Called, emailed and tweeted. We'll see. Outlook not too good I'm afraid.
GRNC Alert 6-13-12:
Tell Republicans to Deliver On Promises
The good news is that Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and Republican leaders are now responding publicly to the massive GRNC onslaught on restaurant carry which has now reached the Associated Press and national media, even saying that a floor vote “is not a matter of if, but when.”
The bad news is that the “when” is sometime in a fictional future, after this session has adjourned. “We’re trying to be responsible about how to handle this kind of legislation,” Berger said. “I’d like to see it move forward. Whether we can do it in the short session or not, I don’t know. It may be a long-session issue.”
Understand that “We’ll do it next year,” is standard politician weasel-speak for “never.” As for HB 111 being a “long session issue” instead of a 2nd-year “short session issue,” understand that HB 111 cleared the NC House LAST year IN the long session they feel so necessary, and went to the Senate, where leadership promptly sat on the bill for a year.
Bottom line: If Berger & Co. wanted to consider the bill in a long session instead of an election year, they should have done it LAST YEAR.
PAUL VALONE ON WPTF: ‘15 MINUTES’ FROM PASSAGE
Today, GRNC President Paul Valone was featured on the Bill LuMaye Show on WPTF in Raleigh, followed shortly thereafter by Sen. Buck Newton, chair of the Senate Committee that passed HB 111 before leadership sent it to the Finance Committee to die.
Although Sen. Newton has been a friend of gun owners, he followed the leadership line on HB 111, but revealed a couple of interesting tidbits: First, the ostensible “reason” (read that “rationale”) for sending it to Finance is language Republicans added on felons with firearms which has NOTHING TO DO with what GRNC drafted for restaurant carry. Does that mean Republicans inserted a “poison pill” into the bill? You decide.
But most important, Newton relayed that it would likely take the Finance Committee only 15 MINUTES to consider the bill before sending it to the floor for a vote. Yep, you heard it right:
Phil Berger’s excuse for not dealing with HB 111 is that
he refuses to waste 15 minutes of his precious time on you, the peasants.
GRNC RADIO SPOTS TARGET BERGER
Beginning at 6:00 AM tomorrow, radio spots will highlight GRNC’s “Stop Restaurant Homicide” campaign, asking listeners to contact Sen. Berger. To hear the radio spot, go to: http://grnc.org/home/about-grnc/grnc-radio-spots
IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED
• CALL SEN. PHIL BERGER TOMORROW BETWEEN 9 & 11 AM at 919.733.5708: Regardless of whether you have already called, call again and deliver these three talking points:
1. Republicans promised to hear HB 111 in the LAST long session. Trying to foist it off onto next year is nothing more than a dodge;
2. Berger’s office promised NOT to re-refer HB 111 to another committee with the intention of killing it; and
3. It would take just a 15 minute committee hearing to deliver on promises, so Republicans should deliver NOW, not in some mythical future year.
• EMAIL THE CUT-&-PASTE MESSAGE BELOW TO ALL SENATE REPUBLICANS.
• HELP GRNC RUN RADIO SPOTS: At $350 per spot, bringing the public into the fight isn’t cheap. Moreover, GRNC needs money for numerous runoff elections, and for the General Election in November – in a battleground state, no less. Please help us accomplish the objective and defend your rights by joining or contributing at: https://ssl4.westserver.net/grnc.org/join.html!
Austin.Allran@ncleg.net, Tom.Apodaca@ncleg.net, Phil.Berger@ncleg.net, Stan.Bingham@ncleg.net, Harris.Blake@ncleg.net, Andrew.Brock@ncleg.net, Harry.Brown@ncleg.net, Peter.Brunstetter@ncleg.net, Chris.Carney@ncleg.net, Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net, Jim.Davis@ncleg.net, Don.East@ncleg.net, Thom.Goolsby@ncleg.net, Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net, Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net, Fletcher.Hartsell@ncleg.net, Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net, Neal.Hunt@ncleg.net, Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net, Wesley.Meredith@ncleg.net, Buck.Newton@ncleg.net, Louis.Pate@ncleg.net, Jean.Preston@ncleg.net, Bill.Rabon@ncleg.net, David.Rouzer@ncleg.net, Bob.Rucho@ncleg.net, Dan.Soucek@ncleg.net, Richard.Stevens@ncleg.net, Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net, Tommy.Tucker@ncleg.net, Wes.Westmoreland@ncleg.net
DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
(Suggested subject line: “Republicans: Deliver on Restaurant Carry Promises”)
North Carolina Senate Republicans:
I realize you have been a friend of gun owners in the past. Most of you have sponsored or voted for pro-gun legislation. But unfortunately, your leadership refuses to yield what one senator says is just 15 minutes of consideration in the Senate Finance Committee to send House Bill 111 to the floor.
I don’t want a fight, I just want a floor vote on HB 111 in order to protect myself and my family in North Carolina restaurants where patrons and workers alike continue to be murdered. I also don’t demand a veto-proof majority, just the 26 votes needed to pass the bill.
Arguments that “we need to wait until next year” ring hollow. In fact, that’s what Senate leadership said LAST YEAR, after HB 111 passed in the House. Gun owners were promised a vote, and were promised that HB 111 wouldn’t be re-referred to another committee to die. So far, those promises are not being met.
So let’s put all this behind us: Tell leadership to either bring HB 111 to a Finance vote with enough time to pass the Senate and go back to the House, or else send it directly to the floor.
Gun owners helped put Republicans in charge, and gun owners are looking to see their interests represented. Tell Senator Phil Berger to keep his promises and to stop stifling HB 111.
Called, emailed and tweeted. We'll see. Outlook not too good I'm afraid.
The bill is a big step for those who wish to pay the state to have the right to defend yourself in a restaurant that serves alcohol. As far as the rest of us it is still a slap on the face. The bill should have not been restricted to a paid club, which is basically what the permit is. I personally have nothing against the permits, I even had one until I let it expire. I will not pay for one again! The right to bear arms should not be infringed in a restaurant or any other place unless the property owner so wishes. I have fears that open carriers will be forced in the future to obtain a permit to exersize their rights. As part of the OC community we should all be pushing for the same right given back to all law abiding citizens.
I wish the country was constitutional carry, but it's not. I have my permit because it makes traveling with my weapon so much easier, especially to states that don't have OC. Heck, just driving 25 miles south to the SC line meant I had to lock it in a glove box, and considering my glove box and center console don't lock, that meant putting it in the back. And considering my car is a hatchback, even that is questionable. It sure as heck isn't conducive to protecting myself while I'm pumping gas in SC. So, until constitutional carry, or country wide OC becomes law, I will continue to pay for my permit. It's one of those necessary evils unfortunately. At least for me.
We REALLY need to start pushing the "unintended consequences" of the "restaurant carry ban" in NC.
According to NC's own DOJ website, something like 70% of all handguns reported stolen in NC are stolen from vehicles. NC's "Restaurant Carry Ban" actualy puts guns INTO THE HANDS OF CRIMINALS, by forcing law-abiding citizens to leave their lawfully-possessed and carried handguns in their unattended vehicles while dining out.
Support for keeping NC's Restaurant Ban is nothing less than SUPPORT FOR CRIMINALS in NC.
This ban actually HELPS the criminal element ply their trade by giving them easy access to the lawfully-owned firearms of law-abiding citizens.
Good luck, folks. You've got a tough battle ahead of you.
Last edited by Dreamer; 06-23-2012 at 12:18 AM.
It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
--Barry Goldwater, 1964
Some issues can be taken in giant bites, and others not so much. This is a case where increments was used to nibble away at certain portions of bad gun legislation, in the hopes of then going for more later using collected data in the next months and years. You then take that data and say "See? No wild west, no drunken shooting rampages by CHP holders, etc..." and then make a case for more later on down the line. Had HB111 been written to include all gun owners of the state instead of just CHP holders, we knew that the bill would not have made it inside the door, never mind only two steps away from the Governor's desk. There's no way they would have touched it.
So, they went with this approach this time.
Actually, I'm pretty much more in line with your views as I don't even have a CHP and probably will never get one. I don't like how it's becoming the defacto qualification used for new gun legislation and the determining factor for worthiness of gun owners. I'd prefer if we could simply do away with it right here, right now. But, NC doesn't work quite as fast as other places so we have to take any gain we can get when we can get it.
If this would have passed, it would have had absolutely no direct impact on me personally. So why do I push for it? Because it opens doors to further avenues to remove stupid gun laws out there eventually.
That, and it let's politicians know that the people that helped vote them into power are watching closely to make sure they follow through with their promises. They might get away with their kind of crap when dealing with other groups, but they'll know not to apply the same techniques with North Carolina's gun owners.
That's my hope anyway.
Last edited by rotorhead; 06-23-2012 at 06:25 PM.
Actually the ban is a good business opportunity for some. We used to drive thirty miles to the Flamingo in Pittsboro to eat in a fine restaurant OCing. We by far were not the only ones, as many people open carried in this restaurant. In the small town it was always packed at lunch and there was almost always somebody there with a gun besides myself. The restaurant was sold, and reopened and now they serve alcohol, we no longer make the drive to Pittsboro for fine dinning while OCing.
Last edited by WalkingWolf; 06-23-2012 at 07:35 PM.
Actually, it's not adding new legislation when you look at the actual bill. It's removing the restrictions of CC that are already there. This bill strikes out some of the language to the current law and the only thing it really "adds" some legal jargon which is there to show that CHP holders are now exempted from the current laws dealing with CC in the state. It also further defines things dealing with felons.
All in all, it's not an actual new bill proposing additional legislation. It's really more of an amendment to existing law that is already there.
But yeah, in general I'm not a fan of legislation dealing with guns. I'd be ultimately happy if they'd wash out most of the state junk and go with a Constitutional Carry model such as what Vermont has. Any time a state adds their own provisions to what the US Constitution says is a "right", it simply becomes more of a privilege to one degree or another.
No other "right" specified in the US Constitution is so heavily burdened by legislation at all levels of government. No one would put up with so many restrictions on any other right. The entire country would rebel if states required it's citizens to go through a class, a background check, and obtain a permit to enjoy the "right" of not having Soldiers quarter themselves in their homes (3A), or to exercise their rights to a speedy trial (6A).
No one in their right mind would allow the state government to make laws regulating their free speech, or have a town council declare that you couldn't talk in their town offices or town property including parks and recreational areas (1A), or have to obtain a permit before they could be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures (4A).
The whole concept of such heavy regulation at all levels for one specific right named in the US Constitution is utterly ridiculous. Most libs would light a fire under the ass of the country if any of the other rights that are named were so severely abused, yet they remain silent (at best) or extremely vocal against the 2A which is every bit a right as the other ones.
The hypocrisy shown by such people is astounding.
As for the legislative tactics used to get HB111 into the spotlight and why I support it, it's simple: The more you chip away at the stone, the smaller the pieces will be. If you think simply walking up to the General Assembly and pounding on the door while screaming "I want every stupid gun law wiped off the books because it's my right under the 2A" is going to work, you may want to look into an alternative plan. It doesn't work that way.
What I've come to understand a little of is how the process works, and choose to try and effect change using it. You cannot apply your opinion of the CC crowd having a "it doesn't have anything to do with me" mentality on this one, because I'm not the CC crowd. This bill was supported by most gun owners because they understand the future implications of the precedent it would have set. It would have provided a year or two's worth of data that we could then use in a future fight to further ease ridiculous gun legislation down the road.
Instead, you get your feelings hurt and run back to the other side. Meh, whatever.
I'd prefer people with a little more stability on my side for these kinds of fights, anyway. Dealing with turncoat Republican Leaders in the GA takes a little more resolve than that.
Like it or not, gun owners a part of a larger society in and of itself, and it includes both CC and OC minded people. Like a family, I may not agree with my brother's views on CC and we may argue back and forth about it, but I'll be damned if anyone tries to mess with his ability to do so. In this case, Sen Burger and Sen Apodaca messed with it hard. In that regard, I'll stand with CCers to the end.
You, on the other hand, have decided to change your mind about it simply because you perceived that someone was being mean. You and Apodaca have something in common in that regard.
Bending over and compromising got us into this mess. The two biggest events in our time relating to second amendment in courts was brought about by citizens who were NOT willing to compromise. Changes come by people who are not willing to kiss the arse of those who suppress us, it comes by fighting back. Either by votes, or court cases. Permits are good for people who believe in elitism, though it is elitism that anyone with clean record can BUY. It is not enough that I or anybody else supported them out of courtesy, they want us to kiss their arse, just like a politician. Rotor you can't mediator on this, they screwed up, they should accept it.
Last edited by WalkingWolf; 06-25-2012 at 01:39 PM.
I understand what you're saying, but I also am learning more and more about how this messed up process works, and there are cases where you simply cannot go full force one way or the other. This was an attempt to chip a little bit of the giant stone we call Bad Gun Law and it was tailored to that degree. In the end, the people that told gun owners that they would do certain things, well.....did just the opposite. It was then that GRNC decided to make a stand to try and save the bill.
Personally, I would have loved the bill to include all gun owners. Instead, it was one of those "CHP" bills this time. Just the way it works around Raleigh, which is sad.
BTW no-matter who a person is they should never be called a criminal for supporting or not supporting based on their beliefs. Supporting a criminal in some cases is the same thing as being a criminal. It was rude statement that should have never been typed. It was the posters right, and it is my right to take it into consideration.
If asking if you have a better idea is rude, then you have my apology.
The above was rude, especially since Rotor and I already discussed supporting it, but if you don't like the help of a OCer and think we are sitting on our arses. Again the law and the change are still an infringement, applying a privilege to a right is an infringement. Where in the second amendment does it mention CCP? and special privileges. The biggest and most recent changes brought by citizens have been by fighting not succumbing with bread crumbs. As far as these forums it has wide range of generations, and most of true supporters of the second amendment do get it. People who are thrilled with special deals do not.
Again supported to support the OCers who would benefit, that was it, then I got insulted, and you know it was not for the smug better idea remark. If that is the best you can do~don't bother.
...in restricting the ability to carry (concealed or open) in restaurants? Since the SCOTUS has affirmed that we have the right to defend ourselves, that the 2A belongs to the people and applies to the states, I have to wonder, how is a fundamental right (self defense) being superseded in importance by restricting carry in an establishment that has alcohol being served and consumed, or even one that "charges admission"?
There are plenty of other states that do allow, without the feared increase in "bloodshed" or running gun battles fueled by alcohol or egos. I do not think that the state could support their restrictions if it were challenged properly.
I think that might be a good question for the lawmakers, and ask them if NC is ready to spend the $$ to defend this encroachment on 2A rights of self defense given the lack of obligation of the police to "protect us".
Last edited by carolina guy; 06-26-2012 at 10:30 AM.
The trouble is that court cases just don't "happen" and are usually the result of someone getting jacked up by the legal system. There's usually a short supply of people who are willing to intentionally get into legal trouble so they can hopefully end up on the positive side of favorable landmark decisions.
The other way is to serve lawsuits against the state or a smaller community. This takes an incredible amount of cash up front, and it takes lawyers who are proven winners in these cases. Those kind don't come cheap. Alan Gura has done an outstanding job for us in this regard, the latest being his victory when challenging the issue of the Constitutionality of the state's ability to restrict carrying during a declared state of emergency. We won that one due to that case.
But it also takes years to accomplish, with no guarantee that it will be successful. I'm all for the fight, but sadly lacking in the cash to sustain such a case, as I fear many are, too.
It has to be a combination of legislative procedures, court victories, and spreading the word around the state. No one method is going to work. Relying on the few and far between court victories alone is not enough. Relying on shaky politicians in the GA is not enough. The two have to work together from different ends to complete an entire picture.
Whichever way, I'll support most of it. I really don't care if a victory comes via a court decision or a legislative bill.
I would think that all that would need to be done is get someone to carry in a "prohibited" manner, but one not likely to result in arrest, just the denial of the right to bear. Then have witnesses "staged" and filming to document the on-going and deliberate violation of the 2A to support the federal lawsuit.
I think that the Bateman et al case definately opens a large can of worms for the GA.
Citing from Masciandaro:“…the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms ‘is not strictly limited to the home environment but extends in some form to wherever those activities or needs occur.’”
“It cannot be seriously questioned that the emergency declaration laws at issue here burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment…”
“…the statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest.”
I don't think it would take much to argue that if you are out in public, at a retail establishment where money changes hands with the general public that your "need for self-defense" is already greater if the retailer has NOT provided adequate "security".
Perhaps it is time to argue that a retail business that is open to the general public, has already given up their "property rights" to ban the carrying of guns, per this case.
Last edited by carolina guy; 06-26-2012 at 05:03 PM.