HB 650

I spoke with Governor Bev Perdue’s office today to inquire about the status of HB 650 which amends a number of North Carolina’s gun laws and, more importantly, adopts the Castle Doctrine. It has not been signed yet.

Gov. Perdue has until June 30th to either veto HB 650 or allow it to be passed with or without her signature. Under the North Carolina Constitution, a bill passed by the General Assembly can only be vetoed by the affirmative action of the governor. In other words, North Carolina does not have the pocket veto whereby a bill is vetoed if not signed within 10 days. Thus, if Perdue does nothing against the bill, it will become law regardless of whether she actually signs the bill or not.

In my chat with the Governor’s Office I found out that they are keeping a tally on each bill passed by the General Assembly to see whether the caller wants the bill signed or vetoed. They also implied that Perdue is holding off on HB 650 until the last moment to see what the popular sentiment is on the bill.

Call her office now! It is a toll-free call – 800-662-7952 – and say you want HB 650 signed. That is all you have to do. You don’t have to present them with any arguments why she should sign it – just say sign it. If you live in the Raleigh area, the local number is 919-733-2391. All they will ask is your name and county.

We have fought too long and too hard to see this bill vetoed. While the numbers are there for a veto override, why should be there be any more delay in advancing your gun rights?

Pass this on to pro-gun friends and family!

Sean at An NC Gun Blog has more on this bill as well as a report from WRAL on the bill’s chances of being signed.

UPDATE: According to a Tweet from WRAL, Governor Perdue has signed HB 650.

@NCCapitol
Perdue has signed “Run and You’re Done,” omnibus gun rights bill, E-verify, “founding principles,” opt-out for corp punishmt, 17 more #ncga

UPDATE II: According to Laura Leslie, Capitol Bureau Chief of WRAL, Governor Perdue signed 22 bills, allowed one to become law without her signature, and vetoed one bill. Included in the signed bills was HB 650. The vetoed bill was a bill that required voters to present a picture ID in order to vote.

As she works through the more than 200 bills state lawmakers sent her last week, Gov. Bev Perdue released a list of 22 bills signed today, and one she allowed to become law without her signature.
…
HB 650 Omnibus Gun Bill – This bill makes multiple changes across an array of statutes related to gun possession and use. The bill’s most significant change is implementing the castle doctrine in North Carolina.

HB 650 is one of the two important gun rights bills to pass this North Carolina State House so far this session. The first was HB 111 which allows concealed carry holders to carry in restaurants that serve alcohol (but not drink and carry) as well as carry in state, county, and municipal parks. HB 650 is the more important of the two because it contains the Castle Doctrine as well as a whole host of other improvements in North Carolina’s firearms laws. To get a section by section breakdown of all the bill does, go to A NC Gun Blog where Sean has a complete rundown on each section of the bill.

Because HB 650 is so important, it is critical to know who our friends were on the bill, who was against us, and who talks a good game but you can’t really trust with your gun rights. There were three votes of real consequence on the bill: the McGrady (A3) and Rapp (A4) Amendments and the vote on the Second Reading. Frankly, the vote on the Third Reading was mostly a pro forma vote with only one change – McGrady voting Aye instead of Not Voting – when compared to the Second Reading.

Amendment 3 – The McGrady Amendment

As discussed in more detail here, the McGrady Amendment removed the parking lot protections as well as protection from OSHA from the bill. A No vote on the amendment was the pro-gun vote.

Ayes

Democrat

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

Republican

Brubaker; Daughtry; Dockham; Dollar; Guice; Howard; McCormick; McGee; McGrady; Rhyne; Stam

Noes

Democrat

Faison; Hill; Spear

Republican

Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Dixon; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McElraft; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Pridgen; Randleman; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Not Voting

Democrats – None (Excused – Wilkins)
Republicans – Holloway; Murry; Tillis (SPEAKER)

Amendment 4 – The Rapp Amendment

The Rapp Amendment would have removed the protection given CHP holders on educational properties if they had a firearm in a locked car or locked case within the motor vehicle. Again, a No vote was the pro-gun vote. Unlike the McGrady Amendment, this one failed.

Ayes

Democrat

Adams; Alexander, K.; Alexander, M.; Bell; Bordsen; Brandon; Brisson; Bryant; Carney; Crawford; Earle; Faison; Farmer-Butterfield; Fisher; Floyd; Gill; Glazier; Goodman; Graham; Hackney; Haire; Hall; Hamilton; Harrison; Hill; Insko; Jackson; Jeffus; Keever; Lucas; Luebke; Martin; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Michaux; Mobley; Moore, R.; Owens; Parfitt; Parmon; Pierce; Rapp; Ross; Spear; Tolson; Wainwright; Warren, E.; Weiss; Womble; Wray

Republican

Guice; Holloway; Howard; Samuelson; Stam

Noes

Democrat

None

Republican

Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Boles; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; McGrady; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Not Voting

Democrats: None (2 Excused – Cotham; Wilkins)
Republicans: Murry; Tillis (SPEAKER)

Second Reading

An Aye vote on the Second Reading is the pro-gun vote. Unlike the almost pro forma vote on the Third Reading, a vote on the Second Reading is the make or break vote.

Ayes

Democrat

Brandon; Brisson; Crawford; Faison; Graham; Hill; Lucas; McGuirt; McLawhorn; Owens; Spear; Wray

Republican

Avila; Barnhart; Blackwell; Blust; Bradley; Brawley; Brown, L.; Brown, R.; Brubaker; Burr; Cleveland; Collins; Cook; Current; Daughtry; Dixon; Dockham; Dollar; Faircloth; Folwell; Frye; Gillespie; Guice; Hager; Hastings; Hilton; Hollo; Horn; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Ingle; Johnson; Jones; Jordan; Justice; Killian; Langdon; LaRoque; Lewis; McComas; McCormick; McElraft; McGee; Mills; Moffitt; Moore, T.; Murry; Pridgen; Randleman; Rhyne; Sager; Samuelson; Sanderson; Setzer; Shepard; Stam; Starnes; Steen; Stevens; Stone; Torbett; Warren, H.; West

Noes

Democrat

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

Republican

None

Not Voting

Democrats: None (Excused – Wilkins)
Republicans: Boles; Holloway; McGrady; Tillis (SPEAKER)

The North Carolina State House passed HB 650 which amends various firearms laws and includes the Castle Doctrine on the 2nd Reading. There is no report of the actual vote totals yet on the North Carolina General Assembly website or if it was even a roll-call vote. The bill will now go for its 3rd and final Reading before it is sent to the State Senate.

Unfortunately, the bill did not pass unscathed. There were three amendments to the bill that were considered and passed before the bill passed its 2nd Reading.

Amendment 1 was sponsored by Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) who was one of the primary sponsors of HB 650. This amendment seems to be merely clarifying language which doesn’t weaken the bill. This amendment was adopted unanimously.

Amendment 2 was also sponsored by Rep. Hilton and it slightly weakened the protections given to those who use defensive force. The presumption remains that a person had a reasonable fear of death or severe bodily injury and was justified in using defensive force if someone was illegally and forcefully attempting to enter a motor vehicle, home, or workplace and if the person using the defensive force had reason to believe that the attacker or entrant was doing so illegally. However, this presumption is now rebuttable in all cases. Previously, only the presumption for using defensive force in a motor vehicle or workplace was rebuttable. In essence, law enforcement and prosecutors can now try to impeach your story if you use defensive force to protect your home as well as your car and place of business. This amendment passed 112 to 3.

Amendment 3 was sponsored by freshman Rep. Chuck McGrady (R-Henderson). This amendment which passed 59-57 deletes the section of the bill that prohibited employers from banning storage of a firearm in a locked vehicle and the section that stated the carrying of a handgun by those with handgun permits when allowed by the business, commercial enterprise, property owner, or employer did not constitute an occupation safety and health hazard. Thus employers still can force their employees to be at risk on their way to work and the Federal agency OSHA can still harass businesses or property owners who recognize the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

I don’t have the vote breakdown on Amendment 3 but I am making the presumption that it was a coalition of wobbly Republicans and anti-gun Democrats who provided the bare majority for this amendment to pass. I am guessing the rationale given by the Republicans will be that they were respecting property rights and the Democrats that a gun near the workplace will cause a worker to go “postal”.   If I am incorrect on this once the roll-call vote becomes available, I will make the correction. However, I doubt that I am wrong.

I will be emailing Mr. McGrady tonight to see if I can get an explanation for his actions.

UPDATE:  That was quick. I have gotten a response from Rep. McGrady and I was correct – the rationale was “property rights”. His response is below.

Chuck: I offered the amendment because I felt that the bill, as drafted, infringed upon private property rights. I think the vote count reflects the fact that these are hard issues when one has to balance one person’s rights against another person’s rights. Thanks for your question.

I have sent a response back to him asking for more detail as Section 27 seems to me to give private property owners more – not less – protection by protecting them from claims that they are allowing an occupational safety and health hazard when they allow handgun permit holders to carry on the property.

UPDATE II: WRAL-TV is reporting by Twitter that the vote on the 2nd Reading was 77 Ayes to 38 Nays.

WRAL also reported that the bill’s sponsor Rep. Mark Hilton (R-Catawba) and Rep. Paul Stam (R-Wake), House Majority Leader clashed over property rights versus gun rights on the House floor. Stam, who has stood in the way of more expansive gun rights legislation, reportedly said “land property rights predate gun rights.”