North Carolina

Uncategorized

NC: One Signature Away From Having The Castle Doctrine

June 17, 2011 by

With the State House voting 80 to 39 to concur with the State Senate version of HB 650, the State of North Carolina is just one signature away from being protected by the Castle Doctrine.

HB 650 has been ordered engrossed and sent to Gov. Bev Perdue for her signature. I have not heard any comments that would seem to indicate she plans to veto the bill. I hope she doesn’t forget she was endorsed by the NRA when she ran for Governor in 2008.

Sean at An NC Gun Blog has more on the bill and the vote. Thanks to him we have the vote which has not yet been reported on the General Assembly site.

UPDATE:  WRAL is reporting that Perdue could well sign HB 650.

But other bills are likely to get a warmer reception, and Pearson said H650 Amend Various Gun Laws/Castle Doctrine might be among them. “As you know, the Governor is a lifetime NRA member,” Pearson said. “She understands and supports gun rights. She’ll have to read it carefully, of course, but she tends to be pretty moderate on guns.”

You sure wish that Perdue’s media person Chrissy Pearson would differentiate between “lifetime NRA member” and NRA Life Member.

UPDATE II: Below is how the State House voted on the motion to concur (that is, pass) with the Senate version of HB 650.

Ayes

Democrats: Alexander, K.; Brisson; Crawford; Earle; Faison; Graham; Hill; Lucas; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Spear; Wilkins; Wray

Republicans: 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; Guice; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Holloway; Horn; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; McGrady; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Murry; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Tillis (SPEAKER); Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Noes

Democrats: Adams; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Bryant; Carney; Cotham; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Luebke; Martin; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Owens; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble

Republicans: None

Excused: McComas (R)

The only thing that stands out about this vote is that Speaker Tom Tillis did vote on this bill. He has only voted 92 times out of a possible 1179 votes. This is not due to being a slacker but the tradition that the Speaker only votes on critical issues. I’m glad to see that he wanted to go on record as being for the amending the various firearms laws and, more importantly, the Castle Doctrine.

Uncategorized

HB 650 Passes North Carolina Senate

June 15, 2011 by 2 Comments

HB 650 which amends various firearms laws and contains the Castle Doctrine passed its 2nd and 3rd Readings last night in the North Carolina State Senate. It is unclear currently whether it was a voice vote or a roll-call vote. This means HB 650 and the Castle Doctrine have passed both houses of the General Assembly. All that remains is reconciling the differences and we in North Carolina will have the Castle Doctrine once the bill is signed by Governor Bev Perdue.

Sean at An NC Gun Blog reports that there is one small amendment dealing with storing firearms in a locked vehicle by a legislator or legislative employee.

Having scanned the entire bill, the repeal of the emergency powers gun ban under Chapter 36A of the General Statutes was not put in this bill as an amendment. As a number of posts since last Thursday have made clear, any such amendment would have mooted Bateman v. Perdue. That case challenged the constitutionality of the ban on off-premises possession of firearms and ammunition during declared States of Emergency.

Uncategorized

We Must Agree To Disagree

June 14, 2011 by 1 Comment

Sebastian at Snowflakes In Hell had a post yesterday in which he disagreed with my opposition to a bill in the North Carolina State Senate, S. 594, which would have amended North Carolina’s emergency powers.

The bill introduced by Senators Doug Berger (D-Franklin) and Andrew Brock (R-Davie) would have allowed the possession of firearms during a declared state of emergency. As I said then and I will say again on the face of it this is a good thing EXCEPT that it would have mooted the Second Amendment Foundation/Grass Roots North Carolina’s case Bateman et al v. Perdue et al. I hold that getting a good legal precedent in a court battle can often times trump getting a bill passed in a legislature for long lasting impact.

Sebastian holds that “if you’re presented with the shot, take it” or in other words, go with the certainty of the legislative victory as opposed to the uncertainty of the courts. This presupposes that it was a lock that the North Carolina General Assembly would pass an act amending Chapter 36A of the General Statutes. The major gun rights bills this session included the Castle Doctrine (passed), firearms in parks (passed), concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (passed in the House), an omnibus bill that would improve concealed carry (passed with amendments in the House), and the emergency powers act changes (stalled in committee). Of all of these bills, I would have to say that the Castle Doctrine was the most important and it was passed.

I did not see any major public movement on S. 594 by either the NRA or Grass Roots North Carolina until the end of the session. It is my feeling that GRNC would have pushed for passage of S. 594 without the wise counsel of their attorney and the Second Amendment Foundation. By not pushing for it – and actually opposing it at the end of the session – that organization showed its growing maturity as a gun rights organization. By this I mean they were willing to play the long war and sacrifice the temporary gains of a bill for the longer term impact of an opinion.

Anthony Roulette, NRA-ILA State Liaison for North Carolina, commented on Sebastian’s blog that I was mistaken about the NRA’s rationale for pushing S. 594 at the end of the session. I will do him the courtesy of reprinting his comments here.

Mr. Richardson:

I appreciate that you have a right to your personal opinions regarding the NRA efforts on Senate Bill 594, but you are incorrect. The NRA has been pushing for a legislative fix to the problem of gun rights and a declared State of Emergency for many years. The NRA has been pushing for legislation in Congress and the states to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency almost immediately after Hurricane Katrina, and has succeeded in enactment of such statutes at the federal level and in 31 states.

In 2009, the NRA supported North Carolina House Bill 257 that sought to correct this problem:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=4496

If you have been following NRA-ILA alerts this year, you will note that NRA has been “publicly pushing it from the start.” Here is our alert from April 15:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6634

It was mentioned again on April 22: http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6670

Unfortunately, it was not until last week that the NRA was informed by Senate Republican leadership that S 594 would not be brought up for consideration. That is the reason for our recent push, and it has nothing to do with your speculated reason.

Sincerely,

Anthony Roulette
North Carolina State Liaison
NRA-ILA

House Bill 257 from the 2009 session referred to above was supported by Grass Roots North Carolina as they made clear in their Alert from February 27, 2009. Why the change from then to now? McDonald v. Chicago. That win brought the Second Amendment to the states through incorporation and with it a whole new valid way to advance gun rights.

My training in political science reflects two divergent schools of thought. As an undergraduate, I was trained in the classical or legalistic approach to government with heavy emphasis on constitutional law and the structure of governmental institutions. As a graduate student at Chapel Hill, I was trained in the behavioral approach to political science which is the polar opposite of the classical approach. It is heavy on quantitative measurement and studying the actual behavior of political actors. In other words, what they do as opposed to what they say.

If one takes Mr. Roulette at his word that it was not their intention to moot Bateman, the impact of S. 594 passing would still have the same impact. Bateman would be mooted because the underlying case or controversy no longer existed regardless of whether or not this was the NRA-ILA’s intention. Thus, from a behavioral standpoint, their actions, if successful, would have mooted Bateman and screwed one of their critics, attorney Alan Gura, for good measure.

And they would have been able to say they got the Emergency Powers ban done away with. From a bureaucratic standpoint how much better could that have been – they get the glory, their critics are diminished, and a threat to their power is removed.

Uncategorized

How They Voted On NC’s HB 650

June 8, 2011 by

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)

Uncategorized

HB 650 Passes Third Reading

June 8, 2011 by

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.

Uncategorized

More On HB 650 From GRNC

June 8, 2011 by

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.

Uncategorized

HB 650 Passes 2nd Reading In NC House But With Amendments

June 7, 2011 by 3 Comments

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.”

Uncategorized

HB 650 Expanded In Committee

June 3, 2011 by

The NRA-ILA released this today regarding North Carolina’s omnibus gun law – HB 650 – which passed out of the House Judiciary C Subcommittee yesterday. Before it left the subcommittee, the committee amended the bill to add the castle doctrine and parking lot provisions among other gun rights strengthening provisions.

North Carolina: Castle Doctrine Language and Parking Lot Provision in NRA-Backed Omnibus Bill Threatened!

Thursday, June 02, 2011

Urge Your Representative to Oppose Any Amendments to House Bill 650!

As reported by the NRA yesterday, the North Carolina House Judiciary Subcommittee C sent House Bill 650, the NRA–backed omnibus gun bill, to the House floor for a vote. However, there is now a strong effort by the anti-gun lobby to add amendments that would weaken both the current Castle Doctrine language and Parking Lot/Employee Protection provision contained in this bill. It is vital that you let your state Representative know that he or she needs to support HB 650 in its current form and oppose all amendments, especially those that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot language.

HB 650, introduced by state Representative Mark Hilton (R-96), originally focused on making a number of improvements to the Right-to-Carry (RTC) law, as well as improving the firearm preemption statute that prevents municipalities from enacting gun control laws more onerous than what has been passed by the state. A Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for the bill was approved by the subcommittee at a previous hearing, which greatly expanded the bill’s scope in a very positive way. The PCS includes a number of other issues, such as Castle Doctrine language, Parking Lot/Employee Protection language, Fraudulent Firearms Purchase Prevention language, and language to ensure North Carolina residents are not prohibited by state law from purchasing long guns in states that do not border North Carolina.

It is essential to the passage of this bill that you contact your state Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support the current version of HB 650 with NO amendments, especially any amendments that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot provisions. Contact information for your state Representative can be found here.

Uncategorized

HB 650 Passes Committee Vote In NC General Assembly

June 2, 2011 by

HB 650 – the omnibus bill that amends a number of North Carolina’s firearms laws – passed out of the House Judiciary C Subcommittee today. Grass Roots North Carolina issued this on the passage.

HB 650, the massive gun bill we have been telling you about is now passed in House Judiciary C Sub-Committee. We now need you to contact the full House list to express your support for this important bill.

To recap:

HB 650 is a huge and aggressive bill, meaning it will be difficult to pass. But if passed, it will go far toward reversing the creeping encroachment on gun owners’ rights perpetuated in previous sessions of the legislature, including (but not limited to):

  • Castle Doctrine (yet another vehicle for popular Castle Doctrine is now moving);
  • Reducing penalties for carrying firearms on “educational property,” including a protection against accidentally becoming a criminal by requiring that offenders “knowingly” brought the gun onto educational property;
  • Enabling concealed carry at events for which admission is charged;
  • Reducing penalties for a host of minor (often inadvertent) gun violations;
  • Adding protections for gun owners whose guns are confiscated pursuant to domestic protective orders;
  • Improves concealed handgun reciprocity to straight recognition of out-of-state permits;
  • Removes provisions for concealed handgun applicants under which sheriffs are conducting intrusive investigations of medical history; and
  • Enabling employees to keep guns in locked vehicles at places of employment.

Checking the legislative calendar for the rest of the week, this bill has not been put on the calendar for the 2nd and 3rd reading. Unless it passes out of the State House by June 9th, it can’t be considered for passage in the 2012 session of the General Assembly.

Uncategorized

Report On NC Hearings On Omnibus Bill Amending Gun Laws

May 20, 2011 by

The North Carolina House Judiciary C Committee held hearings yesterday on HB 640 – Amend Gun Laws. This is an omnibus bill that amends a number of existing gun laws in North Carolina and improves gun rights. You can read more about the details of the bill at Sean’s blog here.

Grass Roots North Carolina released this summation of the hearings by e-mail tonight. I’d say they were pleased with how they went. GRNC President Paul Valone was one of those who testified on the bill at the hearings.

HB 650
On Wednesday, the NC House Judiciary C Committee took on House Bill 650, “Amend Various Gun Laws.” Thanks to the efforts of Sponsors Mark Hilton (R-Catawba, GRNC ****), Steven LaRoque (R-Greene, Lenoir, Wayne, ****), George Cleveland (R-Onslow, ****) and Kelly Hastings (R- Cleveland, Gaston, ****), plus the leadership of Rules Chairman Tim Moore (R- Cleveland, ****) and Speaker Thom Tillis (R-Meckleburg, ****), the bill is likely to receive a committee vote next Wednesday. Gun rights supporters should immediately e-mail these courageous legislators with thanks.

HB 650 is a huge and aggressive bill, meaning it will be difficult to pass. But if passed, it will go far toward reversing the creeping encroachment on gun owners’ rights perpetuated in previous sessions of the legislature, including (but not limited to):

  • Castle Doctrine (yet another vehicle for popular Castle Doctrine is now moving);
  • Reducing penalties for carrying firearms on “educational property,” including a protection against accidentally becoming a criminal by requiring that offenders “knowingly” brought the gun onto educational property;
  • Enabling concealed carry at events for which admission is charged;
  • Reducing penalties for a host of minor (often inadvertent) gun violations;
  • Adding protections for gun owners whose guns are confiscated pursuant to domestic protective orders;
  • Improves concealed handgun reciprocity to straight recognition of out-of-state permits;
  • Removes provisions for concealed handgun applicants under which sheriffs are conducting intrusive investigations of medical history; and
  • Enabling employees to keep guns in locked vehicles at places of employment.