Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 44 of 44

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

  1. #26
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    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.

  2. #27
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    I certainly wouldn't stage anything, myself. It would be hard to defend an intentional illegal activity lol.
    The "illegal activity" is the suppression of our "fundamental right to self defense" by agents of the state.

  3. #28
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    The "illegal activity" is the suppression of our "fundamental right to self defense" by agents of the state.
    lol gotcha.

  4. #29
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    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.

  5. #30
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    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.

  6. #31
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by merc460 View Post
    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.
    There... Fixed it for ya...
    Last edited by Medic1210; 06-27-2012 at 11:41 PM.

  7. #32
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    9,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Medic1210 View Post
    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.

  8. #33
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by merc460 View Post
    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.
    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.

  9. #34
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    9,129
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    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.

  10. #35
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    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 by carolina guy; 06-28-2012 at 05:43 PM.

  11. #36
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    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.

  12. #37
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    9,129
    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.

  13. #38
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Medic1210 View Post
    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.

  14. #39
    Regular Member Medic1210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Rockingham, NC
    Posts
    298
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    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....

  15. #40
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    231
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead View Post
    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.

  16. #41
    Regular Member rotorhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by merc460 View Post
    Yeah, that was what I meant. Since HB111 is dead, the future legislation should be a bit broader.
    In that sense, it was much broader when it began. If you remember, HB111 started out as a part of the larger HB650 which was passed into law last year. At the last minute, two important provisions were stripped out of HB650- "Restaurant Carry" and "Parking Lot Carry". The parking lot provisions would have made it illegal for private businesses to ban firearms stored in vehicles on their property, such as an employee storing his gun at his work place in his car due to his employer's rules against guns inside.

    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 06:50 AM.

  17. #42
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by Medic1210 View Post
    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....
    growing up in Austin...I cannot count how many pickups in the school parking lot had rifles and shotguns in the racks...granted that was the 80's...and the perceptions were different. It was well known that if you took them out or "played" with them in the lot, you would get your butt handed to you on a platter...from the deputies in the substation directly across the road. Now...someone finds a butter knife...better put the whole state on lock down!

    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!

  18. #43
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    73
    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.

  19. #44
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,646
    Quote Originally Posted by brutus1776 View Post
    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.
    Yeah...I think that there needs to be a protest BY OCers about the unconstitutional restrictions by the state...let them violate the 1st AND 2nd Amendments at one time.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •