NC "Constitutional Conceal Carry" Bill

Ron said:
I agree with Stretch and Snappy on the stupidity of lots of folks.
However I think the point Jeff is making is one that Ratlab has alluded to without outright stating it.

I think we all agree there are a bunch of dumbasses out there who don't know how to handle a gun.
I think we all agree they and all of us would be better if they were educated on how properly to use a gun.
It is not the governments ROLE to mandate people not be dumbassses. In fact allowing the government to dictate ownership eligibility contingent upon , well anything, is in fact a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Now if a PRIVATE company wants to mandate training before transaction, that is a different animal. Lets say, for example, Smith & Wesson says, there is a new S&W ownership course that teaches gun safety and responsible ownership. We refuse to sell a firearm to anyone who hasnt completed this course. I would wholly support that company and probably shift some of my purchases to them for that reason. But for a government entity to mandate it? Well that is just a slope towards infringement. Its one of the reasons a conservative congress was so adamant that when background checks were phased in there had to be a set maximum duration where by if it wasnt completed it defaulted to approved. Otherwise all background checks would strangely take 99 years...same thing here.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
Exactly why I suggested 3rd party and NOT run by the gov't.
 
folks should pass a safety test to purchase a chainsaw too, but thats just me. every time I see someone leave a big box store with one wearing yuppy clothes I just cringe.

my CCW instructor asked us to raise our hands if we rolled to class with weapons already (yet illegally) concealed, 90% of us did. he said we could do range time first, because he wanted us to be safely in the parking lot before the newbs got up to shoot. theres a lot to be said by that.
 
Rogue said:
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.
Click to expand...

The police are not there to protect you. Their job is to enforce the law.
 
Chuckman said:
every time I see someone leave a big box store with one wearing yuppy clothes I just cringe.
Click to expand...


ai.imgur.com_Mtdcy.gif
 
They should teach firearms safety in schools, like they did when my Mom and Pops were young.

Hell.... my Mom was a marksman 4 years in highschool.
 
Wow, when I originally posted I didn't expect quite so much of a response.

I have taken the conceal carry class ($50), but have not applied for a permit yet (~$100 I think). I have not found the time to make it to the sheriff's office for fingerprints...and then wait 3 months for approval. In my opinion, it is an infringement of my 2nd amendment right to require this. "Right to bear arms" and "Taxation without representation" are what this country is built upon. Tax me to infringe upon my rights...I really don't understand. From what I've researched, states with "Constitutional Carry" have seen no increase in gun crimes since passing.

I can kinda understand/agree that people carrying need to be educated, but I believe the majority of them are. I don't think it is the governments right to regulate us in this regard though. Anyway, if a criminal wants to conceal carry, he will do it. It's the people that have regard for the law, that obey it, not the lowlifes that have no character or morality. Just my $0.02.

Thanks for all the replies, but I still don't have any new information as to where this bill is in NC government. Has anybody found any information about whether it still will need to go before the house or senate? I would like to contact my appropriate representative. Thanks in advance for any info.
 
The North Carolina General Assembly's (NCGA) website has the information you are looking for. It was literally the first link that came up when I Googled "North Carolina House Bill 1148"

North Carolina General Assembly - House Bill 1148 Information/History (2015-2016 Session)

Contains the current status of the bill, the house representatives sponsoring the bill (including bios and contact information), as well as a pdf version of the document that you can read in its entirety.
 
StretchASU said:
No right is being infringed upon by having to take a class in order to obtain a permit.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

Whether or not a class is useful is irrelevant. You can take a class on just about anything and walk away better-informed about the subject matter than before you started. That's not in question.

What everyone needs to keep in mind is that the only reason we have "gun control" laws at all is to keep minorities from having firearms. Period. When you put up a barrier to entry - no matter how small - it makes it more difficult for people to exercise that right. Let's say you're a 70 year old Grandma living on SS in a bad neighborhood. You have a little .38 pistol that you keep by the bed, but you'd like to be able to take it with you when you're out and about in the neighborhood. You don't have a car. The folks from the church pick you up on Sunday and Wednesday and help out with the groceries.

Can you seriously make the argument that expecting her to spend a weekend taking a training class, go to the Sheriff's Office to be fingerprinted, and spend hundreds of dollars in time and fees to be able to legally keep her pistol in her purse ISN'T a burden?

I mean, my own grandmother is 83. She doesn't drive very well anymore, but she's got a little pocket pistol with a laser, and she WILL light your ass up.

This is one reason that people get the VA permit. Just mail $100, a fingerprint card, and a couple of passport photos to Richmond, and in a couple of weeks you'll have your very own, perfectly NC-legal CCW permit. It's still a burden, but it's less of one than the current NC requirements.

Right or wrong, this is basically the same argument against requiring ID at polling places. If you don't have an ID, there's a burden associated with obtaining one. Depending on your personal circumstances, it may constitute a nearly-insurmountable one.
 
shawn said:
Bullshit.

Whether or not a class is useful is irrelevant. You can take a class on just about anything and walk away better-informed about the subject matter than before you started. That's not in question.

What everyone needs to keep in mind is that the only reason we have "gun control" laws at all is to keep minorities from having firearms. Period. When you put up a barrier to entry - no matter how small - it makes it more difficult for people to exercise that right. Let's say you're a 70 year old Grandma living on SS in a bad neighborhood. You have a little .38 pistol that you keep by the bed, but you'd like to be able to take it with you when you're out and about in the neighborhood. You don't have a car. The folks from the church pick you up on Sunday and Wednesday and help out with the groceries.

Can you seriously make the argument that expecting her to spend a weekend taking a training class, go to the Sheriff's Office to be fingerprinted, and spend hundreds of dollars in time and fees to be able to legally keep her pistol in her purse ISN'T a burden?

I mean, my own grandmother is 83. She doesn't drive very well anymore, but she's got a little pocket pistol with a laser, and she WILL light your ass up.

This is one reason that people get the VA permit. Just mail $100, a fingerprint card, and a couple of passport photos to Richmond, and in a couple of weeks you'll have your very own, perfectly NC-legal CCW permit. It's still a burden, but it's less of one than the current NC requirements.

Right or wrong, this is basically the same argument against requiring ID at polling places. If you don't have an ID, there's a burden associated with obtaining one. Depending on your personal circumstances, it may constitute a nearly-insurmountable one.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything except that last little bit there about voting. You should have ID on you almost all of the time. you have to show ID to do so many things on a daily basis, one as important as voting should in fact have to prove identity.

In fact I think only tax payers should get to vote. If you live off the gubment and don't contribute then why should you have a say.
 
shawn said:
Bullshit.

Whether or not a class is useful is irrelevant. You can take a class on just about anything and walk away better-informed about the subject matter than before you started. That's not in question.

What everyone needs to keep in mind is that the only reason we have "gun control" laws at all is to keep minorities from having firearms. Period. When you put up a barrier to entry - no matter how small - it makes it more difficult for people to exercise that right. Let's say you're a 70 year old Grandma living on SS in a bad neighborhood. You have a little .38 pistol that you keep by the bed, but you'd like to be able to take it with you when you're out and about in the neighborhood. You don't have a car. The folks from the church pick you up on Sunday and Wednesday and help out with the groceries.

Can you seriously make the argument that expecting her to spend a weekend taking a training class, go to the Sheriff's Office to be fingerprinted, and spend hundreds of dollars in time and fees to be able to legally keep her pistol in her purse ISN'T a burden?
Click to expand...

No, but that same process applies to all of us so we play that game that our .Gov has set out for us. It was a burden to have to take PTO and rearrange a work schedule just to be able to take the class in Watauga Co. since they didn't have someone offering them every weekend like most larger counties. Then the trip to Charlotte since I was still a Meck resident just to schedule a fingerprinting session that would be 60 days later (wouldn't do it over the phone). Then that trip to Charlotte for the fingerprints. Then the one back down there again to pick up the permit once it was approved. The ability to obtain a firearm is still there, just where does the slippery slope stop in terms of how much of a burden is it to obtain one? That part is subjective. In terms of the hoops we jump through already, a class to weed out the dumbasses is a minuscule burden.
 
StretchASU said:
No, but that same process applies to all of us so we play that game that our .Gov has set out for us. It was a burden to have to take PTO and rearrange a work schedule just to be able to take the class in Watauga Co. since they didn't have someone offering them every weekend like most larger counties. Then the trip to Charlotte since I was still a Meck resident just to schedule a fingerprinting session that would be 60 days later (wouldn't do it over the phone). Then that trip to Charlotte for the fingerprints. Then the one back down there again to pick up the permit once it was approved. The ability to obtain a firearm is still there, just where does the slippery slope stop in terms of how much of a burden is it to obtain one? That part is subjective. In terms of the hoops we jump through already, a class to weed out the dumbasses is a minuscule burden.
Click to expand...

It doesn't sound like you've read the statute, and you're confusing the ability to obtain a firearm with the ability to carry one legally on one's person.

Here's the Cliff's Notes version:

1. Current NC Law: Want to concealed carry? Do all this bullshit, pay a bunch of money, hope your Sheriff approves your application in a timely manner, etc.
2. Proposed new NC Law: Want to concealed carry? Are you a felon? No? Okay, carry on then.
 
Bogleparsons said:
I agree with everything except that last little bit there about voting. You should have ID on you almost all of the time. you have to show ID to do so many things on a daily basis, one as important as voting should in fact have to prove identity.
Click to expand...

Unless you're an 83 y/o grandma living in a group home or other kind of facility.
My grandmother is perfectly cognitively aware, certainly enough to vote, but probably hasn't had a need to use an ID is 3 years. In fact she resigned her license last year.

Even in @shawn 's example of the old lady in the neighborhood, I'd bet she rarely uses an ID either.
 
Last edited:
Bogleparsons said:
In fact I think only tax payers should get to vote. If you live off the gubment and don't contribute then why should you have a say.
Click to expand...
Define "taxpayer".
You do realize that the majority of people don't actually owe any federal taxes right?
Also, what about a retired Vet? or retired school teachers?
 
shawn said:
It doesn't sound like you've read the statute, and you're confusing the ability to obtain a firearm with the ability to carry one legally on one's person.

Here's the Cliff's Notes version:

1. Current NC Law: Want to concealed carry? Do all this bullshit, pay a bunch of money, hope your Sheriff approves your application in a timely manner, etc.
2. Proposed new NC Law: Want to concealed carry? Are you a felon? No? Okay, carry on then.
Click to expand...

Fully aware...I'm still good with the system in place now. With the number of people I hear taking the class that see people flagging the instructor or others, a no felon-carry on practice is scary.
 
shawn said:
Life is scary.

Have you seen the people that they give driver's licenses to? But a driver's license isn't a civil right - a firearm is.
Click to expand...
Even better - have you seen the people that they let be representatives in Congress?
 
@trailhugger sent me this last night.

Democrats Abandon Due Process

A particularly relevant bit:
Many Americans do not think of the right to keep and bear arms as a civil right, but they are mistaken. It helps to understand things from the point of view of the Founders and the 18th-century radical liberals whose ideas shaped our republic. Prior to the American founding, the right to keep and bear arms was generally limited to the aristocracy; it was, like the possession of a title or a coat of arms (coat of what?), a bright and dramatic dividing line between the ruling class and the ruled classes, between the Whos and Whoms of society. Arguments about licensing the carry of weapons are hardly new: Caravaggio was arrested for carrying without a license (a sword, in his case) in 1598 near the Piazza Navona in Rome at 3 a.m.

The bearing of arms is a sign of citizenship, which is to say, of being a full participant in government who acts through it, as opposed to subjectship, the state of being a passive being who does not act through government but who is acted upon. In that sense, it is like the ability to vote or to be eligible for service in government. Frederick Douglass understood this linkage perfectly, inasmuch as these ideas were much better understood in those more literate days. “A man’s rights rest in three boxes,” he said. “The ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box. Let no man be kept from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot box because of her sex.” The militias contemplated by the Second Amendment were armed citizen volunteers who could act to use the force of arms to keep the peace in an emergency; they are entitled to act in the peacekeeping role generally reserved for the state because, being the citizens of a republic, they are the state, the very seat of its sovereignty. The formal government is a provisional arrangement (hence regular elections) constituted as a convenience. While the Second Amendment may not codify a “right of revolution,” as some put it, the idea of armed citizens pushing out a government that had become inconvenient, a burden on their liberties rather than a guarantor of them, could hardly have been alien to a group of men who had just risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor doing just that.
Click to expand...
 
shawn said:
Bullshit.

Whether or not a class is useful is irrelevant. You can take a class on just about anything and walk away better-informed about the subject matter than before you started. That's not in question.

What everyone needs to keep in mind is that the only reason we have "gun control" laws at all is to keep minorities from having firearms. Period. When you put up a barrier to entry - no matter how small - it makes it more difficult for people to exercise that right. Let's say you're a 70 year old Grandma living on SS in a bad neighborhood. You have a little .38 pistol that you keep by the bed, but you'd like to be able to take it with you when you're out and about in the neighborhood. You don't have a car. The folks from the church pick you up on Sunday and Wednesday and help out with the groceries.

Can you seriously make the argument that expecting her to spend a weekend taking a training class, go to the Sheriff's Office to be fingerprinted, and spend hundreds of dollars in time and fees to be able to legally keep her pistol in her purse ISN'T a burden?

I mean, my own grandmother is 83. She doesn't drive very well anymore, but she's got a little pocket pistol with a laser, and she WILL light your ass up.

This is one reason that people get the VA permit. Just mail $100, a fingerprint card, and a couple of passport photos to Richmond, and in a couple of weeks you'll have your very own, perfectly NC-legal CCW permit. It's still a burden, but it's less of one than the current NC requirements.

Right or wrong, this is basically the same argument against requiring ID at polling places. If you don't have an ID, there's a burden associated with obtaining one. Depending on your personal circumstances, it may constitute a nearly-insurmountable one.
Click to expand...


And see this is why I like you.
I mean in a standard black and white political spectrum, or red and blue as it may be, you and I both align more closely with the group that wants to demand voter ID because it helps their position. But despite this affiliation you will present/agree with the contrarian point because it more closely aligns with your personal morals. That is an all too rare trait these days known as intellectual integrity.

I disagree with your stated stance on voter ID, but not your stance on the current firearm discussion.
How do I reconcile the 2 in my mind?
Simple. The Constitution says different things about voting and about arm bearing.

Regarding the former:
15 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
19 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex
24 - The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
26 - The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Now this says the right shall not be denied or abridged. Abridged is defined as "shortened or compromised without full loss"

The 2nd Ammendment famously states "Shall not be infringed"

Our Founding Fathers were scholarly fellows who took great pride in vocabulary. The charge of Congress is to carry on their legacy I have to assume the subsequent ammendments took as much care in their vocabulary. Therefor I can reasonably differentiate between abridge and infringe.

My right to bear arms shall not be limited in any way. Yes I should be allowed to park an Abrams M1 in my driveway if I can afford it.
Your voting rights shall not be restricted because of race, color, sex, age beyond 18, nor because of any polling tax. And all of these are contingent on you being a citizen. Requiring someone to prove their citizenship is not a polling tax. Especially in a state that requires adults over the age of 18 to maintain proper identification on them at all times in public assemblies.

Btw notice another vocabulary difference?
"the right of the people" vs "citizens"

As much as I dislike it, my strict literal interpretation of the Constitution, and admittedly I am an amateur scholar not a lawyer, reads that all people in the US regardless of their citizenship have a right to bear arms.
I dont like that. I think that needs to be changed. But until such time as it is changed I think we need to enforce the laws currently on the books.
 
@Ron I don't disagree. There are nuances in both arguments that separate them. But they are very similar, and I can't help but be troubled when I see the same folks making the argument that voter ID constitutes an unreasonable burden, but extensive and costly qualification requirements for firearm possession and ownership do not.
 
shawn said:
Bullshit.



What everyone needs to keep in mind is that the only reason we have "gun control" laws at all is to keep minorities from having firearms. Period.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I'm following you there.... in what way does it make things more difficult on minorities? It's the same procedure for whites, blacks, Hispanics, gays, Disney employees and Mayor McCheese. Doesn't matter who you are or where you live, the procedure is the same in the jurisdiction you reside in.
 
You have to be a legal citizen for a certain age to vote, outline in the constitution. How do you propose we verify that at the polls?

We should be able to own any gun that the military and police posses, that is the reason behind the 2nd ammendment.

Allowing the gov't to institute ANY checks on the 2nd amendment is a violation.

Why is there a course and fees for conceal carry? I already have the gun. Carrying a gun in a pocket or purse is no different from a danger standpoint than carrying it on your hip. And who thought this up? A course and fee to put a handgun in your pocket but you can buy an assault rifle, with 30 rd clip and larger bullets, without any safety training? What a bass ackward idea. Like has been stated before, the government should not be in the business of telling us what training we need. You think criminals take training? What happened to being a decent human being and not being dumb and just keeping you head down, work hard, and make something of yourself? (rhetorical, I know what happened)

Too bad the ship has sailed though. Now we all depend on the government to make the decisions for us, and blindly follow along. We are on a VERY slippery slope.

I have guns, and I like them. The only reason I got a conceal carry license is so I can buy a handgun the day I want it. Concealed carry before I had my 'license'. No law is going to tell me when I can and can't carry my gun. I'm not stupid and won't use it unless needed. If I ever have to, then I'll gladly answer to a judge of why I killed someone in defense of my life or others.

Glad to see there is a glimmer of hope in our elected representation.
 
ManglerYJ said:
I'm not sure I'm following you there.... in what way does it make things more difficult on minorities? It's the same procedure for whites, blacks, Hispanics, gays, Disney employees and Mayor McCheese. Doesn't matter who you are or where you live, the procedure is the same in the jurisdiction you reside in.
Click to expand...

It's all about the barrier to entry. The simple fact is that gun control laws were written and enacted in order to make it more difficult for blacks to purchase and keep firearms. Sometimes blacks were *specifically* prohibited from possessing firearms, or laws were modified to make clear that they didn't apply to whites. Even today, penalties for firearms law violations are disproportionately applied to minorities.

This shouldn't be news to anyone.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog

Shaneen Allen, race and gun control

Meanwhile, Condi Rice reminds us what it's all about:

The Gun Zone RKBA -- Condoleezza Rice
 
Chuckman said:
folks should pass a safety test to purchase a chainsaw too, but thats just me. every time I see someone leave a big box store with one wearing yuppy clothes I just cringe.

my CCW instructor asked us to raise our hands if we rolled to class with weapons already (yet illegally) concealed, 90% of us did. he said we could do range time first, because he wanted us to be safely in the parking lot before the newbs got up to shoot. theres a lot to be said by that.
Click to expand...

I'm a fan of, If you hurt yourself while using an implement that you did not properly learn how to use, then, you'll be more likely to tell others "hey be careful'

Those warnings will be passed down to the next generation. Easy. And requires no gov't intervention or 100 'safety' devices.

Now, we have to pay for more complex machines because the engineers have to worry about someone getting hurt. And then sue. Because the government got involved.
 
shawn said:
It's all about the barrier to entry. The simple fact is that gun control laws were written and enacted in order to make it more difficult for blacks to purchase and keep firearms. Sometimes blacks were *specifically* prohibited from possessing firearms, or laws were modified to make clear that they didn't apply to whites. Even today, penalties for firearms law violations are disproportionately applied to minorities.

This shouldn't be news to anyone.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=srhonorsprog

Shaneen Allen, race and gun control

Meanwhile, Condi Rice reminds us what it's all about:

The Gun Zone RKBA -- Condoleezza Rice
Click to expand...

Ridiculous.

A black guy can go buy a gun just as easy as I can. Hell, anyone on the 'street' (of any race) can probably get a gun cheaper and easier than I can.

It's all about choices.
 
jankoid said:
For those of you who say that a local militia would get blown away by the US military, do some research about the Vietnam and Korean Wars.
Click to expand...

Not really that interested in this topic but I had to reply to this one statement. If there was a true local militia revolt, a true one with actual violence or a real threat of violence, more than likely a team of highly trained personnel would be dispatched to eliminate the threat immediately. I say true local militia revolt so that it is not confused with the media circus that happened a few months ago with the Buddy Ranch people. The technology the government possesses today is so far advanced from what was available during the two wars you mentioned that no local group of militia would stand a chance. Not to mention the fact that if need be, drones could be utilized and just lay waste to the militia threat as though it never existed. I just think that when people make statements about needing guns in case they need to form a militia to overthrow a tyrannical government, they havent really thought the whole plan out far enough.
 
Back
Top