by Tam at View from the Porch on the Department of Education using a SWAT team to collect a defaulted student loan:
Look me in the eye and defend this. No, wait… imagine looking Thomas Jefferson in the eye and defending this.
Month: June 2011
How They Voted On NC’s HB 650
HB 650 is one of the two important gun rights bills to pass this North Carolina State House so far this session. The first was HB 111 which allows concealed carry holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (but not drink and carry) as well as carry in state, county, and municipal parks. HB 650 is the more important of the two because it contains the Castle Doctrine as well as a whole host of other improvements in North Carolina’s firearms laws. To get a section by section breakdown of all the bill does, go to A NC Gun Blog where Sean has a complete rundown on each section of the bill.
Because HB 650 is so important, it is critical to know who our friends were on the bill, who was against us, and who talks a good game but you can’t really trust with your gun rights. There were three votes of real consequence on the bill: the McGrady (A3) and Rapp (A4) Amendments and the vote on the Second Reading. Frankly, the vote on the Third Reading was mostly a pro forma vote with only one change – McGrady voting Aye instead of Not Voting – when compared to the Second Reading.
Amendment 3 – The McGrady Amendment
As discussed in more detail here, the McGrady Amendment removed the parking lot protections as well as protection from OSHA from the bill. A No vote on the amendment was the pro-gun vote.
Ayes
Democrat
Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Brisson; Bryant; Carney; Cotham; Crawford; Earle; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Graham; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Lucas; Luebke; Martin; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Owens; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble; Wray
Republican
Brubaker; Daughtry; Dockham; Dollar; Guice; Howard; McCormick; McGee; McGrady; Rhyne; Stam
Noes
Democrat
Faison; Hill; Spear
Republican
Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Dixon; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McElraft; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Pridgen; Randleman; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West
Not Voting
Democrats – None (Excused – Wilkins)
Republicans – Holloway; Murry; Tillis (SPEAKER)
Amendment 4 – The Rapp Amendment
The Rapp Amendment would have removed the protection given CHP holders on educational properties if they had a firearm in a locked car or locked case within the motor vehicle. Again, a No vote was the pro-gun vote. Unlike the McGrady Amendment, this one failed.
Ayes
Democrat
Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Brisson; Bryant; Carney; Crawford; Earle; Faison; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Graham; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Hill; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Lucas; Luebke; Martin; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Owens; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Spear; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble; Wray
Republican
Guice; Holloway; Howard; Samuelson; Stam
Noes
Democrat
None
Republican
Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; McGrady; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West
Not Voting
Democrats: None (2 Excused – Cotham; Wilkins)
Republicans: Murry; Tillis (SPEAKER)
Second Reading
An Aye vote on the Second Reading is the pro-gun vote. Unlike the almost pro forma vote on the Third Reading, a vote on the Second Reading is the make or break vote.
Ayes
Democrat
Brandon; Brisson; Crawford; Faison; Graham; Hill; Lucas; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Owens; Spear; Wray
Republican
Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Guice; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Murry; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West
Noes
Democrat
Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Bryant; Carney; Cotham; Earle; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Luebke; Martin; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble
Republican
None
Not Voting
Democrats: None (Excused – Wilkins)
Republicans: Boles; Holloway; McGrady; Tillis (SPEAKER)
HB 650 Passes Third Reading
HB 650 has passed the Third Reading and is being sent to the Senate. While I didn’t expect it to happen tonight, it did. The final vote was 77 Ayes to 39 Nays.(corrected)
A fourth weakening amendment to the bill was proposed by Rep. Ray Rapp (D-Madison) who just happens to be my state representative and one of the Minority Whips. His amendment would have deleted that part of Section 4 (see below) which would have allowed a concealed carry holder to have his firearm in a locked car or locked container while on educational property.
(f1) It shall not be a violation of either subsection (b) or (f) of this section for any person to possess or carry a firearm on educational property or to a curricular or extracurricular activity sponsored by a school if the person has a permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter or that is valid under G.S. 14-415.24 and the firearm is 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.
Rapp’s amendment failed 55 Ayes to 61 Nays.
Hopefully, the Clerk of the House will have the roll-call votes available tomorrow so we can see who are our friends, who are just kinda with us unless they can find an alterative, and those who are against gun rights in general.
More On HB 650 From GRNC
Grass Roots North Carolina’s leadership is pissed about the way certain Republicans including House Majority Leader Paul Stam are treating HB 650. Normally, the Third Reading is done almost immediately and is pro forma. Delaying the Third Reading is done when opponents want to put further amendments on a bill.
Dead-of-night sellout by some members of GOP stands to gut HB 650
Over the strenuous objections of HB 650 sponsor Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, GRNC ****), part of the Republican caucus is still hammering at HB 650. After first deciding to take up the third and final reading for the bill tomorrow, instead they are taking up the bill again with the intention of stripping language enabling concealed handgun permit-holders to keep firearms in locked compartments on educational property.
Earlier, under the direction of Reps. Paul Stam (R-Wake) and Chuck McGrady (R-Henderson), the following Republicans voted to remove the provision allowing concealed handgun permit-holders to keep guns in locked vehicles at places of employment. The anti-gun votes by Republicans were cast by: Brubaker, Daughtry, Dockham, Dollar, Guice, Howard, McCormick, McGee, McGrady, Rhyne, and Stam.
HB 650 Passes 2nd Reading In NC House But With Amendments
The North Carolina State House passed HB 650 which amends various firearms laws and includes the Castle Doctrine on the 2nd Reading. There is no report of the actual vote totals yet on the North Carolina General Assembly website or if it was even a roll-call vote. The bill will now go for its 3rd and final Reading before it is sent to the State Senate.
Unfortunately, the bill did not pass unscathed. There were three amendments to the bill that were considered and passed before the bill passed its 2nd Reading.
Amendment 1 was sponsored by Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) who was one of the primary sponsors of HB 650. This amendment seems to be merely clarifying language which doesn’t weaken the bill. This amendment was adopted unanimously.
Amendment 2 was also sponsored by Rep. Hilton and it slightly weakened the protections given to those who use defensive force. The presumption remains that a person had a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury and was justified in using defensive force if someone was illegally and forcefully attempting to enter a motor vehicle, home, or workplace and if the person using the defensive force had reason to believe that the attacker or entrant was doing so illegally. However, this presumption is now rebuttable in all cases. Previously, only the presumption for using defensive force in a motor vehicle or workplace was rebuttable. In essence, law enforcement and prosecutors can now try to impeach your story if you use defensive force to protect your home as well as your car and place of business. This amendment passed 112 to 3.
Amendment 3 was sponsored by freshman Rep. Chuck McGrady (R-Henderson). This amendment which passed 59-57 deletes the section of the bill that prohibited employers from banning storage of a firearm in a locked vehicle and the section that stated the carrying of a handgun by those with handgun permits when allowed by the business, commercial enterprise, property owner, or employer did not constitute an occupation safety and health hazard. Thus employers still can force their employees to be at risk on their way to work and the Federal agency OSHA can still harass businesses or property owners who recognize the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
I don’t have the vote breakdown on Amendment 3 but I am making the presumption that it was a coalition of wobbly Republicans and anti-gun Democrats who provided the bare majority for this amendment to pass. I am guessing the rationale given by the Republicans will be that they were respecting property rights and the Democrats that a gun near the workplace will cause a worker to go “postal”. If I am incorrect on this once the roll-call vote becomes available, I will make the correction. However, I doubt that I am wrong.
I will be emailing Mr. McGrady tonight to see if I can get an explanation for his actions.
UPDATE: That was quick. I have gotten a response from Rep. McGrady and I was correct – the rationale was “property rights”. His response is below.
Chuck: I offered the amendment because I felt that the bill, as drafted, infringed upon private property rights. I think the vote count reflects the fact that these are hard issues when one has to balance one person’s rights against another person’s rights. Thanks for your question.
I have sent a response back to him asking for more detail as Section 27 seems to me to give private property owners more – not less – protection by protecting them from claims that they are allowing an occupational safety and health hazard when they allow handgun permit holders to carry on the property.
UPDATE II: WRAL-TV is reporting by Twitter that the vote on the 2nd Reading was 77 Ayes to 38 Nays.
WRAL also reported that the bill’s sponsor Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) and Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake), House Majority Leader clashed over property rights versus gun rights on the House floor. Stam, who has stood in the way of more expansive gun rights legislation, reportedly said “land property rights predate gun rights.”
Official Notice Of House Oversight Committee Hearing
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee just posted their official notice of the hearing into Operation Fast and Furious. It will be a full committee meeting and is schedule for 2 hours on the afternoon of June 13th.
Full House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Hearing
Date: Monday, June 13, 2011
Duration: 2 Hours
Contact Info: (202) 225-5074The Full Committee hearing entitled, “Obstruction of Justice: Does the Justice Department Have to Respond to a Lawfully Issued and Valid Congressional Subpoena?” will take place at 1:00pm on Monday, June 13th in room 2154 of Rayburn House Office Building.
The hearing will be streamed live at http://oversight.house.gov
I have to work that day but I definitely plan to watch as much of it as possible as it streams live.
UPDATE: The Oversight Committee has released a notice that includes the witness list. The main purpose of this hearing is to establish the constitutional framework for issuing subpoenas to the Executive Branch. The time has been pushed back to 1:30pm EDT from the 1pm previously reported.
Operation Fast and Furious Hearing to be Held June 13th
Title: Obstruction of Justice: Does the Justice Department Have to Respond to a Lawfully Issued and Valid Congressional Subpoena?
Date/Time: 1:30 p.m. on Monday June 13th
Location: 2154 Rayburn House Office Building
This hearing will examine the constitutional questions raised by both the Department of Justice’s refusal to comply with a Congressional subpoena as well as the withholding of documents from a Congressional subpoena. It is the first in a series of hearings on Operation Fast and Furious.
The following witnesses are currently slated to appear at the hearing. Testimony will be posted online as it becomes available. The hearing will be webcast live at Oversight.House.Gov.
Witnesses
• Professor Charles Tiefer, Commissioner, Commission on Wartime Contracting
Professor Tiefer was chief litigator for the House of Representatives and was a courtroom advocate in numerous major cases. He served in 1996 as deputy minority counsel of the U.S. House “Bosniagate” investigating sub-committee and in 1987 as the Special Deputy Chief Counsel for the House Iran-Contra Committee. Professor Tiefer has had extensive immersion in investigative processes on diverse issues, including oversight investigations of foreign affairs and government contracting. He was appointed to his current role by Senator Harry Reid.
• Mr. Morton Rosenberg, Former Specialist in American Public Law with the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Mr. Rosenberg specialized in the areas of constitutional law, administrative law and process, congressional practice and procedure, and labor law, and in the problems raised by the interface of Congress and the Executive which involve the scope of the congressional oversight and investigative prerogatives, the validity of claims of executive and common law privileges before committees, and issues raised by the presidential exercise of temporary and recess appointment power.
• Mr. Todd Tatelman, Legislative Attorney, Congressional Research Service’s American Law Division
Mr. Tatelman specializes and advises Members of Congress, Committees, and Staff in the areas of Congressional Laws and Procedure (oversight and investigations), Constitutional Law, Transportation Law, and International Trade Law.
Winning
KCRA Television reports that concealed carry permits are up dramatically in Sacramento, California. According to reporter Danielle Leigh, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office has approved more concealed carry permits this year than in the history of the department. While neither she nor the spokesman for the Sheriff’s Office mention it, this is directly attributable to the agreement reached by the Second Amendment Foundation and the CalGuns Foundation with the Sheriff’s Department where “self-defense” is now recognized as showing “good cause”.
The reporter asks the Sheriff’s Department spokesman whether the rise in CCW permits means things are “out of control” and he replies, “I don’t think so.”
There is the obligatory interview with a Brady Campaign representative. Rebecca Gonzales says she is afraid that “gun violence” will go up. The response from the Sheriff’s Department spokesman is that they have never had anyone shot by a CCW holder and that he hopes that trend continues.
Click on the link below to watch the video report.
Concealed Weapons Permits Up In Sacramento – Video – KCRA Sacramento
H/T Josh
GRNC On HB 111 – Guns In Restaurants And Parks
Grass Roots North Carolina issued a member alert this evening on HB 111 which would allow concealed carry in restaurants and eating places that serve alcohol and would allow concealed carry in state, county, and municipal parks. This bill has passed the State House and is now in committee in the State Senate. While it has met the crossover deadline, it would be nice if it were passed before the General Assembly adjourns for this session.
Haven’t You Waited Long Enough?
HB 111, the long-awaited Parks and Restaurants bill, is currently awaiting action in the Senate Judiciary II Committee. You, the gun owning public, have been patient. Now, it seems that you have waited long enough. The NC House has done its part in moving this vital bill forward. It is time for the Senate to do its part. Raise your voices and tell them you want action before the Senate adjourns.
Permit-Holders Proven Responsible
According to the NC State Bureau of Investigation, 336,743 concealed handgun permits have been approved, yet only 1007 (0.29% — less than 1/3 of a single percent) have been revoked for any reason, with most revocations unrelated to guns.
Although the SBI doesn’t track reasons for revocation, evidence from elsewhere suggests the vast majority of revocations are for reasons unrelated to guns. In Florida, for example, where 1,935,222 permits were issued, only 168 (.009%) were revoked due to misuse of firearms.
As in the 37 other states with concealed handgun laws, North Carolina permit-holders have a 16 year track record of proving themselves sane, sober and law-abiding.
“Wild west” predictions of “shootings at traffic lights” by the law’s opponents have proven false in North Carolina as in all of the 37 states which have adopted such laws.
Why Parks?
State parks: Although violent crime overall has dropped by 27.7% since inception of concealed carry, ostensibly “gun free” state parks have not benefited from the deterrence effect of the law, experiencing only an estimated drop of 8.93%, including an estimated 72 violent crimes and 1278 property crimes.
Municipal parks: Violent crime rates for municipal parks are not tracked by the State Bureau of Investigation, but urban settings and frequent news reports of rapes, murders and assaults suggests a much higher rate and number of violent crimes, perhaps numbering in the thousands.
