What Is Good Moral Character?

North Carolina HB110 and SB90 as currently written were meant to allow the protection of a religious congregation that rented a school building for their services. It was even titled, “The Religious Assembly Security and
6 Protection Act of 2019.” It would allow those with a concealed handgun permit to carry a handgun on school property after school hours while in a building used for religious services. In other words, a person could serve as church security.

The NC Senate Judiciary Committee in its infinite wisdom is proposing to gut the bill and change it into one dealing with pistol purchase permits and concealed handgun permits. It would change the cost of a pistol purchase permit from $5 to $25 but would now allow unlimited numbers of purchases on the same permit for five years. That proposal has the anti-rights forces such as NCGV in an uproar because there was no limit on how many handguns you could buy with one background check.

More importantly, the proposed committee substitute would apply the same “good moral character” requirement for a pistol purchase permits (now called a Class B Handgun Permit) to the NC Concealed Handgun Permit. What is good moral character? We don’t know because it is such an amorphous phrase. It is right up there with “justifiable need” as many May-Issue permit states use as a criteria. Does someone who writes angry letters to the editor or has a Confederate flag hanging in their basement lack good moral character? Would an avowed atheist be considered to lack good moral character if the local sheriff was a deacon in his or her fundamentalist church?

The proposed committee substitute which isn’t even published on the General Assembly’s website is being pushed by the North Carolina Sheriffs Association and their director Eddie Caldwell. It is a power move on their part as all revenue from all permits would now go to the sheriff rather than being shared with the NC Department of Public Safety. Thanks to dedicated volunteers in Grass Roots North Carolina who keep their ear to the ground we even know about this PCS. The staff attorney prepared this bare bones summary which omits the key issue regarding the good moral character requirement.

This proposed committee substitute must be stopped as it would convert our shall-issue permit into a may-issue permit through the “good moral character” requirement. Grass Roots North Carolina has prepared the following alert asking people to both call and write the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as Republican leaders and say NO.

SHERIFFS GRAB POWER
TO DENY
PERMITS


Links for social media:
https://tinyurl.com/y3w7syp9

OR

https://www.grnc.org/defend-your-rights/recent-grnc-alerts/1068-senate-republicans-to-gut-concealed-carry

This is not a drill, and this is not a joke. Republicans in Raleigh are in the process of
gutting NC’s “shall issue” concealed carry permit application structure…



Regarding
concealed carry permit (CHP) applications, we are furious (yes, furious ) to be forced to announce that the
Republicans you sent
to Raleigh have snuck language into the Proposed Committee Substitute
(PCS) of a bill that would, in essence, transform North Carolina from a
“SHALL ISSUE” state into a “MAY
ISSUE”
state
.


We at GRNC are incensed and you ought to be as well. As you know, GRNC engineered
NC’s “shall
issue” concealed carry law in 1995. Since then, GRNC has been
instrumental in greatly improving it with restaurant carry, limited
school/campus carry and more. We’re not about to stand by and watch a
naked power grab by NC’s sheriffs, aided by Republican senators, roll
back all
of our progress
.

Are You of “Good Moral Character?”

Last week, in Raleigh, Republicans snuck new language into a PCS for Senate Bill S90 (“Protect Religious
Meeting Places”) (=H110),
and
it’s worth noting that, initially, S90 was not even written to deal with
the concealed carry application process. It’s also worth noting
that before the poisonous PCS, S90 was a promising pro-gun bill.

Yet, the PCS language strips “shall issue” status from the people and confers
“may issue” power to your county sheriff
. According to the
PCS, a sheriff can deny CHPs by claiming applicants are not of
“Good Moral Character,” the same shameful Jim Crow-era language that
still exists on Pistol Purchase Permit applications, which GRNC has
been fighting to eliminate.

And you’ve probably guessed already: there is no strict definition for “good moral
character
,” and truly, no definition would suffice in this context anyway. Therefore
(and
conveniently), lacking “good moral character,” grounds for denying a
CHP, is an open-ended label that any sheriff could attach to any
applicant for any reason
.

Shifting Power from Citizen to Sheriff

Lest you wonder, “good moral character” has nothing
to do with an applicant’s criminal history. Exhaustive,
indeed intrusive, criminal and medical background checks, and (de facto)
long waiting periods are already part of the CHP application process.
The sheriff’s personal, subjective and nebulous analysis of your character can have no legitimate purpose.
The only
clear purpose of this language in S90’s PCS is to take power away from
you, the law-abiding citizen, and hand it to your county sheriff to lord
over you, so he can withhold your rights at will.

Perhaps you’re thinking, “Sheriffs would never
use this new power to deny permits to qualified people.”
Yet, if they’d never use their newfound power, why enshrine it in our
state’s laws? It can have only one purpose, and if there is no
intention to use it (now or later), it would not have been proposed as
substitute language for S90.

What You Can Do
Are you
prepared to live in a state that treats gun rights the way California
does—like “gun privileges?” Are you ready to cede your Natural rights to
your county’s sheriff, so he can ration them back to
you as he sees fit? If not, please join other gun rights supporters in
putting an immediate halt to this attack on your gun rights (from the
Republicans no less!). Once again, we must remind these politicians who “brung ‘em” to the dance, and it looks like
we’ll have to be more stern than usual
.

Below, see how you can easily contact
Senate Judiciary Committee members (and Sen. Berger) to tell them,
emphatically, that any vote, indeed any support whatsoever, for S90’s Proposed Committee Substitute will be considered a severe and
blatant anti-gun action
! 

Support “Rights Watch International
AmazonSmile Learn more about Rights Watch
International


You shop. Amazon
Gives.
(What is Amazon Smile?)


IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!



  • EMAIL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Use the copy/paste email list provided below and the copy/paste text provided
    under ‘Deliver This Message. 

  • PHONE REPUBLICAN LEADERS &
    YOUR SENATOR
    :
    This is serious and so phone calls to committee chairs and to your own senator
    are just as important as sending an email message. Call today and leave a message; call Monday and call Tuesday. That’s how important this
    is
    . Please use the phone numbers provided below to contact
    Judiciary Committee leaders. Also, please call your own senator (find
    contact
    details below). When you reach each senator’s office, tell him or her:

    I
    am a gun rights voter, and I am enraged that
    Republicans are seeking to force a huge step backwards for gun rights in
    our state. The ostensibly pro-gun party should be ashamed to be
    identified as
    the party that introduced Senate Bill 90’s PCS language, which would
    grant “may issue” power to sheriffs for Concealed Carry
    Permits, stripping citizens of the unalienable portion of unalienable rights. Any Senator supporting this PCS will be considered
    anti-gun, and will pay at the polls. Thank you.
  • ATTEND TUESDAY’S COMMITTEE HEARING: The presence of gun rights voters at this meeting is critical. Committee members must know that we see what
    they’re trying to do, and that we’re serious about stopping them. Please attend Tuesday’s committee
    meeting
    . You may have an opportunity to speak, so arrive early in case you need to sign up. Find details below.

  • PLEASE
    CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC
    : Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles. Please CLICK HERE to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your
    donations are put to the best possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated.

NC Senate Judiciary Committee, Copy/Paste Email List:
Dan.Bishop@ncleg.net; Dan.Blue@ncleg.net;
Danny.Britt@ncleg.net; Harry.Brown@ncleg.net; Jim.Burgin@ncleg.net;
Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net;
Jim.Davis@ncleg.net; Toby.Fitch@ncleg.net; Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net;
Rick.Horner@ncleg.net; Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net; Jeff.Jackson@ncleg.net;
Natasha.Marcus@ncleg.net; Mujtaba.Mohammed@ncleg.net;
Paul.Newton@ncleg.net; Terry.VanDuyn@ncleg.net; Phil.Berger@ncleg.net

Senate Member Phone
Senator
Danny Britt, Jr.
Senate Judiciary Committee Co-chair
(919) 733-5651
Senator Warren Daniel
Senate
Judiciary Committee Co-chair
(919) 715-7823
Senator Phil Berger
Senate President Pro Tempore
(919) 733-5708
Please call your senator, too.

Need name/contact information?
Click Here and select the ‘NC
Senate
‘ option to find your senator.

Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Committee

Attend to Stop the Gutting of Concealed Carry
WHEN:  Tuesday, June 18, 2019, 10:00 am
WHERE:  NCGA Legislative Building
Room
1124/1224
16 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
IMPORTANT

NOTES:
Please arrive early to allow extra time to park and to get through building security. 60 minutes early is
recommended.
Please dress for the press. Business attire preferred. Please no inflammatory slogans on clothing or
otherwise.
Please bring a roll-up paper sign with the following message on it:

“SENATOR BERGER: DON’T GUT CONCEALED CARRY”

DELIVER THIS
MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: “Don’t Gut Concealed
Carry
”  
Dear
Senator:

I have just
learned of the Republican Party’s effort to transform North Carolina’s
concealed carry permit (CHP) application structure from
“shall issue” to “may issue.” I see that Senate Judiciary Committee
members have snuck language into S90’s Proposed
Committee Substitute (PCS) that would grant sheriffs unchecked power to
deny concealed carry permits to any applicant, any time, for effectively
any
reason. The PCS’s language, which poisons an otherwise pro-gun bill,
allows a sheriff to declare that an applicant, any applicant, is not of
“good moral character.” This is the same shameful Jim Crow-era language
that still exists on the Pistol Purchase Permit application,
language that ought to be removed (not added elsewhere).

Of course, “good moral character” has no
particular definition, nor would any be satisfactory given the
context. Exhaustive and intrusive background checks and (de facto) long
waiting periods are already part of the CHP application process. The
sheriff’s personal, subjective and nebulous analysis of an applicant’s
“character” has precisely zero legitimacy. Clearly, its
only purpose is to wrest power from the law-abiding citizen and hand it
to our county sheriffs to lord over the citizens, so sheriffs can
withhold
Natural rights by fiat.

This is unacceptable! I am incensed that the committee members,
especially those in the Republican Party, would even consider such an
anti-gun scheme.
North Carolina is not California, it is not New York, and gun voters
will not allow this state to transform into one of these states in the
context of
the Second Amendment.

Be
warned:
Any
favorable vote, even the slightest measure of support for S90’s PCS,
with its “good moral character” clause, will be perceived as a threat to
every gun rights voter in this state, myself included. Do not
doubt it, backing S90’s PCS will be recorded as an extreme anti-gun
action!

Put a stop to
S90’s anti-gun PCS now. I will be monitoring your actions on this
critical matter through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina

Respectfully,

UPDATE: My sources in GRNC tell me the bill has been pulled from the committee calendar. It appears the committee heard from you.

To The NC Republicans Who Voted To Keep The Permit System, This One Is For You

Back on June 16th, 34 Republican members of the NC House joined with all 43 Democrat members on an amendment to HB 562 that not only kept the racist Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit system but doubled down by adding back the “good moral character” verbiage. This was Amendment Five proposed by Rep. Allen McNeill (R-Randolph). If asked, those 34 Republicans would have said that they were just supporting law enforcement. After all, the amendment was proposed by Rep. McNeill who had been the Chief Deputy in the Randolph County Sheriffs’ Department before being elected to the General Assembly.

It just so happened that keeping the pistol purchase permit system alive was also the primary goal of every gun prohibitionist group out there. Both Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors and Americans for Responsible Solutions (sic) put up big bucks on ad campaigns urging people to contact their legislators to “save background checks”. The Brady Campaign was sending text messages and emails left and right.

Earlier this week, Bloomberg’s group Everytown sent out this press release saying they had beaten the “gun lobby”.

Another NRA Defeat: North Carolina Moms Successfully Defend Handgun Background Check Requirement From Gun Lobby-Backed Repeal Effort

July 27, 2015 By press

NC Legislature Rejects Gun Lobby Attempt to Repeal Background Checks for Handgun Buyers

RALEIGH, NC – The North Carolina chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, part of Everytown for Gun Safety, released the following statements today after successfully removing a gun lobby-backed provision out of HB 562 that would have repealed North Carolina’s requirement that all handgun buyers first pass a criminal background check and obtain a pistol permit—and made it easy for prohibited people to buy a handgun from an unlicensed, private seller with no questions asked.

Statement from Sarah Green, volunteer Chapter Leader of the North Carolina Chapter of Moms Demand Action:

“Moms were loud and clear this year – we won’t allow the NRA to put North Carolinians in danger by gutting our state’s handgun background check requirement. We’re pleased that the legislature stood with the 87 percent of North Carolinians who support background checks instead of the gun lobby. Moms will continue to fight for sensible public safety measures that keep guns out of dangerous hands and save lives.”

Statement from Kim Yaman, a volunteer with the North Carolina chapter of Moms Demand Action. Yaman, a mother and grandmother who lives in Cary and, along with her two young children, was a witness to the mass shooting at the University of Iowa:

“I am gratified that so many North Carolinians stood up for common sense and convinced legislators to keep our state’s background check requirement in place. Despite the gun lobby’s best efforts, North Carolina will remain one of the 18 states that requires background checks on all handgun sales, and all of us in the Tar Heel State will be safer as a result.”

Earlier today, the Legislature passed a version of HB 562 that did not include that dangerous repeal provision, following a months-long campaign led by a coalition of moms, law enforcement, and the more than 130,000 Everytown supporters in the state who urged lawmakers to keep North Carolina’s background check requirement in place.

Over the course of months, Moms held nine events at the Capitol, made nearly 1,000 phone calls into legislators’ offices, and delivered more than 17,000 petition signatures and emails to legislators demanding they keep North Carolina’s background check requirement in place.

In May, Everytown aired ads statewide highlighting the broad consensus among North Carolinians against HB 562. The ad featured polling paid for by Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund showing that 87 percent of North Carolinians support background checks on all handgun sales and a letter from the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association urging the Legislature not to repeal the state’s background check law. The bill would have allowed felons and other people prohibited from having guns to buy handguns from unlicensed sellers online or at gun shows, with no background check and no questions asked. When Missouri made this same mistake in 2007, gun homicides in that state spiked by 25 percent.

North Carolina is one of 18 states (plus the District of Columbia) that requires background checks not just for sales by licensed gun dealers, but also for handgun buyers that buy from unlicensed sellers. An earlier version of HB 562 sought to remove North Carolina from that group, and had it become law, dangerous people would have been able to meet a stranger online and buy a handgun with no questions asked. Just last month, the Iowa chapter of Moms Demand Action defeated similar gun lobby-backed legislation in Iowa that would have repealed the state’s background check requirement and put Iowans at risk.

Here are the names of the 34 Republican members of the NC House who sided with the gun banners:

Representative(s): Avila; Blackwell; Boles; Brawley; Bryan; Daughtry; Davis; Dobson; Faircloth; Fraley; Holloway; Horn; Howard; Hurley; Iler; Jeter; L. Johnson; Lambeth; Langdon; Malone; McElraft; McGrady; McNeill; Pendleton; R. Turner; Riddell; Robinson; Ross; Stam (CHAIR); Stevens; Tine; Warren; Watford; Zachary

The Gang of 34 would have you believe that they are true blue supporters of the Second Amendment. They would say they were supporting law enforcement and not voting for gun control. They would point to their rankings by the NRA-PVF and the coveted NRA endorsement as evidence of this. Out of the 34, 30 were endorsed and 27 had an A/AQ or better rating.

That’s all well and good but you still sold out gun rights and gun rights supporters. Many of these representatives are in safe seats. 15 out of the 34 had no opposition in the 2014 General Election. They probably think they are invulnerable. I wonder how many of their supporters would be cool with their representative being on the same side as the gun banners. Given the districts that most of the Gang of 34 represent, I’d wager not many. If I were a gun rights supporter who lived in one of their districts and I had a solid resume (and deep pockets), I’d seriously consider running against them in the primary. I would not be surprised to see just that.

Life Imitating Art

I am in the process of rereading that classic of the gun culture, John Ross’ Unintended Consequences. I stumbled across this passage on page 155. It is part of the discussion that Henry Bowman, his father Walter, and the owner of Goodman’s for Guns, Al Goodman, are having concerning the requirement to get a pistol purchase permit in 1963 Missouri.

“What Mr. Goodman was telling us is that before I can buy this revolver for you, I have to go get two business owners to sign letters recommending me. Then I take them down to the sheriff and hope he says okay. Mr. Goodman says there won’t be any problem, and he’s probably right, but the whole point is that the sheriff can do whatever he wants. Just like the story about voting. Henry, we still have laws written so that the police can deny negroes, or anyone else, their ability to protect themselves, and arrest them if they carry personal protection. Or arrest me, for that matter. It depends on if they like you or not.”

