• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

GRNC Alert 6-13-12: Tell Republicans to Deliver On Promises

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
"We lost it incrementally because of "it doesn't have anything to do with me" attitude and people sitting on their arses and letting it happen. Now it up to my generation, Rotorheads generation and the new generation of young that populate these forums to get our rights back."

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.

I was apologizing for my own comments, no one else's.

I know cricketdad personally and of all the adjectives in the world to tack onto him, rude would be the last one in line.

I'll leave the rest to you two to work out :)
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
What is the states "Compelling interest" ...

...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:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
...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".

Correct Carolina, our battles are to be won in the courts, not with bread crumbs that do nothing to restore rights. Don't get me wrong I will be happy for the CCP holders who can enjoy their new found privilege. But what happens when the legislature decides that we are so accepting of the privilege system that we should have to have a permit to open carry. The big battles that have been won have been won in the courts, that is where our focus should be. Not accepting crumbs and calling it a victory, when really they are making fun of us. We got in this mess by accepting crumbs.
 

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
Correct Carolina, our battles are to be won in the courts, not with bread crumbs that do nothing to restore rights. Don't get me wrong I will be happy for the CCP holders who can enjoy their new found privilege. But what happens when the legislature decides that we are so accepting of the privilege system that we should have to have a permit to open carry. The big battles that have been won have been won in the courts, that is where our focus should be. Not accepting crumbs and calling it a victory, when really they are making fun of us. We got in this mess by accepting crumbs.

I agree for the most part.

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.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
I agree for the most part.

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 see your point. Sounds like we need to get saf.org involved in this as well since it has national implications.

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:

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
I see your point. Sounds like we need to get saf.org involved in this as well since it has national implications.

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 retain 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.

I certainly wouldn't stage anything, myself. It would be hard to defend an intentional illegal activity lol.

The assassination of HB111 wasn't due to any incident or infraction though. It came about because some poll was taken that revealed that the majority of those polled (around a college, of course) did not agree with guns being allowed in bars. The Senate leadership saw those results and used it as an excuse to turn tail and then made their move to kill it by moving it to the Finance committee instead of onto the Senate floor where they know it would have passed easily.

And then, they got called out for it in public. Then, they doubled down and started to blame GRNC for being mean as the reason why they were not going to move on it. There was a Democrat Senator that was going to move to push it to the floor, and that's when Apodaca really turned cry-ass and moved it to the Commerce Committee, thereby resetting the 10 day clock on bills that can be requested to move directly to the floor.

It's really as simple as the Senate Leadership doing something cowardly, getting punked out about it, and then really turning into spoiled babies.

Anyway...

Sadly, it's widely accepted now in legal and legislative circles to separate the "right" of owning and carrying, with the "privilege" of carrying concealed. NC didn't start this, as the NC version of the CHP was modeled after other states that already had them. It was just a way to break through the wall and get CC here to the state back then. In one sense it brought a means to CC legally in the state, but it also carried with it certain implications, not the least of which is the natural process of legitimizing people that have them and legislatively separating those that don't. Now we have the "haves" and the "have nots" clearly defined in the state.

The "haves" are "vetted" and therefore somehow trust worthy, while the "have nots" are suspect, to say the least. Outsiders don't understand that there are some people out there who choose not to go through the process of getting one. Naturally, they think they have something to hide or something, I don't know what it is. Yet we have other states, one of which is about as liberal as you can get (VT) that trusts it's subjects enough not to implement these kinds of stupid permits. Go figure.

Tragically, what it's going to take is for enough people to get blown away in places that sell alcohol until the situation gets politically uncomfortable enough to ignore, thereby forcing the GA to act. Then we'll hear them all stand up and talk about how tough they are in terms of crime prevention, and how every citizen should be able to defend themselves, and how they ran out of time with HB111 or they would have passed it....blah blah blah.
 

cricketdad

Regular Member
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
381
Location
Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA
:) The "illegal activity" is the suppression of our "fundamental right to self defense" by agents of the state.

A reverse entrapment sting. How fitting.

Your idea sounds like a good idea to me. What is needed is a defendant that has been wronged. Someone that survived a restaurant shooting would really work.

Theses lawsuits take perseverance. Bateman took over 2 years.

Contact SAF with your thoughts. You might be on to something.
 

merc460

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
229
Location
North Carolina, USA
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.

I would like it if folks would quit restricting this to restaurants only. Keep in mind, places of "paid admission" also. We also have to lock up our firearms while in the movies and such also. :banghead:
 

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
I would like it if folks would quit restricting this to restaurants only. Keep in mind, places of "paid admission" also. We're also supposed to lock up our firearms while in the movies and such also. :banghead:

There... Fixed it for ya...:)
 
Last edited:

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
There... Fixed it for ya...:)

Most everybody I know that legally carries concealed do not lock up their guns when they go to a restaurant, or theater. If the gun is properly concealed and there is no RAS the police cannot just search people whether armed or not. One of the reasons felons do not get charged with possession of a firearm. First someone has to know they are armed, and second there has to RAS even when it is a felon. That is why OCers get hassled more, the gun is visible. I ate several times in Firehouse Subs not realizing they sold bear. I was OC and on some occasions there were LEOs present. Not one word was said, granted I don't go in there anymore, but so far I have not seen the law doing searches in restaurants for concealed guns. I use a short cable in the trunk looped over a frame member in the trunk then secured with a padlock though the trigger guard if I have to leave a gun in the trunk. Or the same thing can be done with a tool box, I use a craftsman box if I have more than one gun in the trunk and use the cable with the padlock. Mostly just avoid restaurants that serve alcohol, and I hate theaters, but love Netflix, Hulu, and Crackle.
 

rotorhead

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2010
Messages
862
Location
FL
I would like it if folks would quit restricting this to restaurants only. Keep in mind, places of "paid admission" also. We also have to lock up our firearms while in the movies and such also. :banghead:

lol

No one is restricting the discussion by not including other things we'd like to see change. It's just the HB111 was teh main focus in this thread, and HB111 didn't contain language to change anything in terms of places that charge admission, therefore no one is mentioning it when discussing HB111.

The subject if valid though, and should be addressed in future legislation designed to eliminate those restrictions, imo.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
lol

No one is restricting the discussion by not including other things we'd like to see change. It's just the HB111 was teh main focus in this thread, and HB111 didn't contain language to change anything in terms of places that charge admission, therefore no one is mentioning it when discussing HB111.

The subject if valid though, and should be addressed in future legislation designed to eliminate those restrictions, imo.

All the restrictions should be removed except for posted private property. I can't see this happening though as most politicians no matter which side really do not want us to have any rights.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
All the restrictions should be removed except for posted private property. I can't see this happening though as most politicians no matter which side really do not want us to have any rights.

how about "suggesting" that the way to help bring the law in compliance with the Constitution and recent court decisions, that perhaps they should drop all non-government and non-school restrictions, and just try something like only restrict carry at places where alcohol is sold and consumed after 11pm? (like when most alcohol related violence occurs) It is not likely that a gun fight will ensue at a Disney movie at 4pm with the kids...but a bar at 1am...that could be argued as a more "reasonable" restriction based on observation and statistics.

I think I am going to work on a letter to send to the reps in Raleigh tonight... :)
 
Last edited:

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
how about "suggesting" that the way to help bring the law in compliance with the Constitution and recent court decisions, that perhaps they should drop all non-government and non-school restrictions, and just try something like only restrict carry at places where alcohol is sold and consumed after 11pm? (like when most alcohol related violence occurs) It is not likely that a gun fight will ensue at a Disney movie at 4pm with the kids...but a bar at 1am...that could be argued as a more "reasonable" restriction based on observation and statistics.

I think I am going to work on a letter to send to the reps in Raleigh tonight... :)

FYI, school zone restriction isn't constitutional. Don't recall any mention in the 2nd amendment of places one is not allowed to bear arms, just like there are no restrictions stating when your 1st amendment cannot be exercised. As for the alcohol after 11 suggestion, I think a more reasonable change would be the 51% rule, where establishments that receive 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol are excluded. And I would only accept that if it were the only possible way for this bill to pass.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
If a establishment has problems with violence their alcohol license can be removed on that basis. There is really no need for handgun restrictions on peaceful establishments. Besides being unconstitutional for both parties the business owner and the customer. A business owner should be able to make his own decisions on who he allows, and the gun owner should not be barred from a business based on carrying a gun. Most business like clubs do not need politicians to make business decisions for them. Many clubs ban knives and there is nothing in the law telling them to do so.
 

carolina guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2012
Messages
1,737
Location
Concord, NC
FYI, school zone restriction isn't constitutional. Don't recall any mention in the 2nd amendment of places one is not allowed to bear arms, just like there are no restrictions stating when your 1st amendment cannot be exercised. As for the alcohol after 11 suggestion, I think a more reasonable change would be the 51% rule, where establishments that receive 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol are excluded. And I would only accept that if it were the only possible way for this bill to pass.

Oh...yeah the GFSZ is a crock...but the SCOTUS and lower court rulings acknowledge that it is OK to limit firearms in "sensitive" areas by "tradition". I think it would be a tough road to fight on that one.

I can easily see letting ANY club or establishment pick if they will allow firearms or not...but I think they need to be held accountable for restricting someone's right to self defense if they do not pick up the slack.
 

Medic1210

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
298
Location
Rockingham, NC
Oh...yeah the GFSZ is a crock...but the SCOTUS and lower court rulings acknowledge that it is OK to limit firearms in "sensitive" areas by "tradition". I think it would be a tough road to fight on that one.
.

But traditionally, guns were a common sight on school campus. It was nothing for the guys to have their shotguns and rifles in a gun rack in their truck window....
 

merc460

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
229
Location
North Carolina, USA
lol

No one is restricting the discussion by not including other things we'd like to see change. It's just the HB111 was teh main focus in this thread, and HB111 didn't contain language to change anything in terms of places that charge admission, therefore no one is mentioning it when discussing HB111.

The subject if valid though, and should be addressed in future legislation designed to eliminate those restrictions, imo.

Yeah, that was what I meant. Since HB111 is dead, the future legislation should be a bit broader.
 
Top