Pistol Purchase Permit Repeal Filed

MostWanted said:
Sometimes I wonder why I post things on here. I wrote an articulate, informative post with specific information showing that the R’s in just four years rolled back over a hundred years’ of Democrat infringements, and the response from several of you was a bunch of uninformed, unknowledgeable and obviously incorrect and overreaching statements like “they are all the same” and “they don’t care about our gun rights”. Just because they didn’t roll back that one thing.
Click to expand...
Since you’re obviously new, let me explain how internet forums work…
 
JimB said:
Playing devil’s advocate. The PPP is an infringement, and an irritation, but is it also a fairly effective blocker on further infringement?

If we drop the PPP we get private handgun transactions with no background checks, which is as it should be. But do the D’s who are in control and have the votes to do it then introduce legislation for universal background checks and push all transactions to an FFL?

Some will say that if they wanted it they would do it now, but that’s not correct. There are some that want it, but most aren’t excited about an issue like this that isn’t urgent. They aren’t going to start something now and if they do the response is that we already have universal background checks and the issue can be killed relatively easily.

Some will say that we‘ll cross that bridge when we come to it, but that’s some pretty poor strategic planning.

Some just want to fight every infringement, I get it, but that’s emotion. You all know that emotion is more effective for one party than for the other, so I’d encourage you to avoid letting them pull you into their game.

So, am I wrong?
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong. For years gun owners have thought that if they just allowed one more gun control measure that the anti's would be through and leave them alone in the future. That never happens. As soon as one control is in place they propose another, and another, ad nauseum. The same logic applies to restrictions on certain types of guns. I know men who are skeet and trap enthusiasts who support "assault rifle" legislation, saying that if the bad black rifles are outlawed that they will then be able to keep their shotguns unmolested. This is faulty logic. Look at Britain. The anti's want a total disrmament of non-government society. In some countries air guns and bows are restricted or banned. They will not be satisfied until we are totally defenseless.
 
BillG said:
I think you're wrong. For years gun owners have thought that if they just allowed one more gun control measure that the anti's would be through and leave them alone in the future. That never happens. As soon as one control is in place they propose another, and another, ad nauseum. The same logic applies to restrictions on certain types of guns. I know men who are skeet and trap enthusiasts who support "assault rifle" legislation, saying that if the bad black rifles are outlawed that they will then be able to keep their shotguns unmolested. This is faulty logic. Look at Britain. The anti's want a total disrmament of non-government society. In some countries air guns and bows are restricted or banned. They will not be satisfied until we are totally defenseless.
Click to expand...
Yes! They never stop. They never take a day off. They will never say, "that's enough". Their idea of compromise is to propose total disarmament, then only take away some things while giving up nothing, shake hands on a "compromise", then the next day start working on what they didn't get this time.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
Just for the record, I prefer an Oxford comma after "unknowledgeable".
Click to expand...
I, like you, wouldn't wouldn't want to leave that out. However, I frequently review my own writing, purposely looking for places I can simplify my phrasing. I make a conscious effort to use multiple sentences, when possible, in order to eliminate commas, thus reducing my number of run-on sentences.
 
Last edited:
fishgutzy said:
Start a massive shaming campaign against the boot licking demoncrats. Use their own tactics against them.
I sent this to my Demoncrat rep. Posted in another thread too.
Feel free to copy to your rep.

Hello Mr. Hurtado;

Please explain why you voted against the repeal of a Jim Crow law that was written and passed to create a barrier to black Americans and other minorities from exercising their constitutional rights.

HB398 is a long overdue effort to undo the injustice of the Jim Crow PPP law. To this day it still has a disparate impact on the minority community: people that look like my wife and children.
Democrat leaning Sheriffs have always used the process to delay and deny 2A rights on the flimsiest of grounds they can get away and still "comply" with the law. Many Democrat dominated counties used the pandemic as an excuse to completely shut down the PPP process. The PPP is redundant, unnecessary, and costs more to administer than the fees generated.

Doing the right thing often means going against the party masters.
Click to expand...

Been there and done that.
You can expect a form letter explaining that our betters know best, that your concern has most certainly been heard, but you will find that the response does not address it.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
I, like you, wouldn't wouldn't want to leave that out. However, I frequently review my own writing, purposely looking for places I can simplify my phrasing. I make a conscious effort to use multiple sentences, when possible, in order to eliminate commas, thus reducing my number of run-on sentences.
Click to expand...

I like to make use of the underutilized semicolon to minimize overuse of commas. It's fantastic for lists which include sets and groups.
 
RetiredUSNChief said:
I like to make use of the underutilized semicolon to minimize overuse of commas. It's fantastic for lists which include sets and groups.
Click to expand...
I have to limit my use of the semicolon for fear that my reader has also read Vonnegut's opinion on that particular punctuation mark.
1629437809743.png
 
BillG said:
I think you're wrong. For years gun owners have thought that if they just allowed one more gun control measure that the anti's would be through and leave them alone in the future. That never happens. As soon as one control is in place they propose another, and another, ad nauseum. The same logic applies to restrictions on certain types of guns. I know men who are skeet and trap enthusiasts who support "assault rifle" legislation, saying that if the bad black rifles are outlawed that they will then be able to keep their shotguns unmolested. This is faulty logic. Look at Britain. The anti's want a total disrmament of non-government society. In some countries air guns and bows are restricted or banned. They will not be satisfied until we are totally defenseless.
Click to expand...
Generally I agree, and when it come to new encroachment I absolutely agree, not one damn inch. However, in this case it’s about how we remove an infringement, and doing it in a way that doesn’t create an easier opportunity for the grabbers to make additional progress toward their goals. Sacrificing a pawn to save a rook.

I’m not married to this contrarian argument, and certainly not enough to work against the bill, but I worry that we’re fighting one tiny skirmish and so focused on winning this little battle that we’re missing a flanking maneuver.
 
MostWanted said:
Yes! They never stop. They never take a day off. They will never say, "that's enough". Their idea of compromise is to propose total disarmament, then only take away some things while giving up nothing, shake hands on a "compromise", then the next day start working on what they didn't get this time.
Click to expand...
They learned this tactic from people of a certain "religion." The principle of taqiya. Lying in service of the agenda is just fine. They sucker the fools in with promises. Then they take the next step to ban "just one more thing."
Now they are pushing a virtual ban on all semiautomatic rifle. Next it will be all semiautomatic firearms. They have been open about this goal. Then with will be all revolvers and any firearm other than single shot muzzle loaders.
 
DrScaryGuy said:
Been there and done that.
You can expect a form letter explaining that our betters know best, that your concern has most certainly been heard, but you will find that the response does not address it.
Click to expand...
^This. I even expanded on what you said, explaining how it is the clearest example of institutionalized racism on the books today. I have received the same form letter (I didn't keep them to compare them word for word) from both Butterfield and Price. I think Shannon Watts wrote the form letter for them.
 
Should be sometime today for a veto or not.
 
NCFubar said:
Wake and Mecklenburg sheriffs along with other larger countries should be supporting this since the processing of the PPP’s is such a drain on their department’s resources they take weeks to process and some even try to stop accepting applications for a period of time. Oh yeah, that would make to much sense and cost them dollars in revenue they generate.
Click to expand...
Drain? You mean opertunity to drag feet.
 
My concealed handgun license expired this month. You can only renew it starting 3 months before expiration, so I did. Durham takes atleast 4 months to print the new license for you to pick up. So I have been staring at a new pistol I want with no way to get it because Durham won't print my new CHL. Fricking frustrating and I will be first in the door at the gun shop if this permit system is repealed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WildBill said:
My concealed handgun license expired this month. You can only renew it starting 3 months before expiration, so I did. Durham takes atleast 4 months to print the new license for you to pick up. So I have been staring at a new pistol I want with no way to get it because Durham won't print my new CHL. Fucking frustrating and I will be first in the door at the gun shop if this permit system is repealed.
Click to expand...
The CHP’s are not printed by the local sheriffs … they’re printed by the State in Raleigh (and they do not take a long time to do so). Durham does the major vesting and sends it to Raleigh for the State to do their little investigation and print the approved CHP’s which it return to the issuing sheriff.

ETA … just a little suggestion to anyone in any county … when you turn in your CHP renewal (or even initial issue) application also apply for a couple PPP’s just in case your CHP paperwork gets hung up. You’ll be able to carry on your current CHP under the statues of NC but not buy using it so the extra PPP’s you pickup (good for 5 years) give you coverage until the sheriff get his thumb out of his ass and issues the CHP.
 
Last edited:
NCFubar said:
The NC Sheriffs Ass played a big role in squashing it then. Now the Dins and the NCSA both can lay its failing on Stooper if he vetoes it just like Shawn is saying above. Stooper is not able to run for Goobernor again so he kinda sorta has a little insulation there. He can’t run for the Senate until 2026 so he’ll could do a 2 year US House term in a Dim district and run for Tillis’s Senate seat in 2026 thinking by then the Crap from his goobernorship would be ancient history.
Click to expand...
Will Stein run for Governor? That is what they do these days.
 
Button Pusher said:
Will Stein run for Governor? That is what they do these days.
Click to expand...
Well, that would be a kinda natural progression. For some reason I think Lt Gov Robinson s looking National like King Roy will be … he‘d be a good ‘24 Governor candidate though.
 
Last edited:
Okay please someone tell me. DID THIS JUST PASS? it's 545 still no veto on the website and It allows 10 days and it automatically is law right? Should I be having a party right now?

https://www.ncleg.gov/BillLookUp/2021/h398
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210830-174414_Drive.jpg
    Screenshot_20210830-174414_Drive.jpg
    59.8 KB · Views: 7
Gov. Coop coop vetoed the bill.
 
Last edited:
If the R’s gain a few seats in the Legislature next year—and it’s looking like a good year for that—we can try again in two years. Otherwise we’ll have to wait until we have a friendly in the Gov mansion. We’ve never gotten this far before. Now I’m waiting for the usual handful on here to start saying the R’s don’t care about our rights and didn’t want it to pass anyway.
 
If anything he did sign bill 692. The short detail is the extremely carolina squat trucks will no longer be allowed.

"No more than 4 inches of height difference between the front bumper and rear bumper."
 
I don’t see a veto override working out either as it passed nearly along party lines
 
As expected, Democrat Roy Cooper vetoed the bill to repeal the sheriff issued pistol purchase permit. The state constitution requires 3/5 to overide a veto, which would be 30 in the Senate and 72 in the House. The original vote was 27-20 in the Senate and 69-48 in the House, with some abstaining. So we'd need all the same votes plus 3 more in the Senate and 3 more in the House. It's within reach, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
I am not seeing this as a bad thing.

Why do we want to do away with out current permit process controlled by our local sheriffs department for one relying on the Federal Government?
I know they claim it only takes 5 minutes to get an approval, but I call bull! I am an FFL who’s runs many NICS background checks and very rarely receive an approval quickly. There’s more delayed responses which take up to five days before you get your gun. This also affects gun show purchases, without a CCHP you need a NICS background for every purchase. What happens when the system is down, overwhelmed, or something needs verification? You are not walking away with a gun. Let’s also not forget the current administration hoping for longer waiting periods, how does that play into the equation? Wouldn’t you want the pre-approval in hand before going shopping?
Unfortunately the NICS system is not where it can deliver so the Governor(though not by design) probably is doing us a favor. There are bigger battles need fighting and this is not one of them.

Please chime in, I am very open minded and like different perspectives so lets hear it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
P2BA Firearms said:
I am not seeing this as a bad thing.

Why do we want to do away with out current permit process controlled by our local sheriffs department for one relying on the Federal Government?
I know they claim it only takes 5 minutes to get an approval, but I call bull! I am an FFL who’s runs many NICS background checks and very rarely receive an approval quickly. There’s more delayed responses which take up to five days before you get your gun. This also affects gun show purchases, without a CCHP you need a NICS background for every purchase. What happens when the system is down, overwhelmed, or something needs verification? You are not walking away with a gun. Let’s also not forget the current administration hoping for longer waiting periods, how does that play into the equation? Wouldn’t you want the pre-approval in hand before going shopping?
Unfortunately the NICS system is not where it can deliver so the Governor(though not by design) probably is doing us a favor. There are bigger battles need fighting and this is not one of them.

Please chime in, I am very open minded and like different perspectives so lets hear it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The sheriff issued pistol permit does not replace the NICS background check, it is addition to it. This gives sheriff's the power to deny a purchase of a pistol, which is a 2nd Amendment right. Why should a sheriff have that power? Should we also give sheriffs the power to censor newspapers and public speech? If any amendment is abridged, aren't all in danger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom