NC Sherrifs trying to grab power to deny CHP’s!

MadMan4Ever

Sig-Sauer devotee
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
487
Location
Walnut Cove, NC
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
This is not a drill, and this is not a joke. Republicans in Raleigh are in the process of gutting NC’s “shall issue” concealed carry permit application structure...

Regarding concealed carry permit (CHP) applications, we are furious (yes, furious ) to be forced to announce that the Republicans you sent to Raleigh have snuck language into the Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) of a bill that would, in essence, transform North Carolina from a “SHALL ISSUE” state into a “MAY ISSUE” state.


We at GRNC are incensed and you ought to be as well. As you know, GRNC engineered NC's "shall issue" concealed carry law in 1995. Since then, GRNC has been instrumental in greatly improving it with restaurant carry, limited school/campus carry and more. We're not about to stand by and watch a naked power grab by NC's sheriffs, aided by Republican senators, roll back all of our progress.

Are You of “Good Moral Character?”
Last week, in Raleigh, Republicans snuck new language into a PCS for Senate Bill S90 ("Protect Religious Meeting Places") (=H110), and it’s worth noting that, initially, S90 was not even written to deal with the concealed carry application process. It’s also worth noting that before the poisonous PCS, S90 was a promising pro-gun bill.

Yet, the PCS language strips “shall issue” status from the people and confers “may issue” power to your county sheriff. According to the PCS, a sheriff can deny CHPs by claiming applicants are not of “Good Moral Character,” the same shameful Jim Crow-era language that still exists on Pistol Purchase Permit applications, which GRNC has been fighting to eliminate.

And you’ve probably guessed already: there is no strict definition for “good moral character,” and truly, no definition would suffice in this context anyway. Therefore (and conveniently), lacking “good moral character,” grounds for denying a CHP, is an open-ended label that any sheriff could attach to any applicant for any reason.

Shifting Power from Citizen to Sheriff
Lest you wonder, “good moral character” has nothing to do with an applicant’s criminal history. Exhaustive, indeed intrusive, criminal and medical background checks, and (de facto) long waiting periods are already part of the CHP application process. The sheriff’s personal, subjective and nebulous analysis of your character can have no legitimate purpose. The only clear purpose of this language in S90’s PCS is to take power away from you, the law-abiding citizen, and hand it to your county sheriff to lord over you, so he can withhold your rights at will.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “Sheriffs would never use this new power to deny permits to qualified people.” Yet, if they’d never use their newfound power, why enshrine it in our state’s laws? It can have only one purpose, and if there is no intention to use it (now or later), it would not have been proposed as substitute language for S90.

What You Can Do
Are you prepared to live in a state that treats gun rights the way California does—like “gun privileges?” Are you ready to cede your Natural rights to your county’s sheriff, so he can ration them back to you as he sees fit? If not, please join other gun rights supporters in putting an immediate halt to this attack on your gun rights (from the Republicans no less!). Once again, we must remind these politicians who “brung ‘em” to the dance, and it looks like we’ll have to be more stern than usual.

Below, see how you can easily contact Senate Judiciary Committee members (and Sen. Berger) to tell them, emphatically, that any vote, indeed any support whatsoever, for S90’s Proposed Committee Substitute will be considered a severe and blatant anti-gun action!
 
  • EMAIL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Use the copy/paste email list provided below and the copy/paste text provided under ‘Deliver This Message.

  • PHONE REPUBLICAN LEADERS & YOUR SENATOR: This is serious and so phone calls to committee chairs and to your own senator are just as important as sending an email message. Call today and leave a message; call Monday and call Tuesday. That's how important this is. Please use the phone numbers provided below to contact Judiciary Committee leaders. Also, please call your own senator (find contact details below). When you reach each senator's office, tell him or her:
    I am a gun rights voter, and I am enraged that Republicans are seeking to force a huge step backwards for gun rights in our state. The ostensibly pro-gun party should be ashamed to be identified as the party that introduced Senate Bill 90's PCS language, which would grant "may issue" power to sheriffs for Concealed Carry Permits, stripping citizens of the unalienable portion of unalienable rights. Any Senator supporting this PCS will be considered anti-gun, and will pay at the polls. Thank you.
  • ATTEND TUESDAY'S COMMITTEE HEARING: The presence of gun rights voters at this meeting is critical. Committee members must know that we see what they're trying to do, and that we're serious about stopping them. Please attend Tuesday's committee meeting. You may have an opportunity to speak, so arrive early in case you need to sign up. Find details below.

  • PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC: Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles. Please CLICK HERE to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your donations are put to the best possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated.

NC Senate Judiciary Committee, Copy/Paste Email List:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Senate Member Phone
Senator Danny Britt, Jr.
Senate Judiciary Committee Co-chair (919) 733-5651
Senator Warren Daniel
Senate Judiciary Committee Co-chair (919) 715-7823
Senator Phil Berger
Senate President Pro Tempore (919) 733-5708
Please call your senator, too.
Need name/contact information?
Click Here and select the 'NC Senate' option to find your senator.



[paste:font size="4"]Tuesday, June 18, 2019, 10:00 am
WHERE: NCGA Legislative Building
Room 1124/1224
16 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
IMPORTANT
NOTES:
Please arrive early to allow extra time to park and to get through building security. 60 minutes early is recommended.
Please dress for the press. Business attire preferred. Please no inflammatory slogans on clothing or otherwise.

Please bring a roll-up paper sign with the following message on it:

"SENATOR BERGER: DON'T GUT CONCEALED CARRY"

 
Suggested Subject: "Don’t Gut Concealed Carry"



Dear Senator:

I have just learned of the Republican Party’s effort to transform North Carolina’s concealed carry permit (CHP) application structure from “shall issue” to “may issue.” I see that Senate Judiciary Committee members have snuck language into S90’s Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) that would grant sheriffs unchecked power to deny concealed carry permits to any applicant, any time, for effectively any reason. The PCS’s language, which poisons an otherwise pro-gun bill, allows a sheriff to declare that an applicant, any applicant, is not of “good moral character.” This is the same shameful Jim Crow-era language that still exists on the Pistol Purchase Permit application, language that ought to be removed (not added elsewhere).

Of course, “good moral character” has no particular definition, nor would any be satisfactory given the context. Exhaustive and intrusive background checks and (de facto) long waiting periods are already part of the CHP application process. The sheriff’s personal, subjective and nebulous analysis of an applicant’s “character” has precisely zero legitimacy. Clearly, its only purpose is to wrest power from the law-abiding citizen and hand it to our county sheriffs to lord over the citizens, so sheriffs can withhold Natural rights by fiat.

This is unacceptable! I am incensed that the committee members, especially those in the Republican Party, would even consider such an anti-gun scheme. North Carolina is not California, it is not New York, and gun voters will not allow this state to transform into one of these states in the context of the Second Amendment.

Be warned:
Any favorable vote, even the slightest measure of support for S90’s PCS, with its “good moral character” clause, will be perceived as a threat to every gun rights voter in this state, myself included. Do not doubt it, backing S90’s PCS will be recorded as an extreme anti-gun action!

Put a stop to S90’s anti-gun PCS now. I will be monitoring your actions on this critical matter through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina

Respectfully,
 
It is a fact that in every state that has 'may issue" the issuing authorities are far more likely to be corrupt.
MA is may issue.
In Boston, even though it is illegal even under MA law, applicants are told verbally, never in writing, that the only people that are issued unrestricted permits (MA version needed to carry a loaded handgun outside the home, open or concealed) are the wealthy, doctors, or lawyers.
NJ and NY are probably the most corrupt for may issue.
No version of may issue can be allowed to stand.
It is not unrealistic to expect the counties around Raleigh and Charlotte to exceed a 90% denial rate if instituted.
Liberals tend to believe anyone who disagrees with them is evil. White liberals are the most racist against minority communities too.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Who is proposing the amendment and when will be able to see the text of the amendment that inserts the "good moral character" clause? The bill as it currently exists DOES NOT include any such change. None of the text of the bill as it is currently available includes the "good moral character" clause. Just wondering who is actually proposing this.
 
Last edited:
Never mind, I found the text of the PCS which details this ridiculous move. Link for everyone else: https://www.ncleg.gov/documentsites/committees/Senate2019-147/June 12, 12019/S90-CSBQa-28 v11.pdf

Edit to add:
This bill is really strange for the other things it does too. It's renaming and conflating PPP and CHP and seems very cumbersome overall.

I am having trouble understanding. The bill as listed at ncleg contains none of this, nor anything even remotely related to this. I understand this is a "proposed committee substitute", but it is completely unrelated to the house/senate bill versions as written. Surely this will throw the entire house and senate versions into a cocked hat and take the whole thing back to square one, right? Or are these a$$hat$ really that corrupt and devious? Is this really something to worry about, or is this just a poison pill attempt, or even something less sinister and more posturing? Someone (other than GRNC) please enlighten me!

Oh, and while we're on the subject, will someone please explain to me what possible unholy qualification the Commissioner of Agriculture has to "prohibit the carrying of firearms"?

SECTION 2.(f) G.S. 14-106.503.2 reads as rewritten:
§ 106-503.2. Regulation of firearms at State Fair.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Commissioner of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit the carrying of firearms in any manner on the State Fairgrounds during the period of time each year that the State Fair is conducted.
 
Last edited:
Yeah this is really weird. There seems like parts of it that are ok like 18 year olds able to get a Class B permit but, I am not sure I support this whole bill as it reads. I don’t foresee my Sheriff NOT issuing them as he is pro 2A but, the problem would be for other folks that have liberal and anti sheriffs. Sadly I could fall into that the next election period.
 
I am having trouble understanding. The bill as listed at ncleg contains none of this, nor anything even remotely related to this. I understand this is a "proposed committee substitute", but it is completely unrelated to the house/senate bill versions as written. Surely this will throw the entire house and senate versions into a cocked hat and take the whole thing back to square one, right? Or are these a$$hat$ really that corrupt and devious? Is this really something to worry about, or is this just a poison pill attempt, or even something less sinister and more posturing? Someone (other than GRNC) please enlighten me!
It's basically a giant amendment. There's so much that gets amended in the bill that it would be too difficult to track each one, so a PCS is a rewrite of the bill and treated like an amendment.
 
Yeah this is really weird. There seems like parts of it that are ok like 18 year olds able to get a Class B permit but, I am not sure I support this whole bill as it reads. I don’t foresee my Sheriff NOT issuing them as he is pro 2A but, the problem would be for other folks that have liberal and anti sheriffs. Sadly I could fall into that the next election period.
I haven't combed through it yet but I believe the class B is the equivalent to a PPP which is why 18 year olds can get one. Class A is the equivalent to the current CHP.
 
I haven't combed through it yet but I believe the class B is the equivalent to a PPP which is why 18 year olds can get one. Class A is the equivalent to the current CHP.
It is indeed, and I like that fact BUT I think this is a poison pill to say an effort was made and failed.
 
Last edited:
I need to print and reread, but it seems to be making the ppp rules more standard statewide. I didn't see the "good moral standing" crap with the type b (carry) permit
 
There is some really nasty, sneaky language in the proposal.

§ 14-415.10(2) Class A handgun permit. (purchase and carry permit)
§ 14-415.12(a1) The sheriff shall issue a Class A handgun permit to an applicant if the applicant qualifies under the following criteria:
(2) The applicant qualifies for a Class B permit under this section.​

The above section about Class A permits does not specifically say "good moral character" but it does require a person to meet the qualifications for a Class B permit, which does allow the Sheriff to determine "good moral character."

§ 14-415.10(3) Class B handgun permit. (purchase permit)
§ 14-415.12(a) The sheriff shall issue a Class B handgun permit to an applicant if the applicant qualifies under the following criteria:
(4) The applicant is of good moral character as determined by the sheriff.​

Of course, everyone in NC with a CHP is happy to be able to avoid NICS checks when buying guns. Never let it be said that the legislature would not try to screw up a good thing.

§ 14-415.11(b) The sheriff shall issue a Class A handgun permit to carry a concealed handgun to a person who qualifies for a permit under G.S.14-415.12. The permit shall be valid throughout the State for a period of seven years from the date of issuance.​

Yep, the proposal would extend the Class A permit (purchase and carry) from 5 to 7 years, but the permit would no longer qualify as a substitute for a NICS check during the last 2 years.

27 CFR § 478.102(d)(1) The transferee has presented to the licensee a valid permit or license that -
(ii) Was issued not more than 5 years earlier by the State in which the transfer is to take place;​
 
Last edited:
All while stupid people still believe that republicans are pro 2A, pro rights, pro freedom, when in fact they are just more corrupt power hungry greedy politicians.

A republican president has banned bump stocks, selected an anti-gunner to head the ATF, spoken out against suppressors, wants to raise the age to buy semi-auto rifle to 21, etc.

Vote every damn one of them out on their ass. They need to be changed as often as a diaper for the very same reason.
 
Last edited:
Yeah this is really weird. There seems like parts of it that are ok like 18 year olds able to get a Class B permit but, I am not sure I support this whole bill as it reads. I don’t foresee my Sheriff NOT issuing them as he is pro 2A but, the problem would be for other folks that have liberal and anti sheriffs. Sadly I could fall into that the next election period.
Like if this guy ever got into office...

https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...-s-candidate-threatens-disobedient-gun-owners

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
I'd like to send that email to the committee members, but something about it seems off to me. I doubt it will have any effect on elected officials like Mohammed Mujtaba either. :(
 
Hey! I know! Maybe we can dress somebody up in a furry costume, give them a silly name, and shame the Republicans into actually doing more than paying the Second Amendment some election year lip-service!

Call, write emails, mail letters, certainly.

But for God’s sake, act like Free Men in spite of anything they may or may not pass. Laws are only as effective as a people’s meekness in submitting to them.
 
Oh, and while we're on the subject, will someone please explain to me what possible unholy qualification the Commissioner of Agriculture has to "prohibit the carrying of firearms"?

SECTION 2.(f) G.S. 14-106.503.2 reads as rewritten:
§ 106-503.2. Regulation of firearms at State Fair.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Commissioner of Agriculture is authorized to prohibit the carrying of firearms in any manner on the State Fairgrounds during the period of time each year that the State Fair is conducted.

This is the result of a court action. Commissioner Troxler had banned guns at the NC State Fair in apparent violation of the NC law. GRNC protested but a judge sided with him and subsequently the legislature rewrote the law to make his decision lawful. This pig is definitely more equal than all others.
 
Last edited:
For anybody that actually read the text...does the may/shall issue only cover new permits? Or renewals as well? (Not sure how it works in other states)
 
The same thing happened here years ago during the Bev Perdue administration. Bev was a dumbocrat but was actually rather 2A friendly. A bill had advanced through the legislature that would have done away with the pistol permit requirement and Bev had indicated that she would sign it. County sheriffs throughout the state, many of them Republican, prevailed on the legislature to gut the bill so that they would still have the power to issue (or not issue) pistol purchase permits. Sheriffs and mostly any other elected officials hate to give up any part of their power.
 
Hey! I know! Maybe we can dress somebody up in a furry costume, give them a silly name, and shame the Republicans into actually doing more than paying the Second Amendment some election year lip-service!

Call, write emails, mail letters, certainly.

But for God’s sake, act like Free Men in spite of anything they may or may not pass. Laws are only as effective as a people’s meekness in submitting to them.

I agree about acting as freemen, but don’t disparage the organization who devotes itself to warning you and others about such villainy going about. Most folks would have no idea about this bill without GRNC.

I can guarantee you didn’t receive an NRA or even a GOA alert about it. I know two days is short notice for a trip to Raleigh but it’s what we have. I will be there and it’s adding 200 miles to my car that I already add 1,100 miles a week to for work. :(

Yes the R’s are stupid and evil like D’s for the most part, but this 2 party system is what we have until you are win the mega millions & become the George Soros for good, or you start shooting folks.:(

And I prefer to vote, email, etc before going straight to bullets & bayonets.
 
For anybody that actually read the text...does the may/shall issue only cover new permits? Or renewals as well? (Not sure how it works in other states)

Renewals would have to qualify under the new terms of the law.

§ 14-415.16.(c) Upon receipt of the completed renewal application and the appropriate payment of fees, the sheriff shall determine if the permittee remains qualified to hold a permit in accordance with the provisions of this Article.​
 
While we are being thrown under the bus, our legislators hope to distract us by tossing us a bone in the form of lower CHP fees.

§ 14-415.19.(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, the permit fees are as follows:
Application or renewal fee .......................................................... $25.00​
 
Or are these a$$hat$ really that corrupt and devious?
They are really that corrupt and devious.

All previous years' pro-gun legislation that just barely didn't make it has been for show.
Totally corrupt waste of time, all for show.
 
For anybody that actually read the text...does the may/shall issue only cover new permits? Or renewals as well? (Not sure how it works in other states)
It covers existing at the time of renewal. Class A for CHL and Class B for PPP.
 
Last edited:
Who, in particular, was the author of this crap? An effort should be made in his district to remove this rino/domorat from his position in the primary.
 
All previous years' pro-gun legislation that just barely didn't make it has been for show.
Not replying to you per say, but using this statement as the segue. Directed towards all the stupid closet Republicans on here: You. Are. The. Problem. Have you not figured out yet that behavior IS the Republican tactic? Do you not see the lies and BS that you're constantly being fed? They don't support gun rights anymore than those "gosh darn" Democrats do. They just tell you they do and put on a show in election years so they can say they tried while making sure nothing ever goes forward. They'll never change as long as they know they can keep pulling this crap and the idiots will still put them back in the halls of the legislature just because they're not a Democrat and god knows how much worse that would be. Can't you see that as long as they have no incentive to actually stop lying and support you they won't? Stop drooling and feeling good about the fact that you vote for the Republican because that means your nothing better than abused b..ch that keeps going back to her abuser. What has voting Republican done for you in the long run? Slowing the losses is still losing.
 
Last edited:
Who, in particular, was the author of this crap? An effort should be made in his district to remove this rino/domorat from his position in the primary.

The main culprits are identified as Senators:
  • Warren Daniel (Avery, Burke and Caldwell counties)
  • Danny Earl Britt (Columbus and Robeson counties)
  • Todd Johnson (Union county)
 
Not replying to you per say, but using this statement as the segue. Directed towards all the stupid closet Republicans on here: You. Are. The. Problem. Have you not figured out yet that behavior IS the Republican tactic? Do you not see the lies and BS that you're constantly being fed? They don't support gun rights anymore than those "gosh darn" Democrats do. They just tell you they do and put on a show in election years so they can say they tried while making sure nothing ever goes forward. They'll never change as long as they know they can keep pulling this crap and the idiots will still put them back in the halls of the legislature just because they're not a Democrat and god knows how much worse that would be. Can't you see that as long as they have no incentive to actually stop lying and support you they won't? Stop drooling and feeling good about the fact that you vote for the Republican because that means your nothing better than abused b..ch that keeps going back to her abuser. What has voting Republican done for you in the long run? Slowing the losses is still losing.

We all agree that politcians are liars and crooks and follow the money for the most part. Unfortunately politics isn't all about a single issue.

I have seen first hand that working with republicans has led to gains in CCW and now Constitutional Carry States. We wouldn't have got anywhere with democrats on those issues. If we all sat at home so as not to "condone the evil" then none of that would have got done.

So other than writing letters, trying to get meetings, supporting legitimate 2A organizations, and directing money towards candidates that can get into office and work with us...what do you suggest be done?
 
Tar and feathers for a start- seems it's about time.

Sent from notthedroidyourelookingfor

People have been saying stuff like that for years on the internet but I never see where the gathering point is. Hollow talk doesn't do anything.
 
I’m calling the three culprits and letting them know that if they persist with this, I’ll be writing checks to anyone that opposes them in a future primary.
 
People have been saying stuff like that for years on the internet but I never see where the gathering point is. Hollow talk doesn't do anything.
Your profile says SC, so why do you even care?

Sent from notthedroidyourelookingfor
 
Your profile says SC, so why do you even care?

Sent from notthedroidyourelookingfor

To be fair, I am from NC, and I care about infringements in other states as well. Until the balloon goes up and NC becomes a sovereign nation, the dominoes are all connected and we will be influenced by our neighbors, for good or bad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top Bottom