Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 38

Thread: What laws need changing?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    So tell me guys what NC gun laws need to be changed and or removed?

    Do we need a Stand Your Ground law?A better castle doctrine?

    What do you guys think?



  2. #2
    Regular Member SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richlands, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    124

    Post imported post

    Castle Doctrine does need some work,,,,the silly law can't carry in a restaurant where alcohol is consumed & sold,,,no weapons on college campus,,,no concealed carry to pay events,,funerals,,parades & drop the law inform a approaching LEO....how does he/she know if its concealed properly.....Just a few with many more

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greensboro, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP wrote:
    Castle Doctrine does need some work,,,,the silly law can't carry in a restaurant where alcohol is consumed & sold,,,no weapons on college campus,,,no concealed carry to pay events,,funerals,,parades & drop the law inform a approaching LEO....how does he/she know if its concealed properly.....Just a few with many more
    I am not entirely happy with our SD laws//Castle Doctrine, but can live with them. And, I think trying to change them would open a can of worms that could cause a backlash...

    Things that should be on the forefront (in large part because they are relatively easily proven feasible with data/experience of other states): allow carry in restaurants where alcohol is served so long as no consumption of alcohol, changing the no carry where admission is paid, funerals, parades.

    I would NOT change the inform LEO requirement, though I might alter it a bit. (I think notification is good idea, at least in the realm of traffic stops, and have yet to have a problem from an officer after notification).

    Just my $.02

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, , USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    Castle Doctrine could be a little better.

    Duty to retreat could be taken out, my Concealed Teacher said he was pushing to take that out, and thinks it can be done this year.

    And also, I would like to be able to carry in places that charge alcohol and charge admission.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    RayBurton72 wrote:
    SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP wrote:
    Castle Doctrine does need some work,,,,the silly law can't carry in a restaurant where alcohol is consumed & sold,,,no weapons on college campus,,,no concealed carry to pay events,,funerals,,parades & drop the law inform a approaching LEO....how does he/she know if its concealed properly.....Just a few with many more
    I am not entirely happy with our SD laws//Castle Doctrine, but can live with them. And, I think trying to change them would open a can of worms that could cause a backlash...

    Things that should be on the forefront (in large part because they are relatively easily proven feasible with data/experience of other states): allow carry in restaurants where alcohol is served so long as no consumption of alcohol, changing the no carry where admission is paid, funerals, parades.

    I would NOT change the inform LEO requirement, though I might alter it a bit. (I think notification is good idea, at least in the realm of traffic stops, and have yet to have a problem from an officer after notification).

    Just my $.02
    Keep in mind, the current "required to notify" law only applies to law abiding citizens who have a concealed handgun permit and are armed at the time with a concealed handgun. Criminals aren't required to notify, nor are law abiding citizens who are carrying openly.

    In my humble opinion, any law on the books that doesn't directly make a harmful act illegal should be disposed of. By harmful, I mean anything that would violate another person's rights. Now before you come up with crazy scenarios to argue that point, I'll state that there are always exceptions. I believe, however, that this is a crucial starting point.

    Does it hurt anyone else for me to carry my firearm in a bar? No. At a funeral? No. In a movie? No. Does it hurt anyone else for me to drink while carrying? No. In cases like that, I think there should be muchharsher punishments for those who choose to drink while armed and end up hurting someone in the process, BUT there's no reason I shouldn't be able to have a beer and be equipped to protect myself at the same time.

    All of the other restrictive gun laws are useless and need to be changed based on the fact that the possibility of me hurting someone or violating their rightsin any situation is not automatically increased simply because I happen to be armed. It's already a crime to hurt people, shoot people, or threaten people, unless you're defending yourself or someone else.



    Blah.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    78

    Post imported post

    CHANGE 'EM ALL!! Better yet, get rid of them. The only law anyone needs is Do no harm.

  7. #7
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    In my humble opinion, any law on the books that doesn't directly make a harmful act illegal should be disposed of. By harmful, I mean anything that would violate another person's rights.
    +1. If I use a handgun to violate someones rights (murder, assault, etc.),charge me with violating the persons rights to the fullest extent of the law. Don't charge me with a bull$#!t gun charge if I don't commit a crime with the gun besides possession.

    I think that should be the basis of all gun laws and laws in general. Period. People don't realize that democracy is a double edged sword. If you use it to cut someone they will cut you back and all of our rights get eroded. That's how we got from "shall not be infringed" to "reasonable regulation" and why our founding fathers set this nation up as a federal republic, not a democracy to guard againstthis type oferosion of our rights.






  8. #8
    Regular Member SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richlands, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    124

    Post imported post

    Wow its time for change on the state level? BTW unrelated to our current president elect slogan.......That could open up another can of worms.......

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    I think the no carrying during a State of Emergency needs to be changed

    See this topic here

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum41/15676.html




  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    RayBurton72 wrote:
    SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP wrote:
    Castle Doctrine does need some work,,,,the silly law can't carry in a restaurant where alcohol is consumed & sold,,,no weapons on college campus,,,no concealed carry to pay events,,funerals,,parades & drop the law inform a approaching LEO....how does he/she know if its concealed properly.....Just a few with many more
    I am not entirely happy with our SD laws//Castle Doctrine, but can live with them. And, I think trying to change them would open a can of worms that could cause a backlash...

    Things that should be on the forefront (in large part because they are relatively easily proven feasible with data/experience of other states): allow carry in restaurants where alcohol is served so long as no consumption of alcohol, changing the no carry where admission is paid, funerals, parades.

    I would NOT change the inform LEO requirement, though I might alter it a bit. (I think notification is good idea, at least in the realm of traffic stops, and have yet to have a problem from an officer after notification).

    Just my $.02
    Keep in mind, the current "required to notify" law only applies to law abiding citizens who have a concealed handgun permit and are armed at the time with a concealed handgun. Criminals aren't required to notify, nor are law abiding citizens who are carrying openly.

    In my humble opinion, any law on the books that doesn't directly make a harmful act illegal should be disposed of. By harmful, I mean anything that would violate another person's rights. Now before you come up with crazy scenarios to argue that point, I'll state that there are always exceptions. I believe, however, that this is a crucial starting point.

    Does it hurt anyone else for me to carry my firearm in a bar? No. At a funeral? No. In a movie? No. Does it hurt anyone else for me to drink while carrying? No. In cases like that, I think there should be muchharsher punishments for those who choose to drink while armed and end up hurting someone in the process, BUT there's no reason I shouldn't be able to have a beer and be equipped to protect myself at the same time.

    All of the other restrictive gun laws are useless and need to be changed based on the fact that the possibility of me hurting someone or violating their rightsin any situation is not automatically increased simply because I happen to be armed. It's already a crime to hurt people, shoot people, or threaten people, unless you're defending yourself or someone else.



    Blah.


    I agree with everything you said except the drinking and carrying part.



    You might be able to control yourself good enough to only drink one or two as to not impare your judgement. But I know quite a bit of people that once they start drinking, they don't stop until they can barely walk. I also know quite a bit of people that once they drink even two, they will get very pissed very fast at somebdy doing something as simle as making a joke.



    Like I said before you might be able to control yourself. But there are a lot of people that can't control theirself when they start to drink and they won't have good enough mind to leave the guns home before they start drinking.



    If we were allowed to carry and drink, I personally would not want to go anywhere that I normally go to drink.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    partemisio wrote:
    I agree with everything you said except the drinking and carrying part.



    You might be able to control yourself good enough to only drink one or two as to not impare your judgement. But I know quite a bit of people that once they start drinking, they don't stop until they can barely walk. I also know quite a bit of people that once they drink even two, they will get very pissed very fast at somebdy doing something as simle as making a joke.



    Like I said before you might be able to control yourself. But there are a lot of people that can't control theirself when they start to drink and they won't have good enough mind to leave the guns home before they start drinking.



    If we were allowed to carry and drink, I personally would not want to go anywhere that I normally go to drink.
    It's already illegal to shoot someone, and there's a punishment for it. If you want to make the punishment worse if someone shoots someone while they were drunk, go for it. The problem with making it illegal to drink while armed is that the act in and of itself does NOT hurt anyone.

    There are a lot of people that I think personally aren't smart enough to have guns when they're SOBER, but until they hurt someone else, they have the same rights and deserve the same freedoms as everyone else.

    Is it asmart decision to leave the gun locked up at home if you're planning on getting smashed? Probably.Should that by my decision to make, and not the government's? Absolutely.

  12. #12
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    It's already illegal to shoot someone, and there's a punishment for it. If you want to make the punishment worse if someone shoots someone while they were drunk, go for it. The problem with making it illegal to drink while armed is that the act in and of itself does NOT hurt anyone.

    There are a lot of people that I think personally aren't smart enough to have guns when they're SOBER, but until they hurt someone else, they have the same rights and deserve the same freedoms as everyone else.

    Is it asmart decision to leave the gun locked up at home if you're planning on getting smashed? Probably.Should that by my decision to make, and not the government's? Absolutely.
    +2

    By the way has anyone ever found a statute that makes it illegal to drink and open carry a pistol?

  13. #13
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    dubccat51 wrote:
    DreQo wrote:
    It's already illegal to shoot someone, and there's a punishment for it. If you want to make the punishment worse if someone shoots someone while they were drunk, go for it. The problem with making it illegal to drink while armed is that the act in and of itself does NOT hurt anyone.

    There are a lot of people that I think personally aren't smart enough to have guns when they're SOBER, but until they hurt someone else, they have the same rights and deserve the same freedoms as everyone else.

    Is it asmart decision to leave the gun locked up at home if you're planning on getting smashed? Probably.Should that by my decision to make, and not the government's? Absolutely.
    +2

    By the way has anyone ever found a statute that makes it illegal to drink and open carry a pistol?
    Yeah...can't cite it at the moment, but the statute says flat out you'll have no alcohol in your body while in possession of a firearm. It doesn't specify concealed or otherwise. (edit: this statement is false...I think..)

  14. #14
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    § 14‑415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.

    (c) It shall be unlawful for a person, with or without a permit, to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol or at any time while the person has remaining in his body any alcohol or in his blood a controlled substance previously consumed, but a person does not violate this condition if a controlled substance in his blood was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts.
    This is the only one I've ever seen and it applies only to concealed handguns.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    dubccat51 wrote:
    § 14‑415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.

    (c) It shall be unlawful for a person, with or without a permit, to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol or at any time while the person has remaining in his body any alcohol or in his blood a controlled substance previously consumed, but a person does not violate this condition if a controlled substance in his blood was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts.
    This is the only one I've ever seen and it applies only to concealed handguns.
    Oh crap, you might be right. I just started looking and I couldn't find anything besides that law you just quoted. I guess I never really thought about it because you can't go anywhere in public while armed where drinks are sold to begin with.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    So:

    1. no duty to retreat in your home, or gremlin in the home deadly force authorized.

    2. Remove prohibition on CCand OC in movies, funerals, admission charged, public gatherings.

    3. Remove prohibition on CCand OC during a State of Emergency. (we won't be another Katrina)

    This seems to be the consensus. If you guys agree I will put it together for my Representative, and we'll put it before the house. ButI won't move unless you guys agree because any legislation will need all our support.



  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Curins wrote:
    So:

    1. no duty to retreat in your home, or gremlin in the home deadly force authorized.

    2. Remove prohibition on CC or OC in movies, funerