NC "Constitutional Conceal Carry" Bill

DieselToyPullr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2015
Location
Charlotte
I saw a report on the news about an NC bill that would allow any registered handgun owner to conceal carry without a permit (Constitutional Carry). I believe I recall it will go to vote July 13th, and if it passes it will be on the ballot in November. I have had trouble finding information about it, other that what I saw on the news. I am in strong support of this, and I would like to contact my government representative about it, but I am not exactly sure of the current stage of the bill. Has any one else heard of this, and do you have any better information than what I recall? It is HB1148, and this article is the best information I could find: Permitless Concealed Carry Bill Filed in NC House

Thanks, I would like to hear all of your thoughts and info.
 
rockmafia said:
I agree. I'm all for gun rights, and taking 4 months to get a CCW is BS but I don't think they should just hand them out.
Click to expand...

I got mine in about 45 days recently in Wake County. I agree that some sort of safety class to show you know what you are doing isn't a bad thing at all.
 
already have open carry, whats the difference? because you can hide it your have been trained? :shaking:

If you want to argue that then you should be advocating the training class before ANY purchase of a concealable weapon.
 
rockmafia said:
I agree. I'm all for gun rights, and taking 4 months to get a CCW is BS but I don't think they should just hand them out.
Click to expand...
agree X whatever.

Be glad you even have the option to do that...
 
Jeff B said:
already have open carry, whats the difference? because you can hide it your have been trained? :shaking:

If you want to argue that then you should be advocating the training class before ANY purchase of a concealable weapon.
Click to expand...
Personally I'm OK w/ that too, as long as the classes are cheap and easily accessible, and run by a 3rd party.

You'd have to be careful that it couldn't become a backdoor opportunity for the state to make it a de facto restricted access by the classes suddenly becoming impossible to pass...
 
[sarcasm]Well since we're on this path, and we all agree that the government should decide what we need to know about guns before we can have them, maybe we should also have required voter education and an aptitude test. [/sarcasm]

Am I really hearing this? Look, training is great, and I encourage everyone to pursue it. But there is currently no training required to buy a rifle or pistol, and no one was up in arms about that. But, like @Jeff B said, if people can hide their guns, we suddenly need to train them? If my guns had not drowned in the accident, the ONLY reason I would consider getting a concealed carry permit is so that I would not be a felon within the current law structure (a law structure which seems in conflict with the second amendment I might add):
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
RatLabGuy said:
Personally I'm OK w/ that too, as long as the classes are cheap and easily accessible, and run by a 3rd party.

You'd have to be careful that it couldn't become a backdoor opportunity for the state to make it a de facto restricted access by the classes suddenly becoming impossible to pass...
Click to expand...


So you would also be ok with anything you write on a public forum being reviewed and or redacted before being able to post it? (Amendment 1)

Maybe you are ok with the police just coming in your home & seizing/searching without a permit? (Amendment 4)


How about we just scrap the Bill of rights?
 
every one of you should read this.


THE BILL OF RIGHTS – FULL TEXT
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
 
Constitutional Carry, what a fitting name. The Constitution guarantees our right to "keep and bear arms" with no stipulations. "Shall not be infringed" to me means that I can keep and carry however I want without the government requiring me to take a class and pay a fee. Training is good and I encourage it, but allowing the government to set standards and hurdles that prevent me from exercising my rights is something I can't go along with.

Several states have constitutional carry already with no issues. Why would NC be any different?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There are three types of people when it comes to talking about guns. Those who unreasonably think no one should own/carry/use guns, those who unreasonably think everyone has a right to own/carry/use guns however they see fit, and those reasonable ones who fall somewhere in the middle.
 
Everyone likes to emphasize the "shall not be infringed" but never the "well regulated" part.
That's pretty much me being devil's advocate as I am very pro freedom on this but would like to hear more on that part.
 
TARider said:
Everyone likes to emphasize the "shall not be infringed" but never the "well regulated" part.
That's pretty much me being devil's advocate as I am very pro freedom on this but would like to hear more on that part.
Click to expand...


Convenient of you to leave the rest of that off.

"Well regulated militia"

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Nice to pic and choose..
 
Meaning of the phrase


The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



Just going to leave this here.
 
To be clear, I understand and agree with the true meaning of the bill of rights.
That being said I'm not against kicking a hornets nest.
 
Blaze said:
There are three types of people when it comes to talking about guns. Those who unreasonably think no one should own/carry/use guns, those who unreasonably think everyone has a right to own/carry/use guns however they see fit, and those reasonable ones who fall somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...
So where did the Founding Fathers of this country fall in your spectrum?
 
jeepinmatt said:
So where did the Founding Fathers of this country fall in your spectrum?
Click to expand...

They would be somewhere in the second group, but don't forget at that time it was perfectly acceptable to shoot someone that you didn't agree with in a duel. I think society has adapted to a higher standard of civilization......
 
Blaze said:
don't forget at that time it was perfectly acceptable to shoot someone that you didn't agree with in a duel.
Click to expand...

So you think that the second amendment is about being able to participate in a duel?

Go to Detroit & tell me how civilization has progressed, visit Edmonson Village in Maryland. How about Orlando Fla.

*thug life
 
Jeff B said:
So you think that the second amendment is about being able to participate in a duel?

Go to Detroit & tell me how civilization has progressed, visit Edmonson Village in Maryland. How about Orlando Fla.

*thug life
Click to expand...

No, I'm just saying that there is a need for more responsible gun ownership now than there was back then. Just because you and me and probably the majority of the gun owners on this board are responsible gun owners doesn't mean that every one of them is. I have no problem taking a class and learning the rules if it means that it helps some other idiots learn the rules and make it safer for everyone.

It is like drivers' ed. My dad taught me to drive at a really young age, I could have very easily gotten in the car and driven it just fine without drivers' ed. A lot of the other people NEEDED to be shown how things work. You could kill someone just as easily with your car as you could with a gun.

I don't agree with the feds taking away our guns or even trying to over regulate them, but I have no problem with them requiring people to know the laws regarding owning them.
 
I'm all for gun ownership, but this statement cannot be used for the defense of such

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

Our security is protected now by many many levels of law enforcement, and a "well armed" militia would not make it out of its own county if it decided to revolt.

The second amendment simply does not apply as it did in 1776.

Again, I'm all for gun ownership, but with a 21st century argument.
 
Blaze said:
It is like drivers' ed. My dad taught me to drive at a really young age, I could have very easily gotten in the car and driven it just fine without drivers' ed. A lot of the other people NEEDED to be shown how things work. You could kill someone just as easily with your car as you could with a gun.
Click to expand...


Driving is not a right specified in the BIR.


The purchase should know the consequences of inappropriate behavior with a weapon. It's up to them to seek out proper training & operations of a weapon.

It's not the gun that needs to be addressed selling or buying. It's the degradation of society that needs to be addressed. Radicals, no matter the religion. All the RX drugs being handed out to kids and adults. My feelings are hurt so that makes it ok to go kill a bunch of people.

We live in a time of moral degradation.
 
Rogue said:
I'm all for gun ownership, but this statement cannot be used for the defense of such

"being necessary to the security of a free State"

Our security is protected now by many many levels of law enforcement, and a "well armed" militia would not make it out of its own county if it decided to revolt.

The second amendment simply does not apply as it did in 1776.

Again, I'm all for gun ownership, but with a 21st century argument.
Click to expand...


you should write this with a quill & ink and send to all of us by the way of horse & buggy..


And I think it's a great idea to wait for the police, worked great in Orlando Fla. and aurora Col.:shaking:
 
Back
Top