Will have to read more but at first glance it creates a whole lot more of "special class" people who can carry at schools, but still not us mere serfs.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

It looks pretty decent to me... Looks like all the same current rules for existing CCP holders, except for rest areas- I thought that part was changed.

 

What do you mean about rest areas? It was legal to carry concealed in rest areas before...has that changed?

I'm googling this now, and I'm not finding anything that changed this.

EDIT:

Word search is your friend. I found it in the OP's link to the pdf in Section 11.

The change to G.S. 14-415.11, paragraph (c3) reads:

It shall be lawful for a person to carry any firearm openly, or to carry a concealed handgun with a concealed carry permit, at any State-owned rest area, at any State-owned rest stop along the highways, and at any State-owned hunting and fishing reservation; provided the person has the firearm in a closed compartment or container within the person's locked vehicle or in a locked container securely affixed to the person's vehicle. A person may unlock the vehicle to enter or exit the vehicle provided the firearm remains in the closed compartment at all times and the vehicle is locked immediately following the entrance or exit.

Bold mine for emphasis on concealed carry in rest areas.

This is worded very confusingly.

The first part, before the semicolon, clearly says that you can open carry at any State-owned rest area or you can conceal carry WITH a CCP at any State-owned rest area. So this is saying that you can't constitutionally carry concealed at a rest area.

But the part AFTER the semicolon seems to be in direct conflict with the part before, because it very clearly says that the firearm has to be in a closed compartment or container within the person's vehicle or a locked container securely affixed to the person's vehicle.

Am I missing something here?

 

So by constitutional they mean permit less correct?

 

Yes. It also states that you can still request to be issued an actual permit for reciprocity.

 

So , will this change the requirement to have a permit of some sort for handgun purchases ?

Mike

 

One step at a time, my friend...one step at a time.

 

I'm disappointed that duty-to-inform still appears to be a part of this bill.

Especially since, under constitutional carry, you won't have affirmatively obtained a permit, I can't see how you can be compelled to speak like that.

 

This is what the phones, email, and classic I took the time to write a letter in my own hand are for.

 

still need to get rid of the PPP mess, IMHO.

 

Yes, baby steps. Esp in light of the 9th circus ruling.


But yeah, convoluted cut and paste of a bunch of crap all over the NCGS goes to show you that "shall not be infringed" is simple and clear-cut.

 

I think it's awful. Starts out with permitless carry, removing the authority of the GA to restrict CCW. Then the bill proceeds to do just that, except for a few privileged government workers.

It still has the force of law applied to No Guns signs; I want the force of law to be removed altogether.

It still has the duty to inform. If you accidentally carry into a gun free zone and are "approached or addressed" by a LEO, you are compelled by law to give up your 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. This just shows that your rulers don't trust you.

Don't worry about the bill being passed. If the Sheriff's Association won't give up a $5 pistol permit, they sure won't give up an $80 CHP.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

ncsa maybe, but i would expect more push back from those whose livelihood depends permits to carry. ie. the concealed carry training community.

 

It also appears to allow local governments to enact their own patchwork of laws, apparently just because they can.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

Any person who is a citizen of the United States and is at least 21 years old may carry a concealed weapon in this State unless provided otherwise by law.
...
Unlawful to carry concealed weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold

Hm... Are they aware about changes in CCW laws during last couple of years?

 

I think if someone carrying concealed is compelled to inform an LEO that they are armed,
then all people should be compelled to inform an LEO that they are armed or unarmed.
Equal treatment under the law.

Let the LEO decide if he believes someone who says he is unarmed.
That will show how ridiculous this requirement is...

 

It took a while but I read it through and it seems like a bunch of double talk to me. This is like a lot of signage I see in different places, gives reference to a specific statute. I guess they think the everyday Joe-Schmoe has a law book under his arm and can readily look up these things.

 

NC Constitutional Carry Begins

It began in 1791.

 

NC Constitutional Carry Begins

It began in 1791.

Nope. The NC Constitution has addressed CC as an act controlled by the state for a while. Like it or not, that's how it's been. The constitutional right has been, and is, open carry. That's how it's been. Personally, I'd be interested to see when it was added. My google fu is not that strong apparently. But the original was not that great.

Like it or not, you gotta deal with the legal framework we have. This is trying to deal with it. You can get on board, or live in a past that likely did not quite fit the definition you or I would like. God given, yada yada, I do get it. But the consequences are not being handed down by the one that gave the right, you gotta deal with it sooner or later.

Original, 1776, so do you want "bear arms" attached directly to "defense of state" in the NC Constitution?

XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Or current, "shall not be infringed." And applied strictly to OC and disallowing CC.

Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

Or future, applied to CC and OC?

Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

 

I'm going to guess that they are saying that places that charge admission (theatres, sporting events, concerts, etc) are generally speaking places where people are closely packed together, and that a shooter (attacking or defending) or an negligent discharge would be more likely to result in serious injury and death, due to the large number of people in close quarters.