After a bit of discussion about the black lady that helps Henry’s mother with housekeeping and about why handguns are good for self-defense, his father continues:

Now Walter broke in. “That’s why bigoted people passed laws about voting and guns, Henry. These bigots don’t want negroes being able to protect themselves. They didn’t want them voting for legislators that had their interests in mind, and they didn’t want them having guns in their pockets when the lynch mob was coming.” He thought a moment. “The law Al just described also gives police an excuse to stop negroes on the street and check them for guns. Actually, it gives them the excuse to do that to anyone, but they don’t do it to white, as a rule.” Yet Walter Bowman added silently to himself.

These passages made me reflect back to the debate on North Carolina’s HB 562, the pistol purchase permit system, and how only a neutered bill made it out of the House. Even though we in North Carolina will not be required to get two character references from upstanding citizens, we still have the pistol purchase permit system which was used exactly as Walter Bowman describes to prevent blacks, union organizers, and others from getting the means to protect themselves.

Today’s North Carolina sheriffs will have a harder time denying purchase permits but they will still be able to do it as the good character requirement remains. That it was the Republicans who kow-towed to the NC Sheriffs’ Association on permit system makes it even worse as the system was set up by white supremacist Democrats. They should have known better but law and order Republicans wilt like a cut flower on a hot day when police or sheriffs say boo.

A Neutered HB 562 Passes The NC House

After considering 10 amendments and voting on seven of them, the NC House passed HB 562 by a 78 yea to 37 nay vote in its 3rd Reading. The pistol purchase permits system repeal was deleted in its entirety. As things were left yesterday, the pistol purchase permits would have only been required for private sales as an exemption was made for sales through FFLs. Today’s Amendment 10 by Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett) stripped that provision out of the bill.

There are some good things left in the bill. The process for obtaining a pistol permit has been standardized, newer shooting ranges will be protected, state preemption is reiterated, and chief law enforcement officers have to sign off on NFA items if the applicant is not precluded by state or Federal law. Oh, and you can also carry an ordinary pocketknife in the State Capitol and on its grounds.

As you can probably imagine, the Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors and their backers in the legislative gallery who wore their Felon-Orange shirts are crowing about the defeat of the pistol purchase permit repeal. In fact, they are proclaiming victory saying that “the Moms fought the law and the Moms won.”

“It was really great that most of the amendments were brought forth by Republicans. This is not a partisan issue: we are talking about common sense safety laws. We’re building strong, bipartisan opposition to the gun lobby,” said Sarah Green, state chapter leader of Moms Demand Action.

Sarah Green is correct that the amendments that neutered the bill were brought by the Republicans. The GOP is not called the stupid party for nothing. If the Republicans who knelt in obeisance before the state’s sheriffs think that avoiding the issue will gain them political points, they are even stupider than I thought. Those in the galleries wearing their Felon-Orange shirts will never support them and those of us in the gun rights community will never forget.

Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, certainly doesn’t intend to forget those Republicans who paid lip service to gun rights in 2014 and then deserted us in 2015. In an email to me, with which I have permission to quote, he said:

“Grass Roots North Carolina would like to thank North Carolina House Republicans for giving us exactly what we asked for: Recorded votes. Lots of recorded votes that tell us exactly who our friends are and are not, and which activate our core supporters going into the 2016 primary elections. Inevitably, the party in power becomes comfortable and unmotivated, in time forgetting who ‘brung ’em to the dance.’ When they achieve supermajorities and draw themselves comfy districts, that time apparently shrinks to four short years. But in their safe Republican seats, they forget something: Other Republicans can occupy those seats. In 2016, we will use those recorded votes to provide them a few little reminders of that fact.”

 Paul is correct. We know who our real friends are when it counts. We also know who is just a fair weather friend making nice noises about the Second Amendment but deserts us when push comes to shove.

Even The Sheriffs’ Own Report Contradicts Themselves On HB 562

North Carolina’s HB 562 – the Second Amendment Affirmation Act – has been added to the House calendar for today. In the meantime, a report from the North Carolina Sheriffs Association directly contradicts their assertions that the sheriffs are the ones best placed to determine who should be allowed to purchase a handgun. They have been arguing that sheriffs know more about the people in their county than what is contained in the FBI’s NICS database.

HB 937 passed in the 2013-2014 session of the General Assembly required sheriffs to submit a report assessing how many existing pistol purchase permits were still held by disqualified persons. The bill as passed allowed for the North Carolina Sheriffs Association to submit one report compiling the results from all 100 sheriffs. Let’s just say the results are not exactly what the NCSA wishes to be known.

Grass Roots North Carolina details the results in the alert below. Note that it includes a link to the report. I suggest that you take that link and send it with a note to your own House representative. I certainly plan to send it to Rep. Brian Turner (D-Buncombe) who is my rep.

SHERIFFS
REPORT EXPOSES

PISTOL PURCHASE PERMIT SYSTEM

Sheriff report shows NICS checks are superior to our archaic permit
system at keeping criminals from getting guns
. . .

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) has been the
leading opponent of House Bill 562, in particular its repeal of North
Carolina’s Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit (PPP) system. Their
objections have been a moving target as they first claimed sheriffs
“know” their constituents and “know” who is unfit to get a permit; then
they claimed the National Instant Background Check
System is inadequate to conduct criminal background checks (although in
truth most sheriffs conduct only a NICS check prior to issuing a
permit);
finally, they shopped the argument that relying on NICS for
point-of-purchase checks would somehow undermine the sheriff and empower
the federal
government – an argument rendered ridiculous if you understand that sheriffs are required by law to do NICS checks prior to
issuing purchase permits
.

Sheriffs’ own report an indictment of the system

So imagine our surprise when we discovered that the NCSA had
quietly shelved its own report describing what complete chaos the pistol
purchase permit system is in, and how many permits might currently be
held by criminals. Under HB 937, passed in 2013, sheriffs were required
to
develop a report indicating how many disqualified persons still held
permits which are valid for 5 years and allow them to bypass background
checks
via NICS. They were also required to revoke invalid permits. To see the
NCSA report, CLICK HERE (or go to:
http://grnc.org/documents/NCSA-PPP-Revocation-Report-2014-FINAL.pdf).

Some highlights from the NCSA report with most in sheriffs’ own
words:

  • “[NICS] reports included 165 or 23.5% of permits being subject to revocation in Camden
    County and 35,488 or 38% of permits being subject to revocation in Mecklenburg County.”

  • “…sheriffs’
    offices
    [submitted] 674,806 permits for review representing 344,338 different
    permit holders. CJLEADS returned 26,637 permits to sheriffs as subject
    to revocation due to an event or condition that occurred subsequent to
    the issuance of the permit that would have disqualified the individual
    from
    receiving a pistol purchase permit at application.” [That rate is about
    4%, or four times higher than NICS, suggesting that the PPP system is
    *inferior* to NICS at preventing criminals from getting
    guns.]

  • “Sheriffs have reported revoking 5,255 permits from
    2,447 permittees as a result of the background check
    and review process through April 25, 2014. However, it should be noted
    that a
    sheriff has no way of knowing if a permit has been used since issuance.”
    [Translation: Perhaps only ¼ of 26,637 invalid permits were
    “revoked,” leaving potentially 22,000+ criminals in possession of
    permits and able to bypass background checks.]

  • “Sheriffs’ offices are staffed to review and process Pistol Purchase Permit applications and not to conduct periodic reviews of
    active permits…”

  • “Conducting an ongoing manual case by case review of 289 permits in Tyrrell County or
    93,486 permits in Mecklenburg County is nearly impossible.” [So much for NCSA’s argument that sheriffs “know” who in their
    counties should have permits. If they can’t manually check them now, how can they do so before issuance?]

  • “Several
    sheriffs’ offices had over 40% of their permits reported subject to revocation in the NICS report.”

  • “Sheriffs’ offices cannot account for permits claimed to be ‘lost’…”

  • “Gun dealers do not know if a permit has been revoked…”

What the NCSA report means

While the sheriffs will undoubtedly claim that inconsistencies of data
matching
contributed to high rates of permits being reported for revocation, even
the “best” possible number of 5,255 permits “revoked”
means 5,255 criminals had (or have) guns under the system.

By the way, did we mention that “revocation”
means only that the sheriff issued a revocation letter? If the criminal says, The dog ate my permit,
they have no recourse and that criminal may still use that slip of paper to bypass a computerized background check.

The bottom line is that
NICS checks are superior to our archaic permit system at keeping criminals from getting guns.

Adding insult to injury…

Before the
NCSA apparently instructed sheriffs to stonewall on the cost of issuing
each
pistol purchase permit, Forsyth County was kind enough to give the
following estimate: $50.54 for each pistol purchase permit issued,
meaning a waste of taxpayer dollars of $311,781.26 for just one county
. Multiply that by 100 counties, and the
evidence is compelling that millions of dollars of your money is being wasted to shore up a system that lets criminals get guns while
obstructing the law-abiding from doing so
.

By the way, did we mention that Forsyth reports denying nearly 10% of
permits applied for, with most presumably under the “good moral
character” loophole? That rate of denial is roughly 10 times higher than
NICS and once again suggests that good guys are being denied guns while
bad guys are getting them.

DY OF MESSAGE HERE


IMMEDIATE
ACTION REQUIRED!


  • EMAIL NC HOUSE
    REPUBLICANS
    . Use the copy/paste email list provided below, and the copy paste text under ‘Deliver This Message.’ Ask them how
    they can justify retaining an archaic system that allows more criminals to get guns than NICS.

  • CALL YOUR NC HOUSE
    REPRESENTATIVE
    . Tell him or her that he or she had better support repeal of a system which quite obviously hinders
    law-abiding citizens from getting guns while enabling criminals to do precisely that. Find your NC House rep by clicking here

    (or go to: http://ncleg.net/representation/WhoRepresentsMe.aspx).

CONTACT INFO


NC House Republicans Email List:

Jay.Adams@ncleg.net;
Dean.Arp@ncleg.net;
Marilyn.Avila@ncleg.net; John.Bell@ncleg.net; Dan.Bishop@ncleg.net;
Hugh.Blackwell@ncleg.net; John.Blust@ncleg.net; Jamie.Boles@ncleg.net;
John.Bradford@ncleg.net; Bill.Brawley@ncleg.net; Mark.Brody@ncleg.net;
Rayne.Brown@ncleg.net; Brian.Brown@ncleg.net; Rob.Bryan@ncleg.net;
Dana.Bumgardner@ncleg.net; Justin.Burr@ncleg.net; Rick.Catlin@ncleg.net;
George.Cleveland@ncleg.net; Jeff.Collins@ncleg.net;
Debra.Conrad@ncleg.net;
Leo.Daughtry@ncleg.net; Ted.Davis@ncleg.net; Jimmy.Dixon@ncleg.net;
Josh.Dobson@ncleg.net; Nelson.Dollar@ncleg.net;
Jeffrey.Elmore@ncleg.net;
John.Faircloth@ncleg.net; Carl.Ford@ncleg.net; John.Fraley@ncleg.net;
Mike.Hager@ncleg.net; Jon.Hardister@ncleg.net; Kelly.Hastings@ncleg.net;
Bryan.Holloway@ncleg.net; Craig.Horn@ncleg.net; Julia.Howard@ncleg.net;
Pat.Hurley@ncleg.net; Frank.Iler@ncleg.net; Charles.Jeter@ncleg.net;
Linda.Johnson2@ncleg.net; Bert.Jones@ncleg.net;
Jonathan.Jordan@ncleg.net; Donny.Lambeth@ncleg.net;
James.Langdon@ncleg.net; Chris.Malone@ncleg.net;
Susan.Martin@ncleg.net; Pat.McElraft@ncleg.net; Allen.McNeill@ncleg.net;
Chris.Millis@ncleg.net; Gary.Pendleton@ncleg.net;
Larry.Pittman@ncleg.net;
Michele.Presnell@ncleg.net; Dennis.Riddell@ncleg.net;
George.Robinson@ncleg.net; Stephen.Ross@ncleg.net;
Jason.Saine@ncleg.net;
Mitchell.Setzer@ncleg.net; Phil.Shepard@ncleg.net;
Michael.Speciale@ncleg.net; Paul.Stam@ncleg.net;
Bob.Steinburg@ncleg.net; Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.net;
John.Szoka@ncleg.net; John.Torbett@ncleg.net; Rena.Turner@ncleg.net;
Harry.Warren@ncleg.net; Sam.Watford@ncleg.net; Roger.West@ncleg.net;
Chris.Whitmire@ncleg.net; Larry.Yarborough@ncleg.net;
Lee.Zachary@ncleg.net; Chuck.McGrady@ncleg.net; Paul.Tine@ncleg.net


DELIVER THIS
MESSAGE


Suggested Subject: “End the ‘Felon
Enablement’ Permit System
”  

Dear Representative:

With respect to House Bill 562, a report shelved by the North Carolina
Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) and only recently unearthed demonstrates
beyond a reasonable doubt that sheriffs are shoring up an archaic pistol
purchase permit system which allows thousands of felons to get guns,
while denying law-abiding citizens whom the sheriff arbitrarily deems
not of
“good moral character.” The report reveals that the computerized
National Instant Background Check System (NICS) found 26,637 permits
held
by disqualified individuals – nearly 4%, or roughly four times higher
than denials by NICS. Even if the NCSA claims errors in data matching,
the
organization admits 5,255 revocation letters were issued, meaning that
the archaic pistol purchase permit system let at least 5,255 criminals
have
guns.

Worse, Forsyth County reports that the cost of issuing a single
purchase permit – for which the county gets $5, is $50.54 while nearly
10%
of applications are denied, suggesting that across our one hundred
counties, tax payers are funding a system which wastes millions of
dollars denying
guns permits to law-abiding citizens while giving them to felons.

Bring HB
562 to the floor for a vote and pass it, including its provision for
repealing the purchase permit system. If House Republicans fail to act,
they are perpetuating a “felon enablement” law.

Respectfully, 

HB 562 Is Reported Out Of Rules Committee And I’m Not Happy

The devil is in the details as they say. Yesterday, the NC House’s Rules Committee reported out a committee substitute version of HB 563, the Second Amendment Affirmation Act, and I’m not exactly happy. Yes, there are good things in the bill and yes, it goes to the floor of the House. However, the way the Rules Committee has so mangled up the elimination of the pistol purchase permit irks me to no end.

Section 18 of the revised bill states in part:

Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 10 of this act
become effective October 1, 2021, and apply to offenses committed on or after that date.
Subsection (c) of Section 10 of this act becomes effective October 1, 2018, and applies to
offenses committed on or after that date. Subsection (d) of Section 10 of this act becomes
effective December 1, 2015, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

As I said, the devils in the details. What this means is that the pistol purchase permit system is eliminated in its entirety effective October 1, 2021 as Section 10 (a) and (b) refer to those parts of the General Statutes controlling permits. However, if you purchase a pistol from an FFL after October 1, 2018, a permit won’t be needed if they run a NICS check.

The original substitute bill that I saw earlier this week would have set that date at December 1, 2015. What this means is that the Rules Committee and the House Republicans have again kow-towed to the North Carolina Sheriffs Association. If this provision remains in the bill and the bills passes into law, the sheriffs will continue to get their $5 per permit for another three years.

What makes this more egregious is that Bloomberg and his Demanding Mommies in their Felon Orange Tee’s will claim this as a victory for gun control. This when most Republican House members don’t give a large rodent’s behind for them but will bend over backwards to the NCSA.

The changes in Section 10 (d) are actually good and timely. It provides standardization of the forms and process. The “good moral character” provision limits the evaluation of conduct to the last five years. Finally, it allows for appeals that can go up as far as the Court of Appeals. Previously, appeals stopped at District Court.

The arguments put forth by the sheriffs and the NCSA that they know the people in their county and know who is a potential problem are ridiculous. To think that is superior to a NICS check for a new purchase is a joke. The way the sheriffs are clinging to this Jim Crow inspired law is appalling. That some of the bitterest clingers are African-Americans is just even more appalling.

If we can’t do away with the law, I say return it to the Clerks of Court where it was originally. Heaven knows they are better record keepers than any sheriff’s department in the state and most likely much less biased.