2013 Bills

Hello, Im a newbe to the Forums.

hi.

merc460 said:

I was thinking along my situation, being in college. I just see students locking up weapons in their cars while in classes.
I do admit, I hate leaving the house with mine locked up in the safe, but I would be worried sick with it locked up in my car with all of the car break-ins on campus.

Click to expand...

damn what college do you go too?
there hasn't been a reported crime at my college in more than a year.

SB 201 - Hunting with Suppressors

Record Brief;

AN ACT TO ALLOW HUNTING WITH A SUPPRESSOR OR OTHER DEVICE DESIGNED TO MUFFLE OR MINIMIZE THE REPORT OF A FIREARM

Click to expand...

I have a interest in this as I'm a Class 3 dealer and business would boom for me if this passes. Already passed 3 reading.

HB 937 "Amend Various Firearms Laws" (Restaurant Carry & others) PASSED its 3rd & final reading. The vote went along party lines. :beer:

Now on to the senate...

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=hb+937&submitButton=Go

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

Ruger said:

HB 937 "Amend Various Firearms Laws" (Restaurant Carry & others) PASSED its 3rd & final reading. The vote went along party lines. :beer:

Now on to the senate...

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2013&BillID=hb+937&submitButton=Go

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Who supported this bill?! Did you read it? Do you know it enacts universal background checks for private gun transfers? Wonder which organization we can thank for this latest fiasco?
10 (c) Background Check by Licensed Gun Dealer. – A prospective firearm transferor
11 who is not a licensed gun dealer shall arrange for a licensed gun dealer to obtain the
12 background check required by this section. A licensed gun dealer who obtains a background
13 check on a prospective transferee shall record the transfer and retain the records in the same
14 manner as when conducting a sale, rental, or exchange at retail. The licensed gun dealer shall
15 comply with all State and federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. § 922, as if the gun dealer were
16 transferring the firearm from the gun dealer's inventory to the prospective transferee. A
17 licensed gun dealer who obtains a background check for a prospective firearm transferor
18 pursuant to this section shall provide tothe firearm transferor andtransferee a copyofthe results
19 of the background check, including the SBI's approval or disapproval of the transfer.

WalkingWolf said:

Who supported this bill?! Did you read it? Do you know it enacts universal background checks for private gun transfers? Wonder which organization we can thank for this latest fiasco?
10 (c) Background Check by Licensed Gun Dealer. – A prospective firearm transferor
11 who is not a licensed gun dealer shall arrange for a licensed gun dealer to obtain the
12 background check required by this section. A licensed gun dealer who obtains a background
13 check on a prospective transferee shall record the transfer and retain the records in the same
14 manner as when conducting a sale, rental, or exchange at retail. The licensed gun dealer shall
15 comply with all State and federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. § 922, as if the gun dealer were
16 transferring the firearm from the gun dealer's inventory to the prospective transferee. A
17 licensed gun dealer who obtains a background check for a prospective firearm transferor
18 pursuant to this section shall provide tothe firearm transferor andtransferee a copyofthe results
19 of the background check, including the SBI's approval or disapproval of the transfer.

Click to expand...

I almost shat myself after reading this. Fear not, though. What you're referring to is a proposed amendment "A11". It was tabled, meaning it was set aside for later consideration. Looking over the various amendments that were tabled, there were other nasty ones too, like A9, which would impose restrictions on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

IANAL, but my take on this, considering the nature of the bill, and the fact that the votes for each of the amendments were pretty much split along party lines with Republicans voting to table the amendments & Democrats voting against tabling them, I'm thinking that the aforementioned amendments are pretty much dead. As I understand it, this is a procedural thing, and since the latest action on the bill was the 3rd reading vote, these amendments are off the table for this legislative session. The bill now moves to the Senate without the aforementioned amendments being part of the bill. As a side note, I cannot see GRNC/Valone supporting a bill that would enact universal background checks and magazine restrictions as such.

(c)
A person may possess a large capacity magazine if the person:
(1)
Owns the large capacity magazine on October 1, 2013; and
(2)
Maintains continuous possession of the large capacity magazine.


So shall i start keeping my receipts for the magazines that I buy, or will they be kind enough to register my magazines in their database so they see that I have had them since before said date. :banghead:

I read it and all the good parts are for permit holders only.

These should apply to all people, not just those with permission slips from the government.

ron73440 said:

I read it and all the good parts are for permit holders only.

These should apply to all people, not just those with permission slips from the government.

Click to expand...

I wrote and asked Paul Valone if Grass Roots North Carolina would ever support and help pass bills for the rest of us. The response was less than heartening, besides accusing me of being one of those "malcontents on OCDO".

I agree; it should apply to all. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a loud voice in NC fighting for us.

Tess said:

I wrote and asked Paul Valone if Grass Roots North Carolina would ever support and help pass bills for the rest of us. The response was less than heartening, besides accusing me of being one of those "malcontents on OCDO".

I agree; it should apply to all. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a loud voice in NC fighting for us.

Click to expand...

Tess, it is not voice, it is money. PV is a lobbyist, he lobbies for money, as all lobbyists do. Clearly he cares less about rights and more about his bank account. His donations are or payola comes from those who make a living off the concealed carry industry, just the same as NRA. Constitutional open carry generates no incomes other than firearm and ammo sales. I have nothing against a lobbyist or someone making a living, but when they ask me for money or support I tell them to bugger off. If we in NC are ever going to get the power of lobbyists we need to group together more than we do now and not support anti OC lobbyists.

I don't know much about Paul, but from what I've seen, including his posts here, he is no friend of open carry.

ron73440 said:

I don't know much about Paul, but from what I've seen, including his posts here, he is no friend of open carry.

Click to expand...

I don't mind that so much, if it's personal, but it seems to carry over to his lobbying efforts. My problem is the general rude tone and name-calling in e-mails. I'd love to see/join an organization that fights for all. Anyhow, I don't want to get in to denigrating another organization; I just want to point out that we on OCDO are malcontents who can't fall in to line.

Full disclosure: while I keep up with GRNC activities because I'm a frequent visitor, I'm not a paid GRNC member and thus have no say in its activities.

I'm thinking about joining when I get back, but I might be too pro-liberty for them, and I'm not sure I want to join a club that would have me as a member.