NC State Senator Peter Brunstetter (R-Forsyth) has introduced S. 124 which could be very well be renamed “The Don’t Be A Joe Biden” Law. The actual working title is “Shoot Gun From Inside/To Harm or Incite Fear”.
On Tuesday, Vice-President Joe Biden gave the following advice on a Facebook forum sponsored by Parents Magazine. It was in response to a question about families being left defenseless if a new assault weapons (sic) ban is passed.
“Kate,” he said, “if you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun, have the shells, a 12-gauge shotgun.”
It turns out that this is the same advice he gave his own wife on how to defend their home in rural Delaware.
“I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here. Walk out and put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house’ … You don’t need an AR-15—it’s harder to aim … It’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun! Buy a shotgun!”
Of course it is stupid advice to tell someone to fire any firearm into the air as a warning.
S. 124 would make it a Class E felony to fire a gun from inside a structure so as to “incite fear”.
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO MAKE IT A CRIMINAL OFFENSE TO DISCHARGE A FIREARM FROM WITHIN AN ENCLOSURE WITH THE INTENT TO DO HARM OR INCITE FEAR.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Article 8 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
“§ 14-34.10. Discharge firearm within enclosure to do harm or incite fear.
Unless covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who willfully or wantonly discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm within any building, structure, motor vehicle, or other conveyance, erection, or enclosure with the intent to do harm or incite fear shall be punished as a Class E felon.”
SECTION 2. This act becomes effective December 1, 2013, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
I have no idea whether this bill will become law. While I enjoy tweaking the Vice-President, I could see an over-zealous prosecutor using this to weaken the protections afforded by the Castle Doctrine.
5 thoughts on “Don’t Be A Joe Biden Law Introduced In NC State Senate”
Let's start with the obvious. This is a bad law. It deserves to be voted down, folded until it's sharp corners, doused with kerosene, lit on fire, and shoved up the nether regions of whoever proposed it.
That out of the way, the reason for this law has nothing to do with Castle. It's a rehash of an old law that was voted down before. It's intended as a "Drive By Shooting Ban." The problem is that it's so poorly written. That, plus it seeks to criminalize behavior that's already criminal. Double illegal?
I don't see it going anywhere. Brunstettler is a GRNC 4 star, evaluated with a 100% voting record. I imagine that if GRNC asks him to rewrite the bill, he'll do so.
LOL, good idea… I'd name it the Biden law!
I'm rapidly coming to the point where the only new Gun Laws I want to see introduced are the ones Repealing the Bad Laws.
Knowing how these DemaCommies Pounced on the Newtown Massacre, I fear any new Law will twisted if they come into power and be used against the RKBA.
So this makes me a "Class E Felon" if I use my weapon indoors to shoot an armed burgler? What about if, through my kitchen window, I shoot the coyote in my back yard that's attacking my dog? Am I a criminal if I shoot the man who is trying to carjack me while I am still seated in the car? Sounds to me like maybe Joe Biden is smarter than the person who dreamed up this law.
The NC Legislature has long been a silly place. Decades ago when I was in high school I spent a week as a legislative intern. The highlight of my week there was seeing an amendment submitted to a bill, which simply and succinctly stated that any amendment proposed by Representative X of the minority party should be considered to be automatically voted down.
After the laughter had died down in the House, the Speaker pointed out that while the proposed amendment was certainly desirable as a matter of law it would not succeed either against a court challenge nor the perseverance of the named Rep, and the amendment was tabled.
This is more of the same.
Comments are closed.