I don't AGREE with that restriction, I'm just trying to GUESS at what they are thinking...

And what's so special about a place that charges admission? That was done away with before and is now back, but still no reasoning as to why.

 

It could also be that those places are private, and maybe they wanted to make some allowance for private property rights? I am of course giving law makers the benefit of the doubt which is most likely a mistake, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while right?

 

Will have to read more but at first glance it creates a whole lot more of "special class" people who can carry at schools, but still not us mere serfs.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

They already have the special classes that can carry, LEO' Judges, even Correction Officers.

 

ncsa maybe, but i would expect more push back from those whose livelihood depends permits to carry. ie. the concealed carry training community.

Exactly, the most effective one's against this bill will come from within the gun community. Be ready to go against our own so called 2a supporters in business. Seen it happen in SC, pro gun people supporting gun control because the regulation / infringement helps them make a dollar.

 

Except it's not - "An assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto if notice is given that carrying a concealed weapon on the premises is prohibited by either the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises."

Only applies if it's posted.

Many national chains claim a corporate GFZ policy but the local chains post no signs. So all Is good to go.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

Ok, let's go by page:
1:
Remove the clause allowing laws to be made about concealed weapons.
Repeal:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-269.html
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-269.3.html
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_14/gs_14-269.4.html
http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-277.2.html

Pages 2-17 Are mostly reiterating the laws on the books, removing the references to the sections removed, and merging bits of those removed portions into the rest of the laws. Not much really changes, but they make it so any concealed weapon is covered. No worrying about fixed blade knives, spring assisted knives, slung shot, rifle that's in the back seat in a case. It's all gravy. Good first step. Now, if they can lighten the stuff about bars and schools.

Page 17-20 Pointing out that you don't need to get a CCP, but can for reciprocity.

Did I get all that right? It seems like a good first step. Wonder if it'll ever get to a vote, in any recognizeable form.

 

The NC constitution does need amended for true constitutional carry, but we still should support this bill allowing permitless concealed carry, even if it stays as written. It is a step in the right direction, more good than bad, and it will open up people being able to carry and defend themselves without having to obtain government permission and paying.

 

This sets up the amendment process to but it on the ballot to strike the last sentence of article 1 section 30. That would remove the mention of CC and legislating it from the NC constitution.

 

We need 1 sentence to state the right being preserved, and some additional text to reign in the State from screwing us out of it again.

Anything more than about a paragraph long is heading in the wrong direction.

 

We need 1 sentence to state the right being preserved, and some additional text to reign in the State from screwing us out of it again.

Anything more than about a paragraph long is heading in the wrong direction.

Challenge accepted:

The right to keep and bear arms in any way, shape, or form whatsoever, shall not be infringed in the slightest. All attempts to do so by legislation, adjudication, or executive action shall be terminated with extreme prejudice by firing squad.

How'd I do?

 

http://wncn.com/2016/06/12/proposed...nc-bill-making-it-easier-to-conceal-carry-causing-controversy-among-gun-owners/
Anybody else here not too pleased with Justin Card and Triangle Shooting Academy. I was looking for a gun-range in the Raleigh Area and that location was perfect on my way to work now they will not receive a dime of my money.

 

Here's his sole concern...the all mighty dollar:

Card says he has trained taught hundreds of people about fire arms, and it's a big responsibility to go through the CWP training.

"Great weight is placed upon our shoulders, because anyone we certify that has taken our class and passed the class is now going to be able to carry a concealed weapon in our state," said Card

It's an eight-hour class that Card has to be trained through the Department of Justice to teach. He says if he is not following the appropriate training procedure, or if one of the students he passes has an issue with a gun down the road he can be legally responsible.

All that would change with the bill.

"If someone's not motivated enough to sit in and take the North Carolina class to be able to carry a handgun in this state, they probably don't need to be carrying a hand gun," said Card.

 

.

 

Hmmm...multiple responses so far and nobody has pointed out that CHP doesn't equal CWP?

Anybody started causing a ruckus on their FB page?

Doesn't look like it. Swing away, Merrill.

https://www.facebook.com/TriangleShootingAcademy/

 

Further example of his self-aggrandizing:

He says if he is not following the appropriate training procedure, or if one of the students he passes has an issue with a gun down the road he can be legally responsible.

Horse pucky. All he has to do is document he gave the course properly. That's it. So long as he's following the minimum requirements, that's all that matters. And he won't be held liable for someone else's criminal use of a firearm, regardless. It's possible if it were some form of negligence, I suppose, but even so, that would be very difficult to prove. He's far more likely to simply get into trouble if he were caught violating the minimum requirements of the training, then have his "certification" removed.

 

.

 

Odds are they will delete any comments made.
new article link
http://wncn.com/2016/06/12/proposed...nc-bill-making-it-easier-to-conceal-carry-causing-controversy-among-gun-owners/