Concealed Carry In NC Restaurants And Parks Gets Second Hearing

The North Carolina House Judiciary A Subcommittee will hold hearings on HB 111 on Wednesday. This bill would allow concealed carry holders to carry in restaurants and eating establishiments that serve alcohol and to carry in city or county parks (but not state parks). Concealed carry holders still would not be allowed to drink while carrying concealed.

This bill was heard before the same subcommittee last week but no vote was taken.

HB 111 would still allow restaurant owners to post their establishments prohibiting concealed carry. Nonetheless, some restaurant owners oppose the bill according to a story in the Fayetteville Observer.

In Fayetteville, manager Mike Callahan of The Big Apple Restaurant & Sports Pub and co-owner Josh Collins of Huske Hardware House Restaurant & Brewery in Fayetteville think the law change would threaten the lives of their patrons and employees.

Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, takes issue with some of the dire predictions and hyperbole.

“Just because I happen to walk into Fat Boy’s buffet restaurant in Mooresville, that happens to have beer in the line, why should I not be able to protect my family?” said Paul Valone of Grass Roots North Carolina, a gun rights advocacy group that is pushing for the law change. “I suspect some of the people involved in the Luigi’s restaurant shooting in Fayetteville a number of years back would probably agree with me.”

Criminals avoid places where they think people could be armed, Valone said.

HR 822: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill Introduced (Updated)

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) introduced HR 822 on Friday. It is:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

The full text of the bill is not yet available and he hasn’t issued a press release describing the bill.

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC) – my Congressman – is the first co-sponsor of the bill. Whatever else I might say about Heath, he is good on the Second Amendment. You also may remember that he came out in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings saying he had a CCW permit and did carry. He also encouraged his staff to obtain a CCW permit.

I will call Shuler’s office tomorrow to see if I can get a copy of the text of the bill as it may be a few days before the Government Printing Office has it available.

UPDATE: Thanks to Paul Flusche of Congressman Cliff Stearn’s office we have the text of the bill. After a quick reading of the bill, I’d see this is a pretty good bill. If a state issues a concealed carry permit, then your CCW is good there subject to the rules for an unrestricted CCW. For example, if your home state allows you to carry in a place that serves alcohol but you are in North Carolina which doesn’t, you have to abide by the NC CHP regulations.

Here is the full text of the bill:

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. STEARNS (for himself and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on (blank)

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide a national standard in accordance with which nonresidents of a State may carry concealed firearms in the State.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011’’.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the fundamental right of an individual to keep and bear arms, including for purposes of individual self-defense.
(2) The Supreme Court of the United States has recognized this right in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago, has recognized that the right is protected against State infringement by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(3) The Congress has the power to pass legislation to protect against infringement of all rights protected under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(4) The right to bear arms includes the right to carry arms for self-defense and the defense of others.
(5) The Congress has enacted legislation of national scope authorizing the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified active and retired law enforcement officers.
(6) Forty-eight States provide by statute for the issuance to individuals of permits to carry concealed firearms, or allow the carrying of concealed
firearms for lawful purposes without the need for a permit.
(7) The overwhelming majority of individuals who exercise the right to carry firearms in their own States and other States have proven to be law-abiding, and such carrying has been demonstrated to provide crime prevention or crime resistance benefits for the licensees and for others.
(8) The Congress finds that preventing the lawful carrying of firearms by individuals who are traveling outside their home State interferes with the constitutional right of interstate travel, and harms interstate commerce.
(9) Among the purposes of this Act is the protection of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed to a citizen of the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
(10) The Congress, therefore, should provide for national recognition, in States that issue to their own citizens licenses or permits to carry concealed handguns, of other State permits or licenses to carry concealed handguns.

SEC. 3. RECIPROCITY FOR THE CARRYING OF CERTAIN CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:
‘‘§ 926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms‘‘
(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, related to the carrying or transportation of firearms, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, and who is carrying a government-issued photographic identification document and a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm, may carry a concealed handgun (other than a machinegun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State, other than the State of residence of the person, that—
‘‘(1) has a statute that allows residents of the State to obtain licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms; or
‘‘(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.
‘‘(b) A person carrying a concealed handgun under this section shall be permitted to carry a handgun subject to the same conditions or limitations that apply to residents of the State who have permits issued by the State or are otherwise lawfully allowed to do so by the State.
‘‘(c) In a State that allows the issuing authority for licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms to impose restrictions on the carrying of firearms by individual holders of such licenses or permits, a firearm shall be carried according to the same terms authorized by an unrestricted
license or permit issued to a resident of the State.
‘‘(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt any provision of State law with respect to the issuance of licenses or permits to carry concealed firearms.’’.

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
‘‘926D. Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms.’’.

(c) SEVERABILITY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, if any provision of this section, or any amendment made by this section, or the application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, this section and amendments made by this section and the application of such provision or amendment to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Time To Pass CCW In Wisconsin Is Now

I thought you needed 20 Senators to make a quorum in the Wisconsin State Senate. You do but only for fiscal bills. According to the National Review Online, a simple majority is all that is needed for other bills.

Bringing up hot-button legislation while the Democrats are gone is another arrow in Walker’s quiver. Though the Wisconsin constitution requires three-fifths of the senate to be present to pass fiscal legislation, a simple majority of 17 members constitutes a quorum for other bills in the 33-seat state senate. So the 19 GOP senators who remain in Madison can pass any number of bills while their Democratic colleagues are on the lam, and Republicans are a majority in the assembly, too. “They can hold off, but there is a whole legislative agenda that Republicans in the senate and assembly can start acting on that only requires simple majorities,” Walker warns.“If they want to do their jobs, and have a say, they better show up.”

Non-spending bills and government appointments could see action early Tuesday. Walker says he will not yield as the standoff unfolds, especially since Wisconsin is facing a projected $3.6 billion budget shortfall over the next two years.

Gov. Scott Walker indicated during his campaign for Governor that he would sign a concealed carry bill if it were presented to him.

If you are a gun rights supporter who lives in Wisconsin, call your legislators and urge them to get to work on CCW. I doubt you could get constitutional carry to pass but you just never know. At the very least, make Wisconsin a “shall-issue” state.

The Battle For Concealed Carry In Illinois Heats Up

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) posted this message earlier this morning on Facebook:

It’s been a busy week at the capitol. There have been a lot of bills filed and the gun hating antis seem to be distracted as to which way to go.

The week led off with published reports that there is major movement in the senate with the Senate President realizing the votes exists to pass RTC. Almost immediately the gun hating crowd went into a tizzy. For some time the anti-gunners have claimed very low support for RTC regardless of the fact that it failed by only two votes.

Now things are taking shape. The fact that we are just one of two states that have no opportunity for average citizens to exercise the right to self defense in public is sinking in. The fact that if nothing is done, we will be the only one, is sinking in.

The other political calculus is that downstate democrats are feeling a lot of heat over several issues and they think the only way to get a chance at re-election is to bring home RTC. This is causing them to apply pressure to their leadership. Their feeling is that many of the conservative democrats that are their base are bent out of shape and they will lose the edge if they can’t deliver Right To Carry. Those pleas are being noticed by leadership such as Senate President Cullerton.

While we fight the right to carry battle, we have introduced a number of other bills to strengthen the right to keep and bear arms and protect it further. At the same time, the City of Chicago and the gun hating crowd have re-introduced their stale package of bills to ban semi-autos, stop private sales of firearms, ban standard magazines, limit you to one gun per month, tax your ammunition and run gun dealers out of business. Mind you, some of these could pose real threats. Ending private sales, banning standard magazines and modern semi-autos are at the top of their wish list.

With the shooting in Arizona still fresh in people’s mind, they are once again trying to dance in the blood of the victims to try and move their political agenda. The problem they are having is that not many politicians are paying attention to them, and the Supreme Court has placed handcuffs on what they want to do.

Three things showed us this week what kind of a panic the other side is in;

1. A Board member for the Brady campaign barged into a conversation to make unfounded aspersions and tell us that the coming debate would be about dead children. They are just seething to have a verbal assault because the rest of their little tantrum is falling on deaf ears. So they lash out at us personally.

2. Another anti-gun Brady supporter activist came up and stated a willingness to trade away a may issue RTC for a proposal they want. Why would they offer to trade away RTC? They reached too far and are now losing their last stronghold. The fact that they are willing to deal, shows that even they see the writing on the wall — they are losing Illinois.

3. Anti-gun groups are trying to rally the troops and are bringing in outside help. The nationals are banging the gong with the revelations about Illinois. If their last hope for anti-gun-topia, the Kalifornia of the Midwest is going down like the Titanic, what do they have left?

Their future is bleak! How can they sell their gun hating ideas around the country if they lose Illinois?

What to expect;

Look for the national anti-gun groups to circle the wagons around Illinois. Look for more national figures or representatives from their groups to show up here over the next few weeks, and look for them to say or do almost anything to save face.

So what can you do?

1. Start calling your legislators and politely tell them, you oppose the Chicago gun control plan to punish law abiding citizens. A list of those bills can be found on the ISRA website

( http://www.isra.org/legislation/ ) or the Illinois Carry website (illinoiscarry.com) in their forums section.

2. Tell your legislators that you support Right To Carry and other pro-2A reforms proposed by ISRA, and NRA.

3. Attend IGOLD on March 10th so you can tell your legislators in person and those legislative leaders that it’s time to pass Right To Carry, 48 and soon to be 49 states can’t be wrong.

This will be a marathon fight this year, but one with great potential for protecting and expanding the codification of those rights that Dick Heller and Otis McDonald fought so hard for. Please do your part, call, write, and show up to be counted.

If Illinois adopts concealed carry – even a may-issue concealed carry – it would be a huge step towards re-normalizing guns in America.

I fully expect Wisconsin to pass a concealed carry law if they can ever find their missing Democrat State Senators reputed to be hiding in Illinois. As an aside, I wonder if we could commission Dog the Bounty Hunter to drag at least one of them back so they can have a quorum in the Wisconsin Senate.

Back to Illinois, one must wonder how much the end of the “reign” of Mayor Daley plays into all of this. With Daley gone or soon to be gone, how much power does he continue to wield over the Illinois General Assembly? Would we even be talking about concealed carry passing with a veto-proof majority if Daley wasn’t a lame duck? I don’t think so..

Concealed Carry Bills Introduced In Illinois

Two bills have been introduced into the Illinois State House that would bring concealed carry to Illinois if passed. HB 112 and HB 148 would both establish the Family and Personal Protection Act. Both bills have been referred to the Agriculture and Conservation Committee. While separate bills have been introduced, they are both identical in wording. As to why two identical bills would be introduced into the same chamber, I don’t have a clue.

The bills would as described in their synopses:

Creates the Family and Personal Protection Act. Permits the county sheriff to issue permits to carry concealed firearms to persons at least 21 years of age who meet certain requirements. Requires an applicant for a permit to have completed specified training requirements developed by the Illinois Law Enforcement Training Standards Board consisting of classroom instruction and live firing exercises. Preempts home rule. Amends the Illinois Police Training Act and the Criminal Code of 1961 to make conforming changes. Effective immediately.

Of the seven members of the House Agriculture and Conservation Committee, five are either sponsors or co-sponsors of these bills including both the Chair and Vice-Chair.

HB 112 can be found here and HB 148 can be found here.

According to a story in the Quincy Herald Whig quoting NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermede:

Todd Vandermyde, legislative liaison of the National Rifle Association, believes the Supreme Court rulings and the make-up of the Illinois Legislature both help the cause of gun rights.

“I think we’re positioned better now than we ever have been. A lot more Democrats coming on board,” Vandermyde said.

He pointed out that Sullivan is a member of the Senate leadership and supports gun rights. Additionally, he said a straw poll in the Senate shows a solid majority of the body supports laws to allow Illinois residents to carry firearms for protection.

“This isn’t some wild thing that only a few states do. It’s something that a lot of states do,” Vandermyde said.

The Sullivan referred to in the quote above is Senator John Sullivan (D-Rushville), one of the Majority Caucus Whips, who has consistently voted for gun rights legislation since he entered the Illinois State Senate.

While concealed carry bills may pass both houses of the Illinois legislature, Gov. Pat Quinn indicated in his election bid that he would veto any such bill. This makes the narrow loss of the Republican candidate for Governor in 2010, Bill Brady, even more painful as Brady had indicated he would sign such a concealed carry bill.

UPDATE: Thirdpower has this update about CCW in Illinois. There may be enough support for it there is a veto-proof majority. If that proves true, it is great news!

Fashion Trends And Concealed Carry

In the concealed carry world, fanny packs and photographer’s vests – while comfortable and effective – have been characterized as “shoot me first” tip-offs. They are obvious. Well, obvious at least to those who have some familiarity with concealed carry and firearms. And, it is said, to crooks.

Now, thanks to high fashion that may be changing at least for the fanny pack. Just don’t call them fanny packs. Fashion designers prefer the new hipper name of “bum bag” or “hands free bag”. The prices also reflect it. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Korean-American handbag designer Sang A Im-Propp sells her alligator “belt bag” for $1,995.

So now, women at least can have the belt bag or bum bag for concealed carry and be considered high fashion.

The Californication Of Concealed Carry

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced S. 176, the Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011, last week. The text has finally become available.

This bill, if passed, would convert “shall issue” concealed carry back to “may issue” nationwide. Moreover, it would abolish constitutional carry. The bill sets the requirement to show “good cause” which is at the center of lawsuits such as Kachalsky v Cacace, Peruta v San Diego, Muller v Maenza, and Woollard v Sheridan.

Nowhere in the bill is any justification or finding that a Federal standard for concealed carry is constitutional. Traditionally, police powers, i.e. relating to health, safety, and welfare, have been left to the states.

A BILL

To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C, the following:

`Sec. 926D. Concealed firearms permits

`(a) In General- Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms shall–

`(1) establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and

`(2) require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).

`(b) Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall–

`(1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and

`(2) at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm–

`(A) be a legal resident of the United States;

`(B) be not less than 21 years of age;

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit; and

`(D) demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.

`(c) Law Enforcement Agency Report- If a State establishes a process under subsection (a) that allows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue permits to carry concealed firearms, the process shall require that–

`(1) a local law enforcement agency submit to the agency responsible for issuing permits a written report that describes whether the applicant meets the standards of the State to carry a concealed firearm; and

`(2) the agency responsible for issuing permits maintain a report submitted under paragraph (1) in the file of the applicant.

`(d) Definition- In this section, the term `local law enforcement agency’ means a law enforcement agency of the unit of local government with jurisdiction of the area in which the applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm resides.

`(e) Compliance- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this section, each State described in subsection (a) shall be in compliance with this section.’.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Concealed firearms permits.’.

Changes In South Dakota’s Concealed Carry Law

SayUncle points to a story today indicating that the South Dakota legislature is rethinking its ban on concealed carry permits for non-citizens. As I pointed out in examining a Kentucky case, Say v. Adams, I didn’t think South Dakota had much of a leg to stand on.

As it is, South Dakota has one of the best concealed carry laws short of constitutional carry. It only requires a clean criminal and mental health record. The law also allows 18-year olds to obtain a permit. There are no training or marksmanship requirements.

HB 1149 which would change the law to include legal residents was introduced yesterday. The text of the bill is below:

State of South Dakota
EIGHTY-SIXTH SESSION
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, 2011

HOUSE BILL NO. 1149

Introduced by: Representatives Gosch, Blake, Bolin, Brunner, Conzet, Gibson, Hansen (Jon), Hunt, Kirkeby, and Liss and Senators Cutler, Begalka, Brown, Frerichs, Olson (Russell), Peters, and Rave

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to allow legal residents of the United States to obtain a concealed pistol permit.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 23-7-7.1 be amended to read as follows:
23-7-7.1. A temporary permit to carry a concealed pistol shall be issued within five days of application to a person if the applicant:
(1) Is eighteen years of age or older;
(2) Has never pled guilty to, nolo contendere to, or been convicted of a felony or a crime of violence;
(3) Is not habitually in an intoxicated or drugged condition;
(4) Has no history of violence;
(5) Has not been found in the previous ten years to be a “danger to others” or a “danger to self” as defined in § 27A-1-1 or is not currently adjudged mentally incompetent;
(6) Has physically resided in and is a resident of the county where the application is being made for at least thirty days immediately preceding the date of the application;
(7) Has had no violations of chapter 23-7, 22-14, or 22-42 constituting a felony or misdemeanor in the five years preceding the date of application or is not currently charged under indictment or information for such an offense;
(8) Is a citizen or legal resident of the United States; and
(9) Is not a fugitive from justice.
A person denied a permit may appeal to the circuit court pursuant to chapter 1-26.

Rarely would I say that the passage of a bill in any legislature is a slam dunk. However, this bill will be passed.

It is sponsored by both Democrats and Republicans in the South Dakota House and Senate. More importantly, it has as co-sponsors the Speaker Pro Tem of the House and the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate. Finally, the Governor of South Dakota has come out in favor of the change. It is good to see a legislature that is so quick to move to correct what is a constitutional defect in a law.