North Carolina

The North Carolina House Judiciary C Subcommittee will hold hearings on HB 650 – Amend Various Gun Laws – tomorrow. Sean at A NC Gun Blog has a section by section analysis of HB 650. As Sean says, “the bill is long and complicated.” Among the things this bill would do is recognize any other state’s concealed carry permit and it would prevent the banning of firearms during times of emergency.

Senate Bill 594 is also aimed at preventing the banning of firearms during times of declared emergencies. Both the provision concerning the banning of firearms during states of emergency contained in HB 650 and SB 594 could have the potential to moot the Bateman case which was brought against North Carolina by the Second Amendment Foundation and Grass Roots North Carolina. As much as I’d like to see the banning of firearms during declared emergencies done away with, I’m not so sure that having the Bateman case mooted is a good thing. As Alan Gura has noted many times in many venues, you only get one chance to get an opinion but you have numerous opportunities to pass legislation. So in terms of what is best for long-term Second Amendment rights, it may be best if the emergency ban issues are put on hold until after Bateman is decided. The case is now fully briefed.

The other firearms related bill is HB 582 – Amend Felony Firearms Act/Increase Penalties. This bill is scheduled for hearings tomorrow before the House Judiciary B Subcommittee. This bill would set the penalty for a felon in possession of a firearm as a Class G felony unless the offense was covered by a higher class of felony. HB 582 would also increase the penalty if the firearm was discharged, if an injury occurred, or if there was a serious bodily injury.

Grass Roots NC just sent out their unqualified endorsement of HB 650.

HB 650
A new bill has been introduced in the NC House which will improve a number of minor points in NC firearms law. HB 650, “Amend Various Gun Laws,” is being sponsored by Representatives Mark Hilton, Stephen A. LaRoque, George G. Cleveland, Kelly E. Hastings and Glen Bradley.

GRNC stands in full support of HB 650.

Among the important points about HB 650 are:
* It will reduce penalties for carry by permit-holders and certain others on educational property
* Keeps firearms from being confiscated from gun owners who may not have had a day in court before being placed under restraining orders
* Allows firearms to be kept in locked vehicles at parades (where they are currently prohibited altogether)
* Permits firearms to be carried during states of emergency
* Allows firearms in municipal parks
* Removes provisions under which sheriffs have asked for private medical information from concealed handgun applicants
* Increases the number of people who qualify for concealed handgun permits
* Changes concealed handgun reciprocity to full recognition of out-of-state permits
* Removes provisions under which municipalities can prohibit open carry

HB 650 has 23 different sections to it. Sean at An NC Gun Blog has posts and analysis on the first seven parts. I should have more up later tonight or tomorrow with my impressions. Below are links to Sean’s posts.

Part 1

Part 2

Parts 3 and 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

The NRA-ILA sent out this alert on North Carolina HB 111 this afternoon. The bill would allow concealed carry in restaurants and eating establishments that serve alcohol. It would not change the law that makes it illegal for someone who is carrying concealed to consume alcohol. The bill would also allow concealed carry in state and local parks.

North Carolina: Right-to-Carry Reform Bill Delayed by the state House of Representatives

Monday, March 21, 2011

Please contact your state Representative TODAY!

Consideration for House Bill 111 has been delayed by the state House of Representatives. Please continue to contact your state Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support H 111, and to support efforts to remove the Ross Amendment. To locate your state Representative and their contact information, please click here.

HB 111, introduced by state Representatives Mark Hilton (R-96), Jeff Barnhart (R-82), Fred Steen (R-76), and Kelly Hastings (R-110), would remove the prohibition on Right-to-Carry permit holders carrying a concealed firearm into any restaurant that serves alcohol on premises. It would also remove the ability of a local government to ban the carrying of concealed firearms by Right-to-Carry permit holders in local parks, and clarify that permit holders are allowed to carry in State Parks.

The bill was amended in subcommittee to allow servers in restaurants to ask patrons who order an alcoholic beverage whether they are carrying a concealed firearm. This amendment was proposed by state Representative Debra Ross (D-38), one of the most virulently anti-gun legislators in the General Assembly. During the debate, opponents of the legislation grossly misrepresented the current Right-to-Carry law repeatedly. While those opposed to the Ross Amendment questioned the wisdom waiters and waitresses asking such intrusive questions, supporters of the amendment claimed it is illegal for someone carrying a concealed firearm to order an alcoholic beverage, leading some to ask why servers should be asked to act as part-time law enforcement. However, it is not illegal to order alcohol while carrying a firearm. It is illegal to CONSUME alcohol while carrying. Should this law pass, along with the Ross Amendment, law-abiding permittees who simply order alcohol for a friend, but who have no intention of drinking alcohol themselves, may be asked by a server to reveal they are carrying a concealed firearm, thus negating the concept of carrying concealed. Anyone within earshot will certainly know the individual is carrying a firearm, including anyone who may be intent on committing a violent crime at that restaurant, or in that restaurant’s parking lot.

The Ross Amendment was clearly intended as a “poison pill,” and was designed to create opposition to the bill. Nothing in the current law or in H 111 would require a permittee to answer the server. However, restaurant owners may have concerns regarding potential liability should they choose to not harass their patrons with intrusive personal questions. While the NRA remains in support of H 111, we will work to remove the Ross Amendment.

Please continue to contact your state Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support H 111, and to support efforts to remove the Ross Amendment.