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.
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.
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.
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.
I think I am going to work on a letter to send to the reps in Raleigh tonight...
Last edited by carolina guy; 06-28-2012 at 06:43 PM.
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.
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.
The Parking lot issue dies under the reasoning of applying property rights, that the state should not be telling private business owners what they should be using for policies. Ironically, HB111 was kept on life support and scheduled for the short session this year. They denied the Parking Lot provisions due to Private Property Rights issues, but kept "Restaurant/ Alcohol" issues alive. What's the difference anyway?
Is telling private businesses that they have no say in the issue any less of a property rights issue that the parking lot provisions?
But, once those two provisions were stripped out of the larger HB650, the "Castle Doctrine" bill was passed and signed into law.
So in reality, HB111 was part of a much broader bill encompassing much more than just the restaurant angle.
Last edited by rotorhead; 06-29-2012 at 07:50 AM.
That said, it was NOT a common sight to see a gun inside the school or out in the parking lot...just in the cars/trucks.
So...the real question becomes how to get the legislature to do the right thing, if they will at all? If they don't then it sounds like it is time to sue again and roll things back some more!
places that charge admission and places that sell alcohol and where it consumed on premises are probably them most annoying prohibitions. but the prohibitions of firearms at protests, 'demonstrations' and really peeve me off as well. heaven forbid, you are legally armed, then you pick up a sign with some writing on it and you are an instant criminal.