Someone Was Listening

The argument against North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit system has been that it was a racist era law meant to keep blacks from owning handguns, that it is ignored by criminals, and that the FBI run NICS system is more up-to-date and less subjective than the state’s sheriffs.

It appears someone was listening. Joel Burgess of the Asheville Citizen-Times did a story on Monday that examined the rates of approval for pistol purchase permits and concealed handgun permits in five western (North Carolina) counties. The context for the story were the executive actions and gun control proposals released in January by President Obama. What was most surprising about the story was that Burgess acknowledged some of the objections to the pistol purchase permit system.

But Obama’s order will have little effect in North Carolina when it comes to handguns. The weapon already faces more scrutiny in this state because of a Jim Crow-era law once aimed at blocking African-American gun ownership. But sheriffs now say the law is a critical stopgap allowing them to use local knowledge to prevent tragedies.

With regard to the subjectivity, he reported this:

The law is not uniformly followed, sheriff’s acknowledge, nor is it enforced at the same rate, according to 2013-2015 data collected by the Citizen-Times through a public records request. Henderson County Sheriff Charles McDonald, whose department had the highest permit denial rate, said he will defend private gun ownership, but that he will also sometimes say no based on things not revealed in a background check.

“Maybe you’re the guy in the neighborhood who is constantly getting drunk and beating up his wife, and maybe you haven’t been convicted in court. But we know.”

Henderson County Sheriff McDonald’s example makes for a good story but you have to wonder if that is the really the reason behind the number of denials in Henderson County. Given the peculiar demographics of Henderson County – a significant Hispanic population and an extremely large number of retirees – does either ethnicity or advanced age play a greater role in permit denial than alcoholism or domestic abuse.

That might make an interesting follow-on story by the Citizen-Times.

And They Call Themselves Friends Of Gun Owners…

As Matt Caulder of the NC Capitol Connection reports, HB 562 just barely squeaked through the House Rules Committee.

A vote in the House Rules Committee came down to a tie Wednesday morning after nearly two hours of debate and comment on an omnibus gun rights bill set to advance freedoms for legal firearm owners while cracking down on criminal possession of firearms.

The 13-13 tie was broken by Committee Chairman David Lewis (R-Harnett) in favor of the bill, which will now head to the House floor for debate.

A vote is expected on the bill Thursday on the House floor.

He goes on to report that the testimony was evenly split between those in favor of the bill and those opposed. In an email to me, he said there were representatives from Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors, the Brady affiliate NC Against Gun Violence (sic), the NC Sheriffs Association, and the NC School Boards Association who spoke against the bill In addition, there were some individuals who didn’t represent groups but did claim membership in NCAGV.

Matt was kind enough to send me the breakdown of the vote in the committee by member. What should have been an easy win was made more difficult due to some Republicans. I expected “nay” votes from the Democrats. What I didn’t expect was for Republicans Leo Daughtry, Ted Davis, and John Fraley to spit on gun owners like they did. Gun owners did yeoman’s work in providing the Republicans their super-majority in both houses of the General Assembly. We didn’t vote for them to go all wobbly when the Demanding Mommies and the Sheriffs Association said “boo.”

The vote breakdown is below:

Committee Leadership
Rep. Lewis (R-Harnett) – aye, tie breaker
Rep. Torbett (R-Gaston) – aye
Rep. Stam (R-Wake) – aye

Rep. Davis (R-New Hanover) – nay
Rep. Daughtry (R-Johnston) – nay

Committee Members
Rep. J. Bell (R-Wayne) – aye
Rep. Blust (R-Guilford) – aye
Rep. Boles (R-Moore) – aye
Rep. Bumgardner (R-Gaston) – aye
Rep. Burr (R-Stanly) – aye
Rep. Carney (D-Mecklenburg) – nay
Rep. Cotham (D-Mecklenburg) – nay
Rep. Floyd (D-Cumberland) – nay

Rep. Fraley (R-Iredell) – nay

Rep. Goodman (D-Hoke) – nay
Rep. L. Hall (D-Durham) – nay
Rep. Hanes (D-Forsyth) – nay
Rep. Hastings (R-Gaston) – aye
Rep. Jackson (D-Wake) – nay
Rep. L. Johnson (R-Cabarrus) – aye
Rep. Reives (D-Chatham) – nay
Rep. Robinson (R-Caldwell) – aye
Rep. Saine (R-Saine) – aye
Rep. Schaffer (R-Mecklenburg) – aye
Rep. Szoka (R-Cumberland) – aye
Rep. Tine (U-Beaufort) – nay
Rep. Wray (D-Halifax) – nay

What makes this worse is that all three Republicans serve in some leadership capacity. Davis and Daughtry are vice-chairs of the Rules Committee and Fraley is the Majority Freshman Leader. If I were one of their constituents, I’d be giving them a piece of my mind. Their contact info is below.

Ted Davis (R-New Hanover)
919-733-5786
ted.davis@ncleg.net

N. Leo Daughtry (R-Johnston)
919-733-5605
leo.daughtry@ncleg.net

John Fraley (R-Iredell)
919-733-5741
john.fraley@ncleg.net

I wish the House Republicans including those above were less concerned with same-sex marriage and waiting periods for abortions and more with facilitating an enumerated Constitution right.

UPDATE:  Checking the NRA’s Political Victory Fund site for 2014, I find that Davis, Daughtry, and Fraley were all endorsed by the NRA. Davis and Daughtry were rated A and Fraley, as a non-incumbent, was rated AQ.  Davis and Daughtry were also rated as 4-star by GRNC while Fraley got 3 stars.

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.

Jim Crow Law Lives Until 2021

According to WRAL Raleigh, HB 562 – the Second Amendment Affirmation Act – was postponed for consideration until Wednesday. The House Rules Committee will vote on a committee substitute at 9am tomorrow. A summary of the committee summary can be found here and the actual text here. It does include the elimination of the pistol purchase permit but not until 2021. Dealers, however, would be allowed to sell handguns without a pistol purchase permit if they ran a NICS check on the person.

Come 2021, North Carolina residents would no longer need a permit when buying handguns under a redrafted omnibus firearms bill that circulated among members of the General Assembly Tuesday night.

The House Rules Committee is scheduled to vet the new version of HB 562 at 9 a.m. Wednesday. According to a summary of the bill provided to committee members, the measure still contains measures related to how doctors ask patients about firearms in their homes, although the language is loser than earlier versions of the bill.

Advocates for and against the measure were at the state Capitol on Tuesday. The lobbying group Moms Demand Action pressured lawmakers to turn back the bill, focusing particularly on the pistol permit provision. Meanwhile, the pro-gun lobbying group Grass Roots North Carolina pressured lawmakers to pass the bill.

The most scrutiny has focused on a provision that would repeal North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit system. As originally drafted, the bill would have ended the state’s pistol permit system in 2018. The measure up for consideration Wednesday morning would extend the system’s life until 2021.

Sen. Furnifold Simmons and early N&O owner Josephus Daniels are probably laughing from the grave over this turn of events. They were the architects of the racist white supremacy policies of the North Carolina Democratic Party. The co-sponsor of the Senate bill that eventually became law was none other than Simmons’ former brother-in-law Sen. Earle A. Humphrey (D-Goldsboro).  Simmons’ dominance of North Carolina politics in that era was so far reaching that it was referred to as the Simmons Machine just like Richard Daley’s dominance of Chicago politics was called the Daley Machine.

“An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” – Part I

The North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 1318 on March 10, 1919 and ushered in what we now call the pistol purchase permit system. Attempts to overturn this 96-year old law failed in the last session of the North Carolina General Assembly due to opposition from the sheriffs’ lobby. The battle is continuing in this session of the General Assembly with gun rights groups and Republicans on one side and gun control groups, the NC Sheriffs Association, and Democrats on the other.

In an earlier post, I detailed some of the racial climate of North Carolina and how that led to the bill’s passage. This post will detail how the law has changed over the years since 1919. In subsequent posts, I plan to examine the personalities involved, the political machine behind it, and the bills passage through both houses of the General Assembly. While we are currently fighting the NC Sheriffs Association over the passage of HB 562, it was not until 1959 that the duty of issuing purchase permits was transferred from the Clerks of the Superior Court to the sheriffs.

The Law As Passed

Chapter 197 of the 1919 Session Laws reads:

The General Assenibly of North Carolina do enact:
Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or
corporation in this State to sell, give away or dispose of, or to
purchase or receive, at any place within the State from any other
place within or without the State, without a license or permit
therefor shall have first been obtained by such purchaser or
receiver from the clerk of the Superior Court of the county
which such purchase, sale, or transfer is intended to be made,
any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or
metallic knucks.

Sec. 2. That the clerks of the Superior Courts of any and all
counties of this State are hereby authorized and directed to issue
to any person, firm, or corporation in any such county a license
or permit to purchase or receive any weapon mentioned in section
one of this act from any person, firm, or corporation offering
to sell or dispose of the same, which said license or permit shall
be in the following form, to wit:

North Carolina,
______________________County.
I, ___________________________clerk of the Superior Court of said
county, do hereby certify that ___________________________whose
place of residence is ________________________________Street, in
____________________(or) in______________________ Township
_________________________County, North Carolina, having this day
satisfied me as to his, her (or) their good moral character, and
that the possession of one of the weapons described in section one
of this act is necessary for self-defense or the protection of the
home, a license or permit is therefore hereby given said________________
_________________________________________to purchase one pistol,
(or) ____________________________________________from any per-
(If any other weapon is named, strike out word pistol.)
son, firm, or corporation authorized to dispose of the same.
This ______________day of ______________________________, 19___

Clerk Superior Court.

Sec. 3. That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

Sec. 4. That the clerk of the Superior Court shall keep a
book, to be provided by the board of commissioners of each
county, in which he shall keep a record of all licenses or permits
issued under this act, including the name, date, place of residence,
age, former place of residence, etc., of each such person,
firm, or corporation to whom or which a license or permit shall
have been so issued.

Sec. 5. That each and every dealer in pistols, pistol cartridges
and other weapons mentioned in section one of this act shall keep
an accurate record of all sales thereof, including the name, place
of residence, date of sale, etc., of each person, firm, or corporation,
to whom or which any and all such sales are made, which said
record shall be open to the inspection of any duly constituted
State, county or police officer, within this State.

Sec. 6. That during the period of listing taxes in each year
the owner or person in possession or having the custody or care
of any pistol or other weapon mentioned in section one of this
act shall he, and is hereby, required to list the same specifically,
together with the value thereof, as is now required by law for
listing other personal property for taxes : Provided, that all
persons listing any such weapons for taxes as aforesaid shall also
be required to designate his place of residence, local street address,
or otherwise as the case may be.

Sec. 7. That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of
the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and
fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 8. That upon submission or conviction of any person in
this State for unlawfully carrying concealed weapons off of his
own premises, the pistol or other deadly weapon with reference
to which the defendant shall have been convicted shall be condemned
and ordered confiscated and destroyed by the judge presiding
at any such trial.

Sec. 9. That this act shall be in force from and after the first
day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen.
Ratified this 10th day of March. A.D. 1910.

 1923 Amendment


The General Assembly adopted two changes to the original concealed weapons bill. First, it made it unlawful to receive one of the weapons mentioned in the original bill by mail, railroad express, or any other common carrier unless you possessed the permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court. You were also required to present that permit to the mail carrier, postmaster, railroad agent, etc before taking delivery of the weapon.

This amendment also specified the fine and potential prison term for violation of the law. Fines were to be from $50 to $250 while the prison terms were not less than 30 days nor more than six months. All of the above were at the discretion of the court.

1947 Amendment

The changes to the law in 1947 were very minor. As part of an omnibus revision of a number of state statutes, blackjacks and slung-shot were added to the list of weapons that required a purchase permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court.

1959 Amendment

HB 1048 made major changes in the administration of the purchase permit law. It transferred responsibility from the Clerks of the Superior Court and gave it to the Sheriff of each county. The sheriffs were now made responsible for issuing permits and keeping records of the issuance of the permits. It was also the sheriff’s responsibility to dispose of confiscated weapons.

Interestingly, this amendment did not apply in all counties. 41 counties were excluded from this act. While most were small counties in the eastern and western parts of the state, the most significant exclusion was Mecklenburg County.

1971 Amendment

Historic edged weapons were defined to be any bayonet, trench knife, sword, or dagger manufactured during or prior to WWII (as late as January 1, 1946). These and antique firearms previously defined as those made prior to 1899 or muzzle loading firearms were excluded from the purchase permit requirement. As an aside, it is interesting that edged weapons from the Korean Conflict and Vietnam War were not excluded.

1979 Amendment


Three significant changes were made in this amendment by SB 213. First, the permit was now required to be obtained from the sheriff in the county in which the purchaser or receiver resided. It has been previously required to be obtained in the county in which the sale or receipt took place.

The second major change was that any provisions of local acts in conflict with these changes were repealed. As noted in the 1959 Amendment, it only applied to 59 counties.

The third major change was that the list of weapons now only included pistols. Dirks, daggers, bowie knives, metallic knucks, blackjacks, slung shot, and “so-called pump guns” were now excluded from the permit requirement.

Interesting Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 still refer to obtaining permits from the Clerk of the Superior Court even though this requirement was changed in 1959.

1993 Amendment

While the 1979 amendment dropped everything but pistols from the permit requirement, this amendment headed in the opposite direction by adding crossbows to the law. Crossbows were added because a person ineligible to purchase a firearm used a crossbow to murder someone in Union County according to former Union County sheriff and later NC Rep. Frank McGuirt.

1994 Amendment

This amendment was part of a larger omnibus bill that codified classes of misdemeanors. Rather than being a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment of up to six months, the penalty was now listed as a “Class 2” misdemeanor. This was the mid-range classification which meant imprisonment for more than 30 days but less than six months.

2003 Amendments

HB 817 provided that a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit could substitute for the pistol/crossbow purchase permit.

HB 281 made grammatical corrections and changes to the law.

2009 Amendment

These changes concerned crossbows and the definition of a crossbow dealer, manufacturer, and wholesaler. It deemed the permits issued to dealers, wholesalers, and manufacturers as being continuing permits with no expiration date.

2011 Amendment

Just as the 1993 bill added the crossbow to the purchase permit requirement, so SB 406 repealed the requirement to get a “pistol permit” to buy a crossbow.

This bill also clarified that persons under indictment for or who have been convicted of a felony were not eligible to be issued permits. However, pursuant to a NC Supreme Court ruling, the bill excepted those convicted of felonies involving antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, or restraints of trade. It also said that a person who had been pardoned or who had his or her firearm rights restored could obtain a pistol purchase permit.

If You Support A Law That Is Based On Racism, Are You A Racist?

The headline to this post is meant to be provocative. In the last couple of days, I have received numerous emails from gun prohibitionists groups and have seen Everyday Moms for Illegal Mayors launch a media campaign all of which is intended to keep in place North Carolina’s pistol purchase permit system.

§ 14-402 and § 14-403 of the North Carolina General Statutes were originally passed in 1919 and gave the Clerk of the Superior Court (later given to the Sheriff) of each North Carolina county the power to determine just who of their county’s residents would be eligible to purchase a handgun. Note that this preceded the Gun Control Act of 1968 by almost 50 years. Firearms of all sorts could still be purchased over the counter and through the mails. So why would the North Carolina General Assembly give Clerks of the Superior Court such power? Below is a little context.

The end of the Great War in 1918 saw the return of many African-American veterans who had served in segregated military units. They had served their country both home and abroad and were now coming home expecting some recognition of their rights. W.E.B. DuBois had encouraged black veterans to not just return home but to return home fighting against Southern racism.

At an Emancipation Day ceremony in Raleigh in January 1919, a crowd of 3,000 passed resolutions condemning lynching and attacking segregation. Through the 1920s, the annual commemorations of emancipation as well as the Armistice ending World War I remained occasions for rallies. Editorials in the black press in Durham and Raleigh frequently called for improvements in, if not an end to, the Jim Crow system.

White North Carolinians listened with concern to the outbursts of black protests after the War, but they managed to preserve both white supremacy and the myth that black North Carolinians were contented with legal segregation and Jim Crow. North Carolina’s postwar reconsideration of racial relations and racial policy took place in the context of the nationwide “Red Scare” between 1918 and 1921, touched off by fears of communist and foreign subversion.

Adding to this general fear was Winston-Salem’s November 17, 1918 riot over the attempted lynching of a black man who had been erroneously accused of raping a white woman. Most of the rioting was done by whites but it was the black community which had the tanks sitting in their streets.

The General Assembly passed “An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina” on March 10, 1919. It required a permit to purchase “any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks.” The “so-called pump-gun” is, as best as I can determine, what we would now call a pump shotgun. Section 3 of Chapter 197 reads:

That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue
any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits,
oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character
of the applicant
therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation
requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section
one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that
if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue
said license or permit
: and Provided further, that nothing in this
act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms.
The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license
or permit a fee of fifty cents.

The Clerk and the firearms dealer were both required to keep records of the permittees/purchasers including name, age, residence, former residence, “etc.”  The owner of the firearm was also required to list it as personal property with the local tax authorities.

Let’s think about this a bit. Who would be considered to be a person of “good moral character” in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by “etc.” which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of “good moral character” would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. I would also assume that the race of the purchaser was intended to be kept as part of the records.

Given the state of race relations in North Carolina in 1919 and the contextual background of this law, I defy anyone to say that there is no racial component to this law. It may not have said de jure that blacks couldn’t possess pistols and other weapons but that was the de facto reality.

So I say to Mike Bloomberg, Gabby Giffords, Dan Gross, Shannon Watts, and all the others of their ilk who have been agitating against HB 562, does not your support for the continuation of a law conceived in racism make you just a wee bit racist yourself?

What Sheriff Bailey Didn’t Say

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Chipp Bailey is one of the North Carolina sheriffs who is determined to retain the state’s racist, Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit system. In an interview given to WCNC-TV of Charlotte, Sheriff Bailey contends that the pistol purchase permit system would have prevented the shooters in Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Aurora from obtaining their pistols.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Chipp Bailey said that he agrees with every law-abiding citizen’s right to own firearms, but says he wants the state to continue to allow his office the right to dispense permits, because of the NICS system does not catch all mental health issues.

“We also check our transport logs for involuntary commits and those kinds of things which wouldn’t be picked up by NICS or some other device.” Sheriff Bailey said, “I think it’s important for us to know who is being permitted for firearms or who is going out to buy firearms…until the process gets where you can really count on it, then I think the sheriff’s need to be involved with it.”

There is only one little flaw in Sheriff Bailey’s argument. Once the permit which is good for five years is issued, it can’t be revoked. It also substitutes for the NICS check. Thus, a person who based a background check up to five years ago can take their permit to a FFL, present their permit, buy a gun, and avoid the NICS check. If they have committed a felony, a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, or had been adjudicated mentally ill after being issued the permit, they could still obtain a firearm. I don’t think the fact that they would be committing a Federal felony by lying on the ATF Form 4473 would matter much to such a person.

The Charlotte Observer – Sheriff Bailey’s local paper – did an analysis on pistol purchase permits. It found more than 60 felons in Mecklenburg County alone held pistol purchase permits. A NICS check would have caught these felons when they tried to purchase a firearm.

Mecklenburg County is also lagging the state in the issuance of Concealed Handgun Permits according to the most recent data. As Sean points out here, something is a little fishy when Mecklenburg County has only seen a rise of 2.83% in new permits as compared to the statewide figure of 9.36%. Moreover, just slightly smaller Wake County has issued 4.5 times as many permits in the same time period.

I think Sheriff Bailey, despite his so-called support for the citizen’s right to own a firearm, has some explaining to do.