North Carolina General Assembly

Uncategorized

Restaurant Carry Bill Has Committee Hearing On Thursday

June 7, 2012 by 3 Comments

The North Carolina State Senate’s Judiciary II Committee will hold hearings tomorrow on HB 111 which would allow concealed carry in restaurants and eating establishments. The bill would not let the person carrying concealed consume alcohol. HB 111 passed the State House over a year ago on March 30, 2011.

JUDICIARY II
10:00 AM 1124 LB
HB 451 DWLR Penalties Increased/Vehicle Seizures
HB 199 Req. DV Victim/List Prior Action Against Def
HB 235 Bonnie’s Law
HB 111 Handgun Permit Valid in Parks & Restaurants

HB 199 will be a PCS re: copper theft
HB 235 will have a PCS re:
HB 111 will have a PCS

Grass Roots North Carolina is asking NC residents to contact their State Senator to urge passage. You can find your Senator here if you don’t already know his or her name.

I am a bit concerned about the notation of a proposed committee substitute (PCS). No text is posted on the General Assembly’s website. Given the recent attempt to hijack a bill about mechanics lien and bond law changes so as to negate the Bateman win, I think a close eye must be kept on this legislation.

UPDATE: Grass Roots North Carolina just sent out an e-mail alert on this bill noting that after if it passes Judiciary II it will then go not to the floor of the Senate but to the Finance Committee.

Republicans Trying to Kill Restaurant Carry?

Plans to send HB 111 to Finance Committee rather than floor.
Could it be that the Republicans who purport to serve you in the NC Senate are more concerned about polls than about your safety in restaurants? It would appear so, in fact so much so that they appear to be playing word games about the fate of HB 111.

Here is the story… A short time ago, folks from the office of Senate President Pro-Tem Phil Berger promised GRNC President Paul Valone that HB 111 would get a hearing in the Senate Judiciary II Committee. This would seem to indicate that it would next be headed to the Senate floor for a vote. BUT HOLD ON… NOT SO FAST! It appears they wish to play both sides of the board. Rather than planning to pass it out to the floor, GRNC has learned that Senate J-II Committee plans to pass it on to the Finance Committee. Now the first reaction among GRNC staff is that Finance would simply be a place where they might be sending HB 111 to die.

MAYBE THERE IS MORE TO THE STORY… WE HOPE SO!

Fearing the worst, we have been on the phone with staffers who are now assuring us that this move is being made to keep it alive because all other non-financial committee hearings are about to be shut down for the session. We certainly hope this to be the case. We also feel very strongly that you should contact them and impart your most fervent desire that this is the case. In short tell them that you want HB 111 sent to the Senate Floor for a vote.

Immediate Action Required

Contact the Senate Judiciary II Committee

Cut-and-paste email list of members to contact:

Austin.Allran@ncleg.net, Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net, Buck.Newton@ncleg.net, Chris.Carney@ncleg.net, Doug.Berger@ncleg.net, Stan.Bingham@ncleg.net, Harris.Blake@ncleg.net, Dan.Blue@ncleg.net, Charlie.Dannelly@ncleg.net, Jim.Davis@ncleg.net, Don.East@ncleg.net, Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net, Edward.Jones@ncleg.net, Floyd.McKissick@ncleg.net, Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net, Don.Vaughan@ncleg.net, Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net, Phil.Berger@ncleg.net

NOTE: SOME EMAIL READERS AUTOMATICALLY HYPERLINK EMAIL ADDRESSES. FOR A VERSION THAT IS PLAIN TEXT AND EASIER TO COPY AND PASTE ON THE WEBSITE CLICK HERE

Deliver This Message

Dear Senator:

I will make this short and sweet. I want you to keep the promises you made to Grass Roots North Carolina on HB 111, Restaurant Carry. Send HB 111 to the floor of the Senate and then pass it into law.

I will be watching this matter closely through Grass Roots North Carolina’s alerts.

Sincerely,

A Concerned Voter

UPDATE: Sean at An NC Gun Blog has a very good review of the substitute language in HB 111. The bill has been passed out of the Senate Judiciary II committee and will now go before the Finance Committee.

Uncategorized

Counter-Attack On NC’s Castle Doctrine Law

May 30, 2012 by 2 Comments

The attack on North Carolina’s Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground law has begun. Today, a group of Democratic legislators introduced HB 1192 – Amend Castle Doctrine/Repeal Stand Ground. This bill would remove many of the hard-won protections that finally passed in 2011 (SL2011-268) especially those related to the workplace and in motor vehicles.

The text of the bill is below:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE “CASTLE DOCTRINE” AND TO REPEAL THE “STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS” SO THAT THE COMMON LAW CONTINUES TO GOVERN THE LAWFUL USE OF FORCE IN DEFENSE OF ONE’S SELF OR ANOTHER PERSON.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-51.2 is repealed.
SECTION 2. G.S. 14-51.3 is repealed.
SECTION 3. G.S. 14-51.4 is repealed.
SECTION 4. Article 14 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
Ҥ 14-51.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder’s unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.
(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.
(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law.”
SECTION 5. This act becomes effective December 1, 2012, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

The primary sponsors of this bill are Rep. Alma Adams (D-Guilford), Rep. William Wainwright (D-Craven), Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-Durham), and Rep. Rodney Moore (D-Mecklenburg). Rep. Rosa Gill (D-Wake), and Rep. Pricey Harrison (D-Guilford) are co-sponsors of the bill. All of the legislators with the exception of Pricey Harrison are African-American. Harrison, an heir to the Jefferson Standard Insurance fortune, has sponsored gun control bills in the past including a proposal to create a centralized database of those denied pistol permits in North Carolina. Pistol purchase permits it should be remembered are a remnant of the Jim Crow era and was a way to deny blacks their Second Amendment rights.

The first section removed established the presumption of a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily harm for which deadly force could be used in the home, workplace, or motor vehicle if a person had unlawfully and forcibly entered (or was in the process of doing it) the home, car, or workplace. It also protected the lawful use of defensive force from civil liability.

The second section being removed deals with the defense of person and the use of force to protect oneself if you believe you are in danger of death or severe bodily injury. The current law also removed the duty to retreat as well a protected someone defending him or herself in accordance with the law from civil liability.

Finally, the third part of the Castle Doctrine removed, GS 14-51.4, states that the justification for use of defensive force is not available to anyone in the commission of a felony as well as to anyone who provoked an encounter. However, the person provoking the encounter can regain justification for the use of defensive force if they have explicitly backed off or if they have no possible way to retreat and the provoked person is about to kill them.

Frankly, HB 1192 is about making a political statement and not about changing the existing Castle Doctrine and Duty to Retreat. It has no chance of passing in this General Assembly and the sponsors know it. I’m just surprised that they haven’t named it the “Trayvon(TM) Martin Memorial Act”. I guess that would be even a bit much for this group of legislators.

Uncategorized

An Attempt To Negate The Bateman Win Which Must Be Stopped

May 21, 2012 by 4 Comments

Bateman v. Perdue was a win for the Second Amendment. US District Court Judge Malcolm Howard found the North Carolina emergency ban on off-premises firearms during a declared state of emergency unconstitutional.

Rather, the statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2799 (“[A]mericans understood the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury. ‘ ” (quoting 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries 145-146, n.42 (1803) ) (second alteration in original)). Consequently, the emergency declaration laws are invalid as applied to plaintiffs.

On Tuesday, the NC State Senate Judiciary I Committee will take up consideration of HB 489 which is currently titled “Mechanics Lien and Bond Law Changes”. It had been approved 116-0 last May by the NC House. However, there is a proposed Committee substitute “H489-CSSA-71 [v.4]” which would effectively negate the Bateman win and would, in fact, give state and local official more power to infringe upon gun rights. This proposed change has not been published on the General Assembly’s website but a copy was sent to Grass Roots North Carolina.

Grass Roots North Carolina points out the flaws in the substitute in an alert sent out late Friday. They are also encouraging everyone to send an email to the committee members which can be found at the link here.

The bill still restricts firearms outside the home during emergencies: Although new language in G.S. 14-288.12(b)(4) purports to let cities restrict outside-the-home carry only “when necessary to preserve the public peace where there is an imminent risk of damage, injury, or loss of life or property,” that language is so vague as to be meaningless. Virtually every state of emergency – be it hurricane, riot or snowstorm – carries these “imminent risks.”

Regulations now reach into your home: Although the bill purports to forbid cities from regulating guns and ammunition in the home during emergencies, neither cities nor the state ever had the power to apply in-home bans during states of emergency. Translated, by stipulating what lawful gun-related activities you may do in the home, the bill tries to replace your unequivocal right to arms in the home with a restricted “right” to arms in the home.

HB 489 replaces an unconstitutional statute with another unconstitutional statute: But because laws are constitutional until proven otherwise, you’ll have to go back to court to prove it.

The proposed committee substitute to HB 489 reads as follow:

AN ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE POSSESSION, STORAGE, AND USE OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS DURING A STATE OF EMERGENCY FOR SELF DEFENSE IN A  PERSON’S HOME OR FOR OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES IN A PERSON’S HOME;  AND TO AUTHORIZE THE TRANSPORTATION, POSSESSION, SALE, OR  PURCHASE OF AMMUNITION FOR SELF DEFENSE PURPOSES IN A PERSON’S  HOME OR FOR OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES IN A PERSON’S HOME.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-288.7 is repealed.

SECTION 2. G.S. 14-288.12 reads as rewritten:
Ҥ 14-288.12. Powers of municipalities to enact ordinances to deal with states of emergency.
(a) The governing body of any municipality may enact ordinances designed to permit the imposition of prohibitions and restrictions during a state of emergency.
(b) The ordinances authorized by this section may permit prohibitions and restrictions:
(1) Of movements of people in public places, including directing and compelling the evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the governing body’s jurisdiction, to prescribe routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in connection with evacuation; and to control ingress and egress of a disaster area, and the movement of persons within the area;
(2) Of the operation of offices, business establishments, and other places to or from which people may travel or at which they may congregate;congregate, including places that sell dangerous weapons, notwithstanding subdivision (4) of this subsection.
(3) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, and consumption of alcoholic beverages;
(4) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, and use of dangerous weapons and substances, and gasoline; and gasoline, when necessary to preserve the public peace where there is an imminent risk of damage, injury, or loss of life or property, except that prohibitions and restrictions adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall not do any of the following:
a. Prohibit the possession, storage, or use of a dangerous weapon for self-defense in a person’s home or for other lawful purposes in a person’s home or on other real property in which a person has a lawful possessory or ownership interest.
b. Prohibit the transportation, possession, sale, purchase, or use of ammunition for self-defense purposes in a person’s home or on other real property in which a person has a lawful possessory or ownership interest.
(5) Upon other activities or conditions the control of which may be reasonably necessary to maintain order and protect lives or property during the state of emergency.
The ordinances may delegate to the mayor of the municipality the authority to determine and proclaim the existence of a state of emergency, and to impose those authorized prohibitions and restrictions appropriate at a particular time.
(b1) For purposes of Subdivision (b)(4) of this section, the term ‘home’ means a building or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is 16 temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.
(c) This section is intended to supplement and confirm the powers conferred by G.S. 160A-174(a), and all other general and local laws authorizing municipalities to enact ordinances for the protection of the public health and safety in times of riot or other grave civil 21 disturbance or emergency.
(d) Any ordinance of a type authorized by this section promulgated prior to June 19, 23 1969 shall, if otherwise valid, continue in full force and effect without reenactment.
(e) Any person who violates any provision of an ordinance or a proclamation enacted or proclaimed under the authority of this section is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor.”

SECTION 3. If House Bill 843, 2011 Regular Session, becomes law, then Section 2(c) of that act is rewritten to read:
“SECTION 2.(c) G.S. 14-288.7 is repealed.”

SECTION 4. If House Bill 843, 2011 Regular Session, becomes law, then G.S. 166A-19.31(b), as enacted by Section 1(b) of that act, reads as rewritten:
“(b) Type of Prohibitions and Restrictions Authorized. – The ordinances authorized by this section may permit prohibitions and restrictions:
(1) Of movements of people in public places, including imposing a curfew; directing and compelling the voluntary or mandatory evacuation of all or part of the population from any stricken or threatened area within the governing body’s jurisdiction; prescribing routes, modes of transportation, and destinations in connection with evacuation; and controlling ingress and egress of an emergency area, and the movement of persons within the area.
(2) Of the operation of offices, business establishments, and other places to or from which people may travel or at which they may congregate. congregate, including places that sell dangerous weapons, notwithstanding subdivision (4) of this subsection.
(3) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, and consumption of alcoholic beverages.
(4) Upon the possession, transportation, sale, purchase, storage, and use of dangerous weapons and substances, and gasoline. gasoline, when necessary to preserve the public peace where there is an imminent risk of damage, injury, or loss of life or property, except that prohibitions and restrictions adopted pursuant to this subdivision shall not do any of the following:
a. Prohibit the possession, storage, or use of a dangerous weapon for self-defense in a person’s home or for other lawful purposes in a person’s home or on other real property in which a person has a lawful possessory or ownership interest.
b. Prohibit the transportation, possession, sale, purchase, or use of ammunition for self-defense purposes in a person’s home or on other real property in which a person has a lawful possessory or ownership interest.
As used in this subdivision, the term ‘dangerous weapon and substance’ has the same meaning as it does under G.S. 14-288.1.
(5) Upon other activities or conditions the control of which may be reasonably necessary to maintain order and protect lives or property during the state of emergency.
The ordinances authorized by this section need not require or provide for the imposition of all of the types of prohibitions or restrictions, or any particular prohibition or restriction, authorized by this section during an emergency but may instead authorize the official or officials who impose those prohibitions or restrictions to determine and impose the prohibitions or restrictions deemed necessary or suitable to a particular state of emergency.”

SECTION 5. If House Bill 843, 2011 Regular Session, becomes law, then G.S. 166A-19.31, as enacted by Section 1(b) of that act, is amended by adding a new subsection to read:
“(b1) For purposes of Subdivision (b)(4) of this section, the term ‘home’ means a building 22 or conveyance of any kind, to include its curtilage, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed as a temporary or permanent residence.”

SECTION 6. This act is effective when it becomes law.

When I read through this substitute bill I was aghast. It explicitly authorizes the same restrictions that Judge Howard just found unconstitutional with the exception of the transport of ammo. Moreover, the Heller decision explicitly – not implied or inferred but explicitly – said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear a firearm in the home for self-defense. So where does the drafter of this substitute bill get off saying the state can “authorize” the possession of a firearm in my home?

At the GRNC Annual Meeting held in Greensboro yesterday evening, GRNC President Paul Valone discussed this bill at length. He noted that no one on the committee seems to be willing to take credit for its drafting.

I should hope not! The Judiciary I Committee should consign this committee substitute to the dustbin of history.

Uncategorized

HB 650 Calendared For Concurrence Vote Today

June 16, 2011 by 1 Comment

The North Carolina State Senate passed HB 650 which amends various gun laws and implements a Castle Doctrine with a slight amendment from the version passed by the North Carolina House on June 7th. As a result, the House must hold a concurrence vote on the Senate amended version. That vote is scheduled in the State House tonight.

GRNC is pushing to have it passed as is with no more amendments.

Thanks to Sean for pointing out I was off a day! He has more on the bill here.  The Virtual Stepdaughter is getting married on Saturday so I ought to know the day of the week – or not.

UPDATE: When I first posted this, I was off a day. Turns out I was mistakenly correct. The vote has been rescheduled from Wednesday to today.

Uncategorized

Hearing In NC State Senate Tomorrow On Two Gun-Rights Bills

June 13, 2011 by

While much of the work of the North Carolina General Assembly is done for the session, those bills that made the crossover deadline are still being considered. On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary II Committee will hold hearings on HB 111 – concealed carry in restaurants and Park – and on HB 650 – various gun law amendments and the Castle Doctrine. The hearings on HB 111 will be for discussion only.

The committee’s announcement is below:

Corrected: HB 111 is for discussion only.

SENATE

NOTICE OF COMMITTEE MEETING
AND
BILL SPONSOR NOTICE

The Senate Committee on Judiciary II will meet at the following time:

Tuesday
June 14, 2011
10:00 AM
1124 LB

The following will be considered:

HB 113
Motorcycle Safety Act.
Representative Killian

HB 381
Checking Station Pattern Selection.
Representative Torbett

HB 659
Capital Procedure/Severe Mental Disability.
Representative McGrady
Representative Harrison
Representative Glazier
Representative Stevens

HB 650
Amend Various Gun Laws/Castle Doctrine.
Representative Cleveland
Representative Hastings
Representative Hilton
Representative LaRoque

HB 111
Handgun Permit Valid in Parks & Restaurants.
Representative Steen, II
Representative Barnhart
Representative Hastings
Representative Hilton

HB 111 is for discussion only.

Senator Austin M. Allran, Co-Chair
Senator Warren Daniel, Co-Chair
Senator E. S. (Buck) Newton, Co-Chair

Uncategorized

HB 798: Anti-Bloomberg Bill Introduced In North Carolina General Assembly

April 17, 2011 by 3 Comments

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made news over the years by sending his private investigators to gun shows in Arizona and other states. While he portrays his efforts as preventing the flow of “illegal guns” into New York City, it can also be portrayed as an effort to encourage people to commit a felony.

HB 798 was introduced in the North Carolina House last week by Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba). My reading of the bill is that if Bloomberg sent his investigators to North Carolina, then both they and he could be found guilty of a Class F felony for their actions. Other offenses that are Class F felonies in North Carolina include involuntary manslaughter, assault causing serious injury on a law enforcement officer, extortion, bribery, and, oh yes, incest. The average Class F sentence for a first offense is 13-16 months in prison according to sentencing guidelines.

I hope this bill passes and that Mayor Bloomberg sends his minions South. It’d be nice to see Mike picking up trash along the highways of North Carolina.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 2011
H 1
HOUSE BILL 798

Short Title: Fraudulent Firearm Purchase Prevention Act.

(Public)

Sponsors: Representative Hilton (Primary Sponsor).
For a complete list of Sponsors, see Bill Information on the NCGA Web Site.

Referred to:
Judiciary.

April 7, 2011

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to Enact the Fraudulent firearm purchase prevention act.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as “The Fraudulent Firearm Purchase Prevention Act.”
SECTION 2. Article 53A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
“§ 14‑408.1. Solicit unlawful purchase of firearm; unlawful to provide materially false information regarding legality of firearm or ammunition transfer.
(a) The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Ammunition. – Any cartridge, shell, or projectile designed for use in a firearm.
(2) Firearm. – A handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by action of an explosion.
(3) Handgun. – A pistol, revolver, or other gun that has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand.
(4) Licensed dealer. – A person who is licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 923 to engage in the business of dealing in firearms.
(5) Materially false information. – Information that portrays an illegal transaction as legal or a legal transaction as illegal.
(6) Private seller. – A person who sells or offers for sale any firearm, as defined in G.S. 14‑409.39, or ammunition.
(b) Any person who knowingly solicits, persuades, encourages, or entices a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition to transfer a firearm or ammunition under circumstances that the person knows would violate the laws of this State or the United States is guilty of a Class F felony.
(c) Any person who provides to a licensed dealer or private seller of firearms or ammunition information that the person knows to be materially false information with the intent to deceive the dealer or seller about the legality of a transfer of a firearm or ammunition is guilty of a Class F felony.
(d) Any person who willfully procures another to engage in conduct prohibited by this section shall be held accountable as a principal.
(e) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity or to a person acting at the direction of the law enforcement officer.”
SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

Uncategorized

Two Pro-Gun Bills Get Hearing Tomorrow In North Carolina (updates)

March 2, 2011 by 2 Comments

The North Carolina House Judiciary Subcommittee A will hold hearings on HB 63 – Firearm in Locked Motor Vehicle/Parking Lot – and on HB 111 – Handgun Permit Valid in Parks and Restaurants. According to the current House calendar, they are set to take up these measures at 10am on Wednesday, March 3rd in Raleigh.

HB 63 provides:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT NO BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER SHALL PROHIBIT THE TRANSPORTATION OR STORAGE OF A FIREARM OR AMMUNITION WHEN THE FIREARM AND AMMUNITION ARE LOCKED OUT OF SIGHT IN A MOTOR VEHICLE, TO PROVIDE THAT A BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER IS LIABLE TO ANYONE INJURED AS A RESULT OF AN UNLAWFUL PROHIBITION, TO PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION TO ENFORCE THE RIGHT TO 8 TRANSPORT AND STORE A FIREARM AND AMMUNITION IN A LOCKED MOTOR VEHICLE ON THE PROPERTY OF A BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER, AND TO PROVIDE THAT A BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE, OR EMPLOYER IS NOT CIVILLY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM ANOTHER PERSON’S ACTIONS INVOLVING A FIREARM TRANSPORTED OR STORED IN A LOCKED VEHICLE IN A MANNER THAT COMPLIES WITH STATE LAW.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. Article 53B of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
Ҥ 14-409.41. No prohibition regarding the transportation or storage of a firearm in locked motor vehicle by business, commercial enterprise, or employer; civil liability; enforcement.
(a) As used in this section, the term “motor vehicle” means any automobile, truck, minivan, sports utility vehicle, motorcycle, motor scooter, and any other vehicle required to be registered under Chapter 20 of the General Statutes.

(b) A business, commercial enterprise, or employer shall not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person from transporting or storing any firearm or ammunition when the person is otherwise in compliance with all other applicable laws and regulations and the firearm or ammunition is locked out of sight within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on a motor vehicle.

(c) Subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Vehicles owned or leased by an employer.
(2) Facilities, lands, or property owned, operated, or controlled by any commercial or public entity engaged in the generation, transmission, or distribution of electricity; in the transmission or storage of natural gas or liquid petroleum; or in water storage or supply.
(3) Facilities owned or leased by a United States Department of Defense contractor or sites on which hazardous chemicals are stored in quantities greater than 1,000,000 pounds at any one time or in any quantity if required to be registered pursuant to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards under the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007, Public Law 5 109-295, or the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, Public Law 6 107-295.
(4) Where transport or storage of a firearm is prohibited by State or federal law or regulation.

(d) A person who is injured or incurs damages, or the survivors of a person killed, as a result of a violation of subsection (b) of this section may bring a civil action in the appropriate court against any business entity, commercial enterprise, or employer who committed or caused such violation. A person who would be entitled legally to transport or store a firearm or ammunition, but who would be denied the ability to transport or store a firearm or ammunition by a policy in violation of subsection (b) of this section, may bring a civil action in the appropriate court to enjoin any business entity, commercial enterprise, or employer from violating subsection (b) of this section.

(e) An employee discharged by an employer, business entity, or commercial enterprise for violation of a policy or rule prohibited under subsection (b) of this section, when he or she was lawfully transporting or storing a firearm out of plain sight in a locked motor vehicle, is entitled to full recovery as specified in subdivisions (1) through (4) of this subsection, inclusive. If the demand for the recovery is denied, the employee may bring a civil action in the courts of this State against the employer, business entity, or commercial enterprise and is entitled to the following:
(1) Reinstatement to the same position held at the time of his or her termination from employment, or to an equivalent position.
(2) Reinstatement of the employee’s full fringe benefits and seniority rights, as appropriate.
(3) Compensation, if appropriate, for lost wages, benefits, or other lost remuneration caused by the termination.
(4) Payment of reasonable attorneys’ fees and legal costs incurred.

(f) No business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner shall be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries, or death resulting from or arising out of another person’s actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored pursuant to subsection 34 (b) of this section, including, but not limited to, the theft of a firearm from an employee’s automobile. Nothing contained in this section shall create a new duty on the part of any business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner beyond the duty specified in subsection (b) of this section.

(g) In any action relating to the enforcement of any right or obligation under this section, the reasonable, good-faith efforts of a business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner to comply with other applicable and irreconcilable federal or State safety laws or regulations shall be a complete defense to any liability of the business, commercial enterprise, employer, or property owner.

(h) It is the intent of this section to reinforce and protect the right of each citizen lawfully to transport and store firearms within his or her vehicle for lawful purposes in any place the vehicle is otherwise permitted to be and whenever this would not contravene existing federal or State law or regulation.”

SECTION 2. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

While HB 63 has specific exclusions for certain entities such as water, natural gas/LP, and electric utilities plus areas where state and federal laws and regulations prohibit it, generally it will apply to a broad swath of employers in North Carolina. The bill has four primary sponsors and 18 co-sponsors. In this case, they are all Republican except for one unaffiliated member.

HB 111 would do two things. It would allow CHP holders to carry in eating establishments and restaurants including those that serve alcohol. Under current North Carolina law, it is illegal for a CHP holder to carry a firearm, concealed or open carry,  into any restaurant that serves alcohol (GS 14-269.3) Restaurants are defined as any eating establishment that has seating for 36 customers, a separate kitchen, and which makes 30% or more of its profits from the sale of food and non-alcoholic beverages.

HB 111 would also forbid any state or local entity from enacting any law, regulation, or ordinance prohibiting concealed carry holders from carrying in parks. They could make such laws regarding government building and adjoining premises.

HB 111 reads:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO ALLOW PERSONS WITH CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR FAMILIES IN RESTAURANTS AND TO ALLOW A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITTEE TO CARRY A HANDGUN IN A PARK.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. G.S. 14-269.3(b) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:
“(5) A person on the premises of an establishment that is a restaurant under G.S. 18B-1000(2) or G.S. 18B-1000(6), provided the person has a valid concealed handgun permit under Article 54B of Chapter 14 of the General 10 Statutes.”

SECTION 2. G.S. 14-415.23 reads as rewritten:
Ҥ 14-415.23. Statewide uniformity.
It is the intent of the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform system for the regulation of legally carrying a concealed handgun. To insure uniformity, no political subdivisions, boards, or agencies of the State nor any county, city, municipality, municipal corporation, town, township, village, nor any department or agency thereof, may enact ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning legally carrying a concealed handgun. A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to permit the posting of a prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun, in ccordance with G.S. 14-415.11(c), on local government buildings, their appurtenant premises, and parks.buildings and their appurtenant premises.”

SECTION 3. This act becomes effective December 1, 2011

This bill has four primary sponsors and a bipartisan group of 17 co-sponsors.

Judiciary Subcommittee A only has a few members who are listed sponsors or co-sponsors of these bills. Of greater concern is that Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake) is a member of this committee. In the last session, as Chairperson of this subcommittee, she refused to allow hearings on the Castle Doctrine even after it had been passed by the State Senate. However, Rep. Ross is now in the Minority and cannot exert the same power she did in earlier sessions.

UPDATE: Thanks to WRAL we have streaming video of this subcommittee hearing. The hearing lasted 58 minutes and, according to WRAL, no votes were taken. Therefore, it isn’t too late to contact these members and urge an affirmative vote on HB 63 and HB 111.

Uncategorized

What the GOP Takeover of the NC General Assembly Could Mean for Gun Rights

November 3, 2010 by

The Republicans will now control both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly for the first time since 1898. That’s correct – 112 years. 1898 was the year that the fusion of Populists and Republicans lost control of the General Assembly which they had held for the preceding four years. The tactic that the Democrats used to overcome the Republicans was an appeal to white supremacy.

The “white supremacy campaign” was exactly that. The Democrats repeatedly stated that only white men were fit to hold political office. They often accused the fusionists, especially the Republicans, of supporting “negro domination” in the state. Indeed, there were a large number of African American officeholders, some of whom had been elected and many more who were appointed to office. The Democrats referred to themselves as the “white man’s party” and appealed to white North Carolinians to restore them to power.

As a result of this shameful legacy, the Democrats have maintained control of at least one house of the General Assembly ever since. That is, until last night.

Sean at An NC Gun Blog has developed a list of laws that need to go. While most of these laws are firearm or weapon specific, some are not. He brings an outsider’s keen eye to some of the more egregious laws on the books. For example, in North Carolina to purchase a cross-bow you need a a purchase permit from the local sheriff. This is the same permit that NC requires for the purchase of a handgun. Sean’s list should be required reading in the Republican caucus of both houses of the General Assembly.

At the top of my list would be a modification of the gun ban during states of emergency, the castle doctrine, and guns in state parks. I would also add that the Wildlife Resources Commission needs to change its regulation which prevents the carrying of anything other than a .22 pistol as a sidearm on state-recognized gamelands outside of hunting season even if one has a Concealed Handgun Permit. Since all the National Forests in North Carolina are also gamelands, I am forbidden to carry a centerfire handgun, permit or no permit, outside of hunting season. Congress recognized that crime happens in National Parks. The General Assembly and the WRC needs to recognize that it can happen in National Forests as well.