North Carolina

Uncategorized

“An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” – Part I

May 19, 2015 by 1 Comment

The North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 1318 on March 10, 1919 and ushered in what we now call the pistol purchase permit system. Attempts to overturn this 96-year old law failed in the last session of the North Carolina General Assembly due to opposition from the sheriffs’ lobby. The battle is continuing in this session of the General Assembly with gun rights groups and Republicans on one side and gun control groups, the NC Sheriffs Association, and Democrats on the other.

In an earlier post, I detailed some of the racial climate of North Carolina and how that led to the bill’s passage. This post will detail how the law has changed over the years since 1919. In subsequent posts, I plan to examine the personalities involved, the political machine behind it, and the bills passage through both houses of the General Assembly. While we are currently fighting the NC Sheriffs Association over the passage of HB 562, it was not until 1959 that the duty of issuing purchase permits was transferred from the Clerks of the Superior Court to the sheriffs.

The Law As Passed

Chapter 197 of the 1919 Session Laws reads:

The General Assenibly of North Carolina do enact:
Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or
corporation in this State to sell, give away or dispose of, or to
purchase or receive, at any place within the State from any other
place within or without the State, without a license or permit
therefor shall have first been obtained by such purchaser or
receiver from the clerk of the Superior Court of the county
which such purchase, sale, or transfer is intended to be made,
any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or
metallic knucks.

Sec. 2. That the clerks of the Superior Courts of any and all
counties of this State are hereby authorized and directed to issue
to any person, firm, or corporation in any such county a license
or permit to purchase or receive any weapon mentioned in section
one of this act from any person, firm, or corporation offering
to sell or dispose of the same, which said license or permit shall
be in the following form, to wit:

North Carolina,
______________________County.
I, ___________________________clerk of the Superior Court of said
county, do hereby certify that ___________________________whose
place of residence is ________________________________Street, in
____________________(or) in______________________ Township
_________________________County, North Carolina, having this day
satisfied me as to his, her (or) their good moral character, and
that the possession of one of the weapons described in section one
of this act is necessary for self-defense or the protection of the
home, a license or permit is therefore hereby given said________________
_________________________________________to purchase one pistol,
(or) ____________________________________________from any per-
(If any other weapon is named, strike out word pistol.)
son, firm, or corporation authorized to dispose of the same.
This ______________day of ______________________________, 19___

Clerk Superior Court.

Sec. 3. That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

Sec. 4. That the clerk of the Superior Court shall keep a
book, to be provided by the board of commissioners of each
county, in which he shall keep a record of all licenses or permits
issued under this act, including the name, date, place of residence,
age, former place of residence, etc., of each such person,
firm, or corporation to whom or which a license or permit shall
have been so issued.

Sec. 5. That each and every dealer in pistols, pistol cartridges
and other weapons mentioned in section one of this act shall keep
an accurate record of all sales thereof, including the name, place
of residence, date of sale, etc., of each person, firm, or corporation,
to whom or which any and all such sales are made, which said
record shall be open to the inspection of any duly constituted
State, county or police officer, within this State.

Sec. 6. That during the period of listing taxes in each year
the owner or person in possession or having the custody or care
of any pistol or other weapon mentioned in section one of this
act shall he, and is hereby, required to list the same specifically,
together with the value thereof, as is now required by law for
listing other personal property for taxes : Provided, that all
persons listing any such weapons for taxes as aforesaid shall also
be required to designate his place of residence, local street address,
or otherwise as the case may be.

Sec. 7. That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of
the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 8. That upon submission or conviction of any person in
this State for unlawfully carrying concealed weapons off of his
own premises, the pistol or other deadly weapon with reference
to which the defendant shall have been convicted shall be condemned
and ordered confiscated and destroyed by the judge presiding
at any such trial.

Sec. 9. That this act shall be in force from and after the first
day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.
Ratified this 10th day of March. A.D. 1910.

 1923 Amendment


The General Assembly adopted two changes to the original concealed weapons bill. First, it made it unlawful to receive one of the weapons mentioned in the original bill by mail, railroad express, or any other common carrier unless you possessed the permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court. You were also required to present that permit to the mail carrier, postmaster, railroad agent, etc before taking delivery of the weapon.

This amendment also specified the fine and potential prison term for violation of the law. Fines were to be from $50 to $250 while the prison terms were not less than 30 days nor more than six months. All of the above were at the discretion of the court.

1947 Amendment

The changes to the law in 1947 were very minor. As part of an omnibus revision of a number of state statutes, blackjacks and slung-shot were added to the list of weapons that required a purchase permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court.

1959 Amendment

HB 1048 made major changes in the administration of the purchase permit law. It transferred responsibility from the Clerks of the Superior Court and gave it to the Sheriff of each county. The sheriffs were now made responsible for issuing permits and keeping records of the issuance of the permits. It was also the sheriff’s responsibility to dispose of confiscated weapons.

Interestingly, this amendment did not apply in all counties. 41 counties were excluded from this act. While most were small counties in the eastern and western parts of the state, the most significant exclusion was Mecklenburg County.

1971 Amendment

Historic edged weapons were defined to be any bayonet, trench knife, sword, or dagger manufactured during or prior to WWII (as late as January 1, 1946). These and antique firearms previously defined as those made prior to 1899 or muzzle loading firearms were excluded from the purchase permit requirement. As an aside, it is interesting that edged weapons from the Korean Conflict and Vietnam War were not excluded.

1979 Amendment


Three significant changes were made in this amendment by SB 213. First, the permit was now required to be obtained from the sheriff in the county in which the purchaser or receiver resided. It has been previously required to be obtained in the county in which the sale or receipt took place.

The second major change was that any provisions of local acts in conflict with these changes were repealed. As noted in the 1959 Amendment, it only applied to 59 counties.

The third major change was that the list of weapons now only included pistols. Dirks, daggers, bowie knives, metallic knucks, blackjacks, slung shot, and “so-called pump guns” were now excluded from the permit requirement.

Interesting Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 still refer to obtaining permits from the Clerk of the Superior Court even though this requirement was changed in 1959.

1993 Amendment

While the 1979 amendment dropped everything but pistols from the permit requirement, this amendment headed in the opposite direction by adding crossbows to the law. Crossbows were added because a person ineligible to purchase a firearm used a crossbow to murder someone in Union County according to former Union County sheriff and later NC Rep. Frank McGuirt.

1994 Amendment

This amendment was part of a larger omnibus bill that codified classes of misdemeanors. Rather than being a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment of up to six months, the penalty was now listed as a “Class 2” misdemeanor. This was the mid-range classification which meant imprisonment for more than 30 days but less than six months.

2003 Amendments

HB 817 provided that a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit could substitute for the pistol/crossbow purchase permit.

HB 281 made grammatical corrections and changes to the law.

2009 Amendment

These changes concerned crossbows and the definition of a crossbow dealer, manufacturer, and wholesaler. It deemed the permits issued to dealers, wholesalers, and manufacturers as being continuing permits with no expiration date.

2011 Amendment

Just as the 1993 bill added the crossbow to the purchase permit requirement, so SB 406 repealed the requirement to get a “pistol permit” to buy a crossbow.

This bill also clarified that persons under indictment for or who have been convicted of a felony were not eligible to be issued permits. However, pursuant to a NC Supreme Court ruling, the bill excepted those convicted of felonies involving antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, or restraints of trade. It also said that a person who had been pardoned or who had his or her firearm rights restored could obtain a pistol purchase permit.

Uncategorized

If You Support A Law That Is Based On Racism, Are You A Racist?

May 14, 2015 by 6 Comments

The headline to this post is meant to be provocative. In the last couple of days, I have received numerous emails from gun prohibitionists groups and have seen Everyday Moms for Illegal Mayors launch a media campaign all of which is intended to keep in place North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit system.

§ 14-402 and § 14-403 of the North Carolina General Statutes were originally passed in 1919 and gave the Clerk of the Superior Court (later given to the Sheriff) of each North Carolina county the power to determine just who of their county’s residents would be eligible to purchase a handgun. Note that this preceded the Gun Control Act of 1968 by almost 50 years. Firearms of all sorts could still be purchased over the counter and through the mails. So why would the North Carolina General Assembly give Clerks of the Superior Court such power? Below is a little context.

The end of the Great War in 1918 saw the return of many African-American veterans who had served in segregated military units. They had served their country both home and abroad and were now coming home expecting some recognition of their rights. W.E.B. DuBois had encouraged black veterans to not just return home but to return home fighting against Southern racism.

At an Emancipation Day ceremony in Raleigh in January 1919, a crowd of 3,000 passed resolutions condemning lynching and attacking segregation. Through the 1920s, the annual commemorations of emancipation as well as the Armistice ending World War I remained occasions for rallies. Editorials in the black press in Durham and Raleigh frequently called for improvements in, if not an end to, the Jim Crow system.

White North Carolinians listened with concern to the outbursts of black protests after the War, but they managed to preserve both white supremacy and the myth that black North Carolinians were contented with legal segregation and Jim Crow. North Carolina’s postwar reconsideration of racial relations and racial policy took place in the context of the nationwide “Red Scare” between 1918 and 1921, touched off by fears of communist and foreign subversion.

Adding to this general fear was Winston-Salem’s November 17, 1918 riot over the attempted lynching of a black man who had been erroneously accused of raping a white woman. Most of the rioting was done by whites but it was the black community which had the tanks sitting in their streets.

The General Assembly passed “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” on March 10, 1919. It required a permit to purchase “any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks.” The “so-called pump-gun” is, as best as I can determine, what we would now call a pump shotgun. Section 3 of Chapter 197 reads:

That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

The Clerk and the firearms dealer were both required to keep records of the permittees/purchasers including name, age, residence, former residence, “etc.”  The owner of the firearm was also required to list it as personal property with the local tax authorities.

Let’s think about this a bit. Who would be considered to be a person of “good moral character” in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by “etc.” which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of “good moral character” would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. I would also assume that the race of the purchaser was intended to be kept as part of the records.

Given the state of race relations in North Carolina in 1919 and the contextual background of this law, I defy anyone to say that there is no racial component to this law. It may not have said de jure that blacks couldn’t possess pistols and other weapons but that was the de facto reality.

So I say to Mike Bloomberg, Gabby Giffords, Dan Gross, Shannon Watts, and all the others of their ilk who have been agitating against HB 562, does not your support for the continuation of a law conceived in racism make you just a wee bit racist yourself?

Uncategorized

Two Gun Rights Alienage Wins In North Carolina

April 27, 2015 by 2 Comments

The Second Amendment Foundation brought suit on behalf of Felicity Veasey, an Australian citizen, for being denied the right to apply for a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit. She is a permanent legal resident married to a US citizen living in Granville County. The suit sought to enjoin the enforcement of the state requirement that one must be a US citizen to obtain a CHP. The case was started in June 2014.

The ACLU and the Second Amendment Foundation have won a number of lawsuits challenging the denial of gun rights based on alienage. Between the two, they have won cases in Kentucky, South Dakota, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Massachusetts on behalf of permanent legal residents. Discrimination based upon alienage is considered constitutionally suspect and an regulation or law must be examined under strict scrutiny.

Another case was filed in March 2015 on behalf of Kristen Messmer of Wake County, a German citizen who is a permanent legal resident and who also sought a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit. Her attorney was Camden Webb who also served as co-counsel in the Veasey case.

The cases, though not officially joined, were both heard by US District Court Judge Terrence Boyle of the Eastern District of NC. He granted a preliminary injunction in both cases on Thursday and the opinions were released on Friday afternoon. With the exception of the background of the plaintiffs, the wording in the opinions is virtually word for word the same.

After noting that permanent residents have many of the same constitutional rights as US citizens including their Second Amendment rights, Judge Boyle wrote:

No defendant has proffered a strong argument in support of limiting the concealed carry
statute to citizens. No defendant objected to plaintiffs’ characterization in court that resident
aliens are allowed to possess firearms on their premises and are even allowed to carry firearms
openly in North Carolina. In fact, the Sheriff stated in court that he agreed with plaintiffs that the
law at issue in this case was unconstitutional. In light of other court rulings, the law in North
Carolina, and defendants’ postures in this case, plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely
to succeed on the merits.


The Court further finds that in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief, plaintiffs will
suffer irreparable harm. The deprivation of a constitutional right, even if only briefly, constitutes
irreparable harm.

Professor Eugene Volokh has also covered the Messmer case at the Volokh Conspiracy.

The North Carolina General Assembly, if it were smart, would save the state some money and make the necessary corrections to state law. Judge Boyle issued a preliminary injunction and further hearings and filings would be needed for the permanent injunction.

Uncategorized

There Will Always Be An Exception

February 10, 2015 by 1 Comment

Holders of concealed carry permits have been shown to be more law-abiding than law enforcement officers over the years. That hasn’t stopped groups like the Violence Policy Center from doing everything in their power to portray permit holders as killers and wild cowboys with itchy trigger fingers.

Just as a bad cop is an exception to the norm, so too is a concealed carry holder that commits murder. Unfortunately, we in North Carolina now have one of those exceptions. A 62-year old man who held a NC Concealed Handgun Permit killed one person, wounded another, and killed the wounded woman’s unborn child. He then killed himself. The murder-suicide reportedly stemmed from a business dispute according to local papers.

Sean Sorrentino has much more detail and commentary on the incident. I’d suggest going there to learn more about this story.

All I can say is that it is a sad thing all around but that it is an exceptional one. And being exceptional, it is not reflective on concealed carry holders nor concealed carry in general. Even the Chicago Tribune concedes this point noting that it has been a quiet first year after Illinois finally got shall-issue concealed carry.

Uncategorized

Incoming Speaker of NC House Is Good On Guns

November 23, 2014 by 1 Comment

The Republican majority in the North Carolina House of Representatives elected Rep. Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) to replace Senator-elect Thom Tillis as Speaker. Moore, a Kings Mountain attorney, was selected on the first ballot by House Republicans as they met in Asheboro.

Moore won a majority of votes from the 73 GOP lawmakers that met at Randolph Community College. He beat Reps. Justin Burr of Albemarle, Mitchell Setzer of Catawba, John Blust of Greensboro, Leo Daughtry of Smithfield and Bryan Holloway of King.


Rep. Paul “Skip” Stam of Wake County was nominated as speaker pro tem. Rep. Mike Hager of Rutherford County was elected majority leader and John Bell from Wayne County, majority whip.


Huntersville Republican Charles Jeter was unopposed for conference chair, a post in which he’ll oversee campaigns and fundraising.

Moore was ranked second in the NC House in terms of effectiveness by the North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research. He had chaired the House Rules Committee.

So what does this mean for gun rights in North Carolina?

Moore was recommended by Grass Roots North Carolina-PVF where he was ranked 4 stars. He was endorsed by the NRA Political Victory Fund and rated as A+.  That’s a good start. It does get better as Rep. Moore was one of the speakers at a gun rights rally in 2013 organized by GRNC. Given their reputation as a “no compromise” organization, the fact that Moore would be one of the speakers says volumes about him.

It was through the efforts of Moore as head of the Rules Committee that Durham County’s 80 year old gun registry was scrapped.

What about the rest of the Republicans in the House leadership?

Rep. Skip Stam (R-Wake) who will be Speaker Pro Tem is, at best, mediocre. He was rated B- by the NRA-PVF and did not receive an endorsement. Stam was not recommended by GRNC-PVF and was rated a mere 2 stars. He was characterized as a “weasel” by GRNC for his efforts to weaken some of the gun rights laws that passed the General Assembly in the last two sessions.

Rep. Mike Hager (R-Rutherford) who will be the House Majority Leader is much better. He received both a recommendation and 4 stars from the GRNC-PVF while also getting an A and the endorsement from the NRA-PVF. Hager was one of the sponsors of the bill that made the names of NC CHP and pistol permit applicants private.

Rep. John Bell (R-Wayne) is slated to be the House Majority Whip. He was rated as 4 stars by GRNC-PVF and was recommended. The NRA-PVF graded him an “A” and gave him their endorsement. His website points out the fallacy of gun-free zones and says they put innocent lives at risk. He sponsored HB937 which increased the number of places firearms would be permitted.

Rep. Charles Jeter (R-Mecklenburg) is the Republican Conference Chair. He was rated 3 stars by GRNC-PVF but was recommended. The NRA-PVF graded him an “A” and gave him their endorsement. His position on the Second Amendment post-Newtown was not to be reactionary like legislators on New York and Connecticut.

One thing I think should be pointed about this House leadership is their relative youth. Speaker-elect Tim Moore is 44, Conference Chair Charles Jeter is 41, and while I don’t have the exact age for Majority Whip John Bell, he appears to be in his late 30s to early 40s. House Majority Leader Mike Hager is a little older at age 52. Speaker Pro Tem Skip Stam is the old guy of the bunch at 64 but, then again, the position traditionally is held by older legislators.

To conclude, with the exception of Skip Stam, the Republican House leadership for the upcoming session is good on guns. This is good news for gun rights bills that will be presented in the new session.

Uncategorized

GRNC Recommendations

November 3, 2014 by

Early voting ended Saturday in North Carolina. Despite having fewer days allocated to early voting, 17.4% of all registered voters have already voted. This is an increase 1.9% over the 2010 midterm election. More importantly, over 100,000 more registered Democrats have voted early than did in 2010. This is attributed to get out the efforts of the Democrats.

While both sides increased their turnout and both sides are touting it as a good sign for their candidates, gun rights supporters who haven’t voted need to get to the polls on Tuesday. I don’t think I need to reiterate what is at stake.

As a help for when you go to the polls, I’m publishing Grass Roots North Carolina’s recommendations for the US Senate and House and the North Carolina Senate and House.

While I can’t speak for other areas of the state, NC Representatives Ramsey, Moffitt, and Presnell have been extensively targeted by out-of-state money flowing into PACs. All three are good on guns and all have been recommended by GRNC. Rep. Michele Presnell (R-Haywood-Madison-Yancey) went so far as to ask my friend Tim who owns a local surplus store what she could do to help gun owners. He suggested uniform signage for stores like the Texas 30.06 requirement and she was quite interested in it.

GRNC-PVF CANDIDATE RECOMMENDATIONS
 

District #/Name
US SENATE NC HOUSE (cont’d) NC SENATE
TILLIS 059: HARDISTER 001: COOK

061: FAIRCLOTH 002: SANDERSON
US HOUSE 062: BLUST 004: SCOTT
001: RICH 063: ROSS 006: BROWN
002: ELLMERS 065: JONES 007: PATE
003: JONES 067: BURR 008: RABON
004: WRIGHT 068: HORN 010: JACKSON
005: FOXX 069: ARP 011: NEWTON
006: WALKER 070: HURLEY 012: RABIN
007: ROUZER 071: MCCANN 013: WHITE
008: HUDSON 073: ZACHARY 015: FULGHUM
009: PITTENGER 074: CONRAD 016: MITCHELL
010: MCHENRY 075: LAMBETH 017: FULGHUM
011: MEADOWS 076: FORD 018: BAREFOOT
012: COAKLEY 077: WARREN 019: MEREDITH
013: HOLDING 078: MCNEILL 023: LOPEZ-CARTER

079: HOWARD 024: GUNN
NC HOUSE 081: BROWN 026: BERGER
001: STEINBURG 082: PITTMAN 027: WADE
002: YARBOROUGH 083: JOHNSON 029: TILLMAN
003: SPECIALE 084: TURNER 030: RANDLEMAN
004: DIXON 085: DOBSON 031: KRAWIEC
005: PIERCE 086: BLACKWELL 033: BINGHAM
006: LAWSON 087: STARNES 034: BROCK
008: MARTIN 088: BRYAN 035: TUCKER
009: BROWN 089: SETZER 036: HARTSELL
010: BELL 090: STEVENS 038: RIVETTE
011: MARTIN 091: HOLLOWAY 039: RUCHO
013: MCCELRAFT 092: JETER 041: TARTE
014: CLEVELAND 093: JORDAN 042: WELLS
015: SHEPARD 094: ELMORE 043: HARRINGTON
016: MILLIS 096: ADAMS 044: CURTISS
017: ILER 097: SAINE 045: SOUCEK
019: DAVIS 098: BRADFORD 046: DANIEL
022: SMITH 103: BRAWLEY 047: HISE
025: COLLINS 104: CABLE 048: APODACA
026: DAUGHTRY 105: SCHAFFER 049: CRAWFORD
028: LANGDON 106: LOWE 050: DAVIS
033: WHITLOCK 107: ALEXANDER
036: DOLLAR 108: TORBETT
040: AVILA 109: BUMGARDNER
041: MURRY 110: HASTINGS
044: BUTTON 111: MOORE
045: SZOKA 112: HAGER
046: JONES 113: WHITMIRE
050: CHANEY 115: RAMSEY
051: STONE 116: MOFFITT
052: BOLES 118: PRESNELL
053: LEWIS 119: CLAMPITT
055: BRODY 120: WEST
056: CARTER

Uncategorized

North Carolina Judicial Races

October 25, 2014 by 1 Comment

North Carolina has a non-partisan electoral system for all levels of judges. Prior to 1996, judicial elections were partisan. Appellate level judgeships – Court of Appeals and Supreme Court – were the last to go non-partisan making the transition in 2002.

Given that, how can you figure out who is conservative and who is liberal? Or who is pro-gun and who is anti-gun. We recently saw what a difference it can make when Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens blatantly ignored the black letter law and allowed Ag Commissioner Steve Troxler (R-NC) to ban guns at the NC State Fair.

The State Board of Elections does put out a Judicial Voter Guide which includes a short statement from each candidate, gives their education and work history, and provides a link, if any, to their websites. To be frank, it is of little use other than to tell you some of their work history and educational background.

Fortunately, the candidates’ websites tend to be of more value. For example, Judge Bill Southern, who is running for the NC Court of Appeals against Judge Lucy Inman, tells you he is a member of the NRA and is part of the conservative/libertarian John Locke Foundation’s candidate development program. By contrast, Supreme Court Associate Justice Robin Hudson touts her endorsements from the Durham People’s Alliance, NC chapter of NOW, and the NC AFL-CIO. You can be pretty much assured that she is not a conservative.

The North Carolina Republican Party has issued their endorsements at the state level as has the Grass Roots North Carolina Political Victory Fund. With the exception of the “Martin seat”, they agree. The North Carolina Democratic Party also made endorsements which are 180 deg. from those below.

From the GOP:

Supreme Court Chief Justice
Judge Mark Martin


Supreme Court Justice (Martin seat)
Judge Bob Hunter


Supreme Court Justice (Hudson seat)
Judge Eric Levinson


Supreme Court Justice (Beasley seat)
Mike Robinson


Court of Appeals (Hunter seat)
Judge Bill Southern


Court of Appeals (Martin seat)
Judge John Tyson


Court of Appeals (Stroud seat)
Judge Donna Stroud (unopposed)


Court of Appeals (Davis seat)
Judge Paul Holcombe

Perhaps more important to gun owners is this list of endorsements from the GRNC PVF:

GRNC-PVF Judicial Candidate Recommendations:

Supreme Court (Chief Justice): Mark Martin
Supreme Court (Martin seat): Bob Hunter
Supreme Court (Hudson seat): Eric Levinson
Supreme Court (Beasley seat): Mike Robinson
Court of Appeals (Martin seat): Marion Warren
Court of Appeals (Hunter seat): Bill Southern
Court of Appeals (Stroud seat): Donna Stroud
Court of Appeals (Davis seat): Paul Holcombe

What is called the “Martin seat” is to fill the vacancy left open when Chief Judge John Martin retired. There are, believe it or not, 19 candidates for that open seat. In addition to the two people endorsed for this seat by the GOP and GRNC-PVF, Elizabeth Davenport Scott and Valerie Johnson Zachary are also worth a look. Both are Republicans. Zachary has been endorsed by Conservatives of Guilford County and touts herself a conservative. What makes her somewhat unusual is that she has a law degree from Harvard and practices in Yadkinville, pop. 2,818.

I did a blog post earlier this month regarding Judge Mark Davis who is seeking a full term on the Court of Appeals. Unless he is just a hired gun who will say anything to win a case, he is no friend of the Second Amendment. For that reason, Judge Paul Holcombe has my vote.

Early voting started on Thursday, October 23rd. To find out where you can vote early (assuming you are a registered NC voter), go here. The one thing to remember is that voting a straight ticket won’t impact these races. You have to vote for each race and each judge.

Uncategorized

Restaurant Carry In North Carolina Has Its First Anniversary And Carry Is Banned At The State Fair

October 6, 2014 by 2 Comments

The ability to carry concealed in a restaurant or eating establishment in North Carolina had its first anniversary this past week. The anniversary brings with it a measure of disappointment for the naysayers and gun prohibitionists. Blood didn’t run in the streets and there weren’t boozy shoot-outs on a regular basis. In fact, according to research by Grass Roots North Carolina, there wasn’t even one shooting involving a concealed carry holder in a restaurant serving alcohol.

House Bill 937, which became effective on October 1, 2013, dramatically expanded North Carolina’s concealed handgun law into restaurants where alcohol is sold and consumed, assemblies of people for which admission is charged, parades and funerals, further into state and municipal parks, and even to a limited extent into educational properties.


‘Guns and alcohol don’t mix’?


As always when we expand concealed handgun laws, opponents and media naysayers predicted shootings in bars, guns stolen from vehicles at schools, and various other sorts of mayhem using platitudes like “guns and alcohol don’t mix.”


GRNC explained endlessly that concealed handgun permit-holders, by virtue of background checks and training, had proven themselves sane, sober and law-abiding since 1995, with a rate of permit revocation on the order of three tens of a single percent. We explained that permit-holders in restaurants would still be prohibited from imbibing alcohol.


But the dire predictions persisted. Editorials ridiculed legislators. UNC president Tom Ross sent UNC police chiefs to testify against the bill, claiming it would hamper their ability to protect students. Gun control activists pushed restaurants to post against concealed carry.


So what has happened?


It has now been one year since HB 937 became effective. So what has happened? Nothing. GRNC monitors clipping services for gun-related incidents. Just like Virginia, Ohio, Tennessee and other states which adopted restaurant carry, however, we have been unable to find a single instance of a concealed handgun permit-holder misusing a gun in a restaurant or educational property.


So when will the media naysayers apologize? Will the media acknowledge the anniversary and the absolute lack of negative impact?


NC State Fair: The latest battleground


In the latest battle, Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler says he will post the North Carolina State Fair against concealed carry even though statutes adopted in HB 937 now prohibit him from doing so. He apparently believes that even despite passing concealed carry in 1995; Castle Doctrine/Stand Your Ground and expanded concealed carry into parks and elsewhere in 2011; and HB 937 in 2013 – all without the mayhem predicted by opponents – somehow, the state fair must be a different and more dangerous place than all the others.


So GRNC asks both Troxler and the media, “Where’s the mayhem?”

It is against this background that GRNC is taking NC Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler (R-NC) to task for trying to continue the ban on carry at the North Carolina State Fair. HB 937 which permits restaurant carry also permitted carry at assemblies where an admission is charged such as the State Fair. GRNC is threatening legal action to make Ag Commissioner Troxler and the State Fair to abide by the law.

Sean Sorrentino of An NC Gun Blog attended Troxler’s press conference and questioned him about the decision to post the State Fair. Troxler replied that it was long-standing policy to post against carry and he’d leave it to the lawyers about the interpretation of the new law.

Paul Valone, President of GRNC, has met with Troxler last Monday. As Valone says, Troxler is not known as a liberal or anti-gun but that still doesn’t make him right. GRNC will be going to court seeking a temporary restraining order before the fair opens in about a week.

Uncategorized

The Second Amendment Foundation Returns To North Carolina

June 26, 2014 by

The first case brought after the win in McDonald v. Chicago extended the Second Amendment to the states was in North Carolina. Bateman v. Perdue challenged the state’s law that restricted possession of firearms and ammunition outside the home during a state of emergency. Bateman was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (among others) and was ultimately a win. Citizens of North Carolina are now allowed to protect themselves during states of emergency.

The Second Amendment Foundation has now returned to North Carolina to challenge the state’s restriction of  Concealed Handgun Permits to US citizens. Felicity Todd Veasey is an Australian citizen and legal permanent resident living in Butner who is married to a US citizen. Mrs. Veasey has lived in North Carolina for the last 10 years and wishes to obtain a Concealed Handgun Permit. Named as the defendant in the case is Sheriff Brindell Wilkins, Jr. in his official capacity as sheriff of Granville County. North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permits are issued by the sheriffs of the respective counties.

This case follows on the heels of winning cases challenging state restrictions of firearm permits and concealed carry permits to only citizens. Alienage is a suspect class under Constitutional precedent and the state must show a compelling governmental interest in restrictions concerning citizenship. The Second Amendment Foundation has won similar cases in Nebraska, New Mexico, Massachusetts, and elsewhere while the ACLU has brought similar winning cases in South Dakota and Kentucky.

Veasey v. Wilkins seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against this provision as well as a declaratory judgment stating that it is unconstitutional. The case is being brought on the grounds that the provision violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and that it violates Mrs. Veasey’s rights to keep and bear arms under the 2nd and 14th Amendments. The lead attorney in the case is David Sigale of Illinois who has served as lead attorney in a number of similar cases.

You can read the Second Amendment Foundation’s release on the case here. As Alan Gottlieb of SAF notes in the release, “we seem (to)keep finding such laws on the books and we have to challenge them.”

The full complaint is located here.

UPDATE: As Sean’s comments indicate, the North Carolina General Assembly was urged to change the citizenship requirement but blew it off. Now it is going to cost the state time, effort, and money to correct their error. If they were smart, they’d fold immediately, pay SAF a reasonable amount for legal fees, and change the law.