Bateman v Perdue

Uncategorized

Perhaps The Locals Do Know Best

February 24, 2020 by 2 Comments

We often complain about national groups coming in and telling the locals how they should be doing it. This is usually in the context of a group like Mike Bloomberg’s Everytown, Moms Demand Action, or Giffords. However, sometimes it is our own side in the battle for gun rights that is doing this.

Such is the case in Alabama where the NRA is supporting a move to consolidate the list of pistol permit holders, that state’s nomenclature for a concealed carry permit, into a statewide database. The bills in question are HB39 and SB47. The bills provide for the permits to be standardized and issued statewide. They also provide for a lifetime carry permit.

This move is getting a mixed reaction as reported by CBS 42.

Bama Carry and the Alabama Gun Rights Network don’t always agree on the best strategies for advancing gun rights in the Heart of Dixie.

However, when I reached out to friends who are affiliated with those organizations, the response I got was virtually identical. They are opposed to the bills in their current form as they create a database of gun owners which has the potential to be abused.

My friend Beth Alcazar, the Alabama representative of the DC Project and a board member of Bama Carry, had this to say to me in a Facebook message. I’m quoting her with her permission.

At the heart of this matter (and why we are hesitant to get on board) is the fact that law abiding gun owners will be on a registry, with all information being shared, statewide, and this info. could end up on a driver license. This, of course, could cause problems traveling across state lines. What if someone is stopped or pulled over and now questioned or harassed (or searched) because of this identification? And what happens if a government body must be created to oversee this database? Currently, our permit info. is only in the hands of our sheriffs. A lifetime permit could open that up… from just local to state.

Additionally, the NRA doesn’t appear to be listening to Alabamians or to our state’s largest gun rights group, and they continue to push legislation that has potential problems or unintended consequences.

And therein lies the problem. When it is a matter of state and local politics, local activists should be listened to. That there seems to be a disconnect between local gun right rights groups and the NRA on an issue of local concern is not good. The NRA should either defer to the local groups or work to find a compromise that satisfies all gun rights groups involved.

We in North Carolina had much the same problem in 2011 concerning gun bans outside the home during periods of declared emergencies. Grass Roots North Carolina along with local plaintiffs and the Second Amendment Foundation brought Bateman v. Perdue. The NRA-ILA representative in North Carolina was pushing for a quick legislative fix that would have mooted the case. The problem with a quick legislative fix was that it could have been changed on the whim of the next General Assembly. GRNC, SAF, and local activists had to push legislators to let the court case run its path. In the end the General Assembly did that and we won a decision in Bateman declaring the gun ban unconstitutional.

I wrote back then (June 2011) that “there are some in the NRA’s hierarchy who believe the NRA has to be the be-all and end-all of all things Second Amendment.” I noted that the NRA does some things really well and others not so well. I said the NRA should concentrate on training, the legislative arena, and other areas where a mass organization can do well. I didn’t think they were nearly as good at Second Amendment litigation as SAF.

I would now modify my statement from 2011 to say that the NRA does lobbying at the national level well and should work closer with state and local groups on state level lobbying if they want to be effective. Moreover, by state and local groups I don’t mean it has to be the NRA state affiliate as the experience of non-affiliates VCDL and GRNC has shown. Whether the NRA and their state ILA representatives are wise enough to recognize this is still open to debate.

Uncategorized

GRNC Reminds Us What Could Have Been

January 18, 2018 by

North Carolina is under a declared state of emergency due to snow, ice, and extreme cold. I know those living in the upper Midwest are probably scratching their heads over this but remember North Carolina doesn’t have the infrastructure – plows, etc. – to deal with this as a regular occurrence.

I bring this up as a reminder that before McDonald v. Chicago brought Second Amendment rights to the states it was state law in NC that no one could be armed outside the home during a state of emergency. Moreover, firearm and alcohol sales were also suspended. The win in the case of Bateman v. Perdue changed this as the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina found this to be unconstitutional. Thanks needs to go to Grass Roots North Carolina, the Second Amendment Foundation, and attorney Alan Gura for bringing the case. It was the first case filed after the win in the McDonald case. If you search this blog using “Bateman” or “emergency”, you will find numerous blog posts about the case.

Grass Roots North Carolina sent out a reminder yesterday about the win in Bateman yesterday.

‘STATE OF EMERGENCY’ &

YOUR RIGHTS
Thanks to
GRNC: Your Gun Rights are Recognized and Protected During this Snowstorm. . . 

Due to winter weather, on Tuesday, Jaunary 16th, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper declared a “state of
emergency.” What does that mean to you today, and what could it have meant? Find out below. 

As you may recall, Grass Roots
North Carolina was a plaintiff in Bateman v. Perdue, when we sued
Governor
Beverly Perdue over the State of Emergency gun ban, a ban on law-abiding
citizens carrying guns during a declared state of emergency.

GRNC argued that the ban
constituted an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. We
did so after
the town of King, NC posted the entire town against firearms in advance
of a pending snowstorm, and after Gov. Perdue declared a statewide State
of
Emergency, in response to an advancing hurricane, on the opening day of
dove season, making criminals of thousands of dove hunters. GRNC and
other
plaintiffs won the lawsuit, and the law was struck down as
unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Like Our Work?
Thanks to the GRNC, and gun owners like you who support GRNC, law-abiding North
Carolina gun-carriers have not been rendered criminals today just because a little snow fell.

So . . . rest easy, and enjoy your hot chocolate! And if you
care to contribute to our all-volunteer organization so we can continue
to
protect and expand gun laws in our state, please 
(or go to: https://www.grnc.org/join-grnc/contribute) 
Uncategorized

Why We Fight To Get Rid Of Pistol Purchase Permits

September 28, 2016 by 1 Comment

It looks like things are starting to settle down in Charlotte after the recent violence. You may have noticed some of the stories that referenced local citizens rushing out to buy firearms. Of course my readeers know that you should have the means to armed self-defence before the SHTF.

According to a spokesperson for Hyatt Gun Shop most of the purchases were for 12-gauge shotguns and buckshot. What was never mentioned in these stories is the purchase of a handgun in North Carolina requires either a pistol purchase permit or a NC Concealed Handgun Permit. Absent one of those two documents, you were legally restricted to purchasing a long gun. This is true even if it was a private sale.

While the Alan Gura’s win in Bateman overturned the previous restrictions on possession of a firearm outside the home during a state of emergency as well as the restriction on firearm sales, we are still stuck with the Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit.

Grass Roots North Carolina has been fighting the battle to get the permit system repealed for a number of years. They sent out the following alert yesterday afternoon requesting people contact both Gov. Pat McCrory (R-NC) and his Democratic opponent Attorney Gen. Roy Cooper (D-NC) urging them to support repeal of this system.

DELAYS IMPERIL CITIZENS
As Charlotte burned, the Jim Crow-era bureaucracy denied gun
purchases to the terrorized . . .

Aficionados of Natural rights know that free citizens should not be
forced to obtain permission slips from the bureaucracy before exercising
their
protected rights. In fact, it has always been GRNC’s position that
archaic and shameful laws designed to deny citizens their rights, like
the
Jim Crow-era Pistol Purchase Permit (PPP), must be eradicated. With all
of GRNC’s moral arguments and its unceasing effort to eliminate the PPP
system, never before has the need to discard this old-fashioned and
embarrassing legality been so obvious—and so critical.

A Right
Delayed is a Life put in Peril

As you may be aware, several
counties around the state, including Mecklenburg County, have been using
bureaucratic loopholes and high-demand for guns as an excuse to
severely
delay the issuance of PPPs and Concealed Handgun Permits (CHP).  Indeed,
it is true that, “a right delayed is a right denied.” However,
in the context of a city ravaged by violent rioters, it should also be said that, a right delayed is a life put in peril. As a small
but deviant portion of Charlotte’s populace, reinforced by out-of-state agitators,
attempted to raze Charlotte,
law-abiding and rightfully terrified citizens lined up to purchase
much-needed handguns to protect their families, only to be told, “no.”

These citizens were told that they would be barred from purchasing
defensive handguns until the weeks-long, and now often delayed, PPP
and/or CHP
process could be completed. The Sheriff and other law enforcement
officials are paid to protect and serve the citizens, and thank goodness
for the
officers on the street. However, it is ironic that the law enforcement
bureaucracy has been weighted to keep these same citizens from
protecting
themselves, particularly when the need is so immediate, and the
situation so dire.

In the context of riots, where citizens are at more risk than
ever
and law-enforcement is overwhelmed, laws delaying the citizen’s access
to defensive weapons serve only to empower the thugs, thugs who seek to
hurt these citizens and their livelihoods. This must end!

Below, see how
you can easily contact NC’s two contenders for governor. Remind them
that you have not forgotten about this critical issue. Let them know
that, even outside of the legislative season, this is an issue that is
worthy of
great attention, and gun owners will continue to monitor their actions
on this; and actions after November will speak louder than words spoken
before
November. Remind them that, ultimately, the requirement for PPPs and
CHPs (government “permission slips”) must be eliminated as a step
toward genuine rights-recognition for law-abiding citizens in North
Carolina.

IMMEDIATE ACTION
REQUIRED!

  • PHONE GOVERNOR
    McCRORY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL COOPER    : Use the phone numbers provided below, and tell them:

    I am calling to inform [The Governor / Mr.
    Cooper]
    that, at the same time deadly riots raged in Charlotte, frightened
    citizens were denied their right to obtain defensive handguns. This
    happened due to
    our state’s outdated Jim Crow-era Pistol Purchase Permit system and the
    weeks-long process to obtain a concealed handgun permit (CHP). This
    denial of civil rights has the potential to cost innocent lives, and it
    is entirely unacceptable. We must end these archaic and dangerous PPP
    and CHP
    systems, which only serve to put citizen’s lives in peril. I insist that
    this be addressed in the upcoming legislative session, and that [The
    Governor / Mr. Cooper] prioritize the repeal of these shameful and
    dangerous systems.

    Governor Pat
    McCrory:                  (919) 814-2000

    Attorney General Roy Cooper: (919) 716-6400

    (Candidate for Governor)

  • EMAIL GOVERNOR McCRORY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
    COOPER    : Use the links to
    their web forms provided below, and the text provided under ‘Deliver this Message’ to send a message.

    Governor
    McRory’s Contact Web Form:
    https://governor.nc.gov/contact/email-governor

    Attorney General Cooper’s Contact Web Form:

    http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/d1ba7632-eced-41be-945f-8c2015756efe/ContactNCDOJ.aspx

DELIVER THIS
MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: “Riots: PPP/CHP Permit Delays
Imperil Innocents”  

Dear [Governor McCrory]   /   [Attorney General Cooper]:

I am writing to
inform you that as deadly riots raged in Charlotte, frightened citizens
were denied their right to obtain defensive handguns. This denial of
rights,
which clearly put untold numbers of law-abiding citizens in peril, was
due to our state’s outdated Jim Crow-era Pistol Purchase Permit (PPP)
system, and the weeks-long process required to obtain a concealed
handgun permit (CHP).

In this context of civil unrest, it seems fitting to remind
our
state’s gubernatorial candidates that voters have not forgotten about
this critical issue. Even outside of the legislative season, this is an
issue that is worthy of great attention. The peaceful and law-abiding,
who clearly have reason to fear for their safety, will continue to
monitor your
actions on this issue. You must work to put an end to these archaic and
dangerous PPP and CHP systems, as it is your duty to protect the rights
of
North Carolina citizens, and not least among these is their right to
protect themselves.

As we saw last week, these PPP and CHP systems only serve
to
empower the unlawful and put innocent lives in peril. I insist that the
repeal of these embarrassing throw-backs be a priority of yours in the
upcoming legislative session. And please be aware: actions after
November will speak much louder than words spoken before November.

I will be watching
your actions on this topic through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina.

Respectfully, 
Uncategorized

Update On HB 489 – The Effort To Negate The Bateman Win

June 1, 2012 by 3 Comments

Grass Roots North Carolina sent out an update yesterday evening on HB 489. This was the attempt to re-write North Carolina’s state of emergency gun ban that would have negated the win in Bateman v. Perdue. It now appears that all efforts to re-write the gun ban have failed and that the NC General Assembly will just vote to repeal the offending law.

From GRNC:

Congratulate yourselves on applying pressure that has resulted in another GRNC win added to a growing trend of recent pro-freedom victories. As you recall, in the case Bateman v. Perdue, GRNC and SAF won the lawsuit over North Carolina’s ban on transporting firearms outside the home during declared states of emergency, resulting in the law being declared unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. Because the state chose not to appeal, the decision stands and our unconstitutional law had to be repealed.

Rather than simply repealing the ban, however, NC Senate staffers apparently ran amok and drafted replacement language which was worse than the original law. But after GRNC issued alerts to tens of thousands of gun owners, your input shut down the committee and forced them to reconsider.

Suffice to say you made quite an impression. Instead replacing an unconstitutional gun ban with yet another unconstitutional gun ban, and even including language to “authorize” your right to bear arms in your home during emergencies, as did HB 489, the SOE gun ban is headed for repeal pending an almost certain floor vote in the Senate and House concurrence. This is what should have happened from the very beginning, and serves as a reminder that we need to remain ever vigilant against anti-gun legislation.

This is good news. More importantly, it emphasizes the need to keep an eye on the state legislature to nip these bills in the bud. Without an organized and aggressive state level organization this might have gone through. If you don’t belong to a state level gun rights organization like GRNC, CalGuns, or whatever your state has to offer, you should strongly consider it. The NRA-ILA can only do so much and state-level organizations fill in the gap. Or in the case of organizations like GRNC and CalGuns, lead the way.

WizardPC at Guns, Car, & Tech is assembling a list of these organizations. Check there to find your state’s organization if you don’t know it already.

UPDATE: Two North Carolina gun bloggers, Knitebane and Mark of a Free Man, have been doing some detective work into just who rewrote HB 489 in an effort to negate the Bateman win. No state senator is taking credit for the substitute language and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary I committee won’t identify the author. The person that they come up with makes sense to me. Go here to read the full story. It makes for some interesting reading.

Uncategorized

Citizens Committee On HB 489

May 25, 2012 by

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms just released an alert on North Carolina’s HB 489 and the attempt to overturn the Bateman ruling.

The alert:

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is alerting North Carolina gun owners that state lawmakers are attempting to pass a new “emergency powers” law that may be more restrictive than the one a federal judge just struck down.

House Bill 489, according to Grass Roots North Carolina, would enable cities to restrict firearms rights in the home in emergencies, something they never had the authority to do. Attorney Alan Gura, who represented GRNC and the Second Amendment Foundation in the recently-won federal lawsuit striking down the state’s emergency power to regulate firearms in a declared emergency, says that anyone who tries to enforce a ban on guns under this new legislation would lose qualified immunity.

The legislation, now in the Senate Judiciary I committee, establishes “dangerous weapons restrictions in emergencies.”

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the new proposal suggests that North Carolina lawmakers responsible for this bill “either simply don’t get it or they are determined to undermine a constitutionally-protected civil right no matter what a judge says.”

“The federal court ruled against this sort of emergency regulation, but the legislature is turning around and trying to pass an even more restrictive law,” he observed.

CCRKBA is urging firearms owners to contact their state senator to oppose the measure.

“Try to adopt bad legislation in an effort to replace a bad law that was struck down by a federal judge is not just bad policy,” Gottlieb said, “it is an egregious abuse of legislative power.”

Uncategorized

Update On Attempt To Negate Bateman Win

May 24, 2012 by

Grass Roots North Carolina sent out an update this evening regarding the NC Senate Judiciary I committee substitute for HB 489. The proposed language of this substitute would effectively negate the win that Alan Gura secured in Bateman v. Perdue.

The substitute has been pulled from the calendar to give the Judiciary I committee “more time to study the issue.” As to why it was even proposed, GRNC speculates that it was legislative staff run amok.

What is becoming clearer, however, is that this might be a case of inadequately supervised staffers running amok. When emergency management bill HB 843 went to the Senate Judiciary I Committee, it still contained the language found unconstitutional in Bateman. Committee chair Sen. Pete Brunstetter then reportedly gave it to staff to “fix.” But instead of simply repealing the now-unconstitutional gun ban, they apparently took it upon themselves to draft new gun bans. Equally clear is that although HB 489 was Rep. “Skip” Stam’s bill, Stam wasn’t even informed that his bill would be gutted before it was attempted.

What remains to be seen is whether Brunstetter and other Republicans will do the right thing and simply repeal the old ban. Right now, too many are still making noises about using gun bans to combat looting during natural or manmade disasters – once again falling for the old trap of targeting lawful guns instead of unlawful behavior.

GRNC is now asking that people contact their state senator (as opposed to the committee members) and make their displeasure known. You can find out your state senator (if you don’t already know) by going to this link and putting in your ZIP+4. If you don’t know your ZIP+4, you can find it on your driver’s license or most any piece of mail coming to your home.

The suggested letter composed by GRNC reads:

Dear Senator:

I strongly urge you to oppose the Proposed Committee Substitute for House Bill 489: “Dangerous Weapons Restrictions in Emergencies” (H489-CSSA-71 [v.4]). The bill would be more accurately titled: “Gun Rights Authorized by Bureaucrats.”

North Carolina’s existing ban on bearing arms outside the home was recently declared unconstitutional under the Second Amendment by a federal court in the case Bateman v. Perdue. But instead of simply repealing what is now a largely unenforceable statute, HB 489 would replace it with an even more insidious ban.

That HB 489’s long title describes “authorizing” arms and ammunition in the home speaks volumes about the bill. Language purporting to restrict cities from banning guns outside the home is vague to the point of being useless; the bill is sloppily drafted; and worst of all, it stipulates for the first time which lawful firearm-related activities I may or may not exercise IN MY OWN HOME.

Understand that I will accept NO NEW GUN BANS, but only the repeal of the state of emergency gun ban found unconstitutional in Bateman.

Please advise me of your position on this issue. I will be monitoring it via Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,

This is too important an issue to just let other people do it. If you live in North Carolina and you value your gun rights, get off your duff, copy and paste this message into an email, and send it.

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

North Carolina Will Not Appeal Bateman Ruling

May 8, 2012 by

The state of North Carolina will not be appealing their loss in Bateman v. Perdue which found the emergency powers ban on off-premises firearms and ammunition to be unconstitutional. In speaking with Alan Gottlieb at the NRA Annual Meeting, I got the impression that it would be OK with the Second Amendment Foundation if North Carolina did appeal. The rationale is that a win in the 4th Circuit would help to expand Second Amendment rights beyond just the state borders of NC. As it is, while Bateman is a welcome win and will be cited in future cases involving the Second Amendment, it does not carry the same weight as if the ruling came from the Court of Appeals.

The Second Amendment Foundation released the following statement regarding North Carolina’s decision not to appeal the ruling.

BELLEVUE, WA – North Carolina’s failure to appeal a federal judge’s ruling that struck down the state’s emergency power to ban firearms and ammunition outside the home during a declared emergency adds one more Second Amendment victory to the court record being established by the Second Amendment Foundation.

“When the anti-gun lobby claims that courts have not struck down any laws on Second Amendment grounds,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “they deliberately ignore the fact that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was overturned. Likewise, Chicago’s ban was stricken by McDonald v. City of Chicago, as was the city’s ban on gun ranges. Maryland’s draconian regulations on concealed carry were struck down, and so was the Massachusetts ban on firearms ownership by legal alien residents. Part of Omaha’s registration law was overturned, and now North Carolina’s emergency powers gun ban has fallen.

“All but one of those cases,” he added, “were filed by SAF, and in the Heller case against Washington, D.C.s ban, SAF filed an important amicus brief.”

Gottlieb said North Carolina’s decision not to appeal their loss, “frees the foundation to file more legal actions against cities and states that still have laws on the books that violate our constitutional rights.” There are now at least six federal court victories to SAF’s credit, knocking down laws that infringed on Second Amendment rights, and Gottlieb is confident more are coming.

“The North Carolina case should send a message to other states and municipalities with similar emergency powers laws that violate civil rights that they should remove those restrictions immediately,” he stated.

“I want to thank our plaintiffs, our legal team, our staff and in particular, our members and donors who have made all of these victories possible,” Gottlieb said. “Three of these victories, including Bateman v. Purdue in North Carolina, affirm that the Second Amendment doesn’t stop at your front door, like the gun prohibition lobby claims.

“Winning firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time is a long, slow and expensive process, but SAF is committed to it,” he concluded.

Uncategorized

Will Bateman Be Appealed?

March 30, 2012 by

Yesterday after the ruling in Bateman et al v. Perdue et al was released, I reached out to the public information officers for Gov. Beverly Perdue (D-NC) and the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office for their response. Specifically, I asked if they planned to appeal the ruling and if they had any comment on the ruling. I was fortunate to get responses from both offices.

From Noelle Talley, Public Information Officer, NC Department of Justice:

Attorneys with our office are currently reviewing the judge’s ruling. No decision has been made yet on an appeal.

Meanwhile, Mark Johnson of Gov. Perdue’s office had this to say:

Governor Perdue’s executive orders already address this issue – and will in the future – by including the following language:

This order is adopted pursuant to my powers under Article 1 of Chapter 166A of the General Statutes and under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. It does not trigger the limitations on weapons in G.S. § 14-288.7 or impose any limitation on the consumption, transportation, sale or purchase of alcoholic beverages.

The legislature would have to make any change in the statute.

If one goes by what the Attorney General’s Office says, there remains some possibility of an appeal. However, my reading of the response from Gov. Perdue’s office seems to indicate that they don’t plan any appeal. My feeling is that it won’t be appealed.

After the heat that Perdue took over earlier Executive Orders declaring states of emergency, she has started to include the language stated above in her Executive Orders. Unfortunately, until Judge Malcolm Howard found them unconstitutional, any declaration of a state of emergency under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the NC General Statutes did trigger the firearms prohibitions regardless of what modifying language the governor put in them. While she may have thought she addressed that issue, she did not as there was never a provision to exempt the gun bans on the governor’s say-so.

Uncategorized

Grass Roots North Carolina On Their Win In The Bateman Case

March 29, 2012 by 1 Comment

Grass Roots North Carolina, the other organizational plaintiff in Bateman et al v. Perdue et al, released a statement this afternoon on the decision. The statement notes that it helps to extend the right to keep and bear arms outside the home. They also note that their attorney Alan Gura has extended his string of victories in Second Amendment cases.

Grass Roots North Carolina & Second Amendment Foundation expand gun rights

Lawyer Alan Gura extends string of Second Amendment wins

CHARLOTTE, N.C., March 29, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Writing for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Senior U.S. District Judge Malcolm J. Howard today added another to the growing list of gun laws struck down on Second Amendment grounds.

State of Emergency Gun Ban

In Bateman et al. v. Perdue et al., at issue was the state’s blanket prohibition on carrying firearms outside the home during declared states of emergency. During numerous states of emergency involving hurricanes and other phenomena, lawful North Carolinians have been prevented from protecting themselves outside the home, including an incident in which King, NC posted the entire town against firearms in anticipation of a snowstorm. Plaintiffs for the case were gun rights organizations Grass Roots North Carolina, the Second Amendment Foundation, and citizens Michael Bateman, Virgil Green and Forrest Minges, Jr.

Second Amendment Scholarship

The Bateman decision further extends the right to bear arms outside the home. Extensively cited in the decision were the recent Supreme Court decision affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms in D.C. v. Heller, the “incorporation” of the Second Amendment in Mc Donald v. Chicago, and recent Fourth Circuit decisions in U.S. v. Chester and U.S. v. Masciandaro.

From the decision:

Citing from Masciandaro: “…the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ‘is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur.'”

“It cannot be seriously questioned that the emergency declaration laws at issue here burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment…”

“…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.”

In addition to the Heller and McDonald victories, attorney Alan Gura recently won a victory against Maryland’s restrictive handgun permit law in Woollard et al. v. Sheridan et al.