Deterrence effect: Controlled, multi-variate studies of concealed handgun permit laws around the country show they deter murder, rape and aggravated assault.
Net benefit: Beyond allowing joggers, hikers and families enjoying North Carolina’s state and municipal parks to protect themselves against violent predators, HB 111 is likely to create a drop in crime by deterring criminals who search for unarmed victims.
Why Restaurants?
Restaurant carry is not untested: Even The New York Times admits that at least 39 states (by some counts, 40 states) permit concealed carry in restaurants.
Even a simple buffet restaurant is off limits to concealed carry if it has an on-premises alcohol consumption permit. When concealed handgun permit-holders go to such restaurants, they and their families are unprotected not only there but also in surrounding neighborhoods and parking lots.
Nothing would change the current prohibition on consuming alcohol while carrying concealed firearms contained in § 14-415.11 (c).
Restaurant owners would still have the option of posting against firearms under § 14-415.11 (c).
The North Carolina Restaurant & Lodging Association (NCRLA) has said that it does not oppose the bill.
GRNC strongly advises you to oppose the “Guice Amendment,” made in the House, under which municipalities could ban firearms in recreational facilities. Those facilities are precisely where permit-holders most need to protect family members.
Both Virginia (4/10) and Tennessee (6/10) have adopted restaurant carry without reported problems.
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
Contact
Contact the members of the Senate Leadership (listed following the message).
Deliver this message:Dear Senator:
I am writing you to let you know that HB 111, “Handgun Permit Valid in Parks & Restaurants,” is a priority. It is time for you to act. The NC House has done their part and now it is time for you to do yours. NC Republicans were elected for a reason. Act now to push HB 111 forward.
I urge you support and pass this important bill. I will be monitoring the progress of HB 111 and your actions on this matter through the alerts of Grass Roots North Carolina.
Sincerely,
A Concerned North Carolina Voter
Contact these legislators:
Full Contact Info:
Sen. Phil Berger
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2008
Raleigh, NC 27601-2808
(919) 733-5708
Phil.Berger@ncleg.netSen. Tom Apodaca
16 W. Jones Street, Room 2010
Raleigh, NC 27601-2808
(919) 733-5745
Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.netSenator Austin M. Allran
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 625
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
(919) 733-5876
Austin.Allran@ncleg.netSenator Warren Daniel
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 411
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
(919) 715-7823
Warren.Daniel@ncleg.netSenator E. S. (Buck) Newton
300 N. Salisbury Street, Room 410
Raleigh, NC 27603-5925
(919) 715-3030
Buck.Newton@ncleg.net
HB 650 – Up For Vote In NC House Tomorrow
The amended HB 650 is calendared for its 2nd and 3rd Readings in the North Carolina State House tomorrow. If it passes, it will beat the crossover deadline of June 9th.
The amended bill includes various amendments to North Carolina’s gun laws plus the Castle Doctrine which was added to the 2nd Edition of HB 650.
Sean at An NC Gun Blog has an in-depth study of each section of the original bill here.
UPDATE: A brief outline of the changes in the bill from the original to the bill up for a vote. Firearms during emergencies has been dropped from the bill and castle doctrine added. Thanks to Sean Sorrentino for outlining the changes.
section 1-3 Castle bill
4- retains wording that says you can have a gun on campus if locked in your vehicle
5 = old section 2
6 = 3
7 = 4
8 is HUGE, rewrites the stupid Mass Death and Destruction law. Now you can own if you own in compliance w/ federal law!
9 more changes to Mass Death and Destruction
10 clarifies law allowing police officers to buy pistols w/out permits.
11 is an Anti-Bloomburg sting law
12 buy long guns out of state
13 parking lot law
14 = old section 9
15 only have to notify officer if he is in the performance of his official duties
16 = old section 10
17 = old section 12
18 = old section 13
19 = old section 14
20 = old section 15
21 = old section 16
22 = old section 17
23 lowers the punishment for not carrying CHP card to an infraction – old section 18 just repealed the punishment entirely
24 = old section 19
25 = old section 20
26 = clarifies that ban on gun ownership and possession during protective order is only in effect if so ordered by court
27 says that guns in places of business is not an OSHA violation and that the Atty General must intervene to protect private owners against OSHA
28 = old section 21
29 says everything starts on DEC 1.
June’s Gun Contests
Aaron at the Weapon-Blog has just posted his list of gun contests for the month. This looks to be a really good month for contests with a Sig 220, a couple of Smith and Wessons, a Glock 20 and a Nighthawk 1911in the handgun category. The rifle category has some really cool stuff including a SCAR 16, a LaRue Tactical AR-15, and a Kriss Vector. Having shot the Kriss, I can tell you it is a really cool gun.
Make sure to thank Aaron for this great service he does on a monthly basis.