to go an apply for permits again?
Click to expand...
Not only that but you'd need a NICs check. The House bills going through legislation process now will make NICs a nightmare and the combination of both HR8 and HR1446 together may even give them opportunity to defund NICs as a virtual gun ban.
 
If I’m not mistaken, the permitting process for concealed carry of a handgun will still be available for those who wish to obtain one (for reciprocity with other states or using the CHP instead of a pistol purchase permit/NICS check).

See 14-415.10a in the link...

While G.S. 14-415.35 makes it lawful to carry a concealed weapon in this State without obtaining a concealed handgun permit, it is often convenient to have a concealed handgun permit for the purpose of reciprocity when traveling in another state, to make the purchase of a firearm more efficient, or for various other reasons. Therefore, the State of North Carolina shall continue to make a concealed handgun permit available to any person who applies for and is eligible to receive a concealed handgun permit pursuant to this Article.
 
Last edited:
Dale Gribble said:
If I’m not mistaken, the permitting process for concealed carry of a handgun will still be available for those who wish to obtain one (for reciprocity with other states or using the CHP instead of a pistol purchase permit/NICS check).

See 14-415.10a in the link...

While G.S. 14-415.35 makes it lawful to carry a concealed weapon in this State without obtaining a concealed handgun permit, it is often convenient to have a concealed handgun permit for the purpose of reciprocity when traveling in another state, to make the purchase of a firearm more efficient, or for various other reasons. Therefore, the State of North Carolina shall continue to make a concealed handgun permit available to any person who applies for and is eligible to receive a concealed handgun permit pursuant to this Article.
Click to expand...
That's good! The permit does have some tangible benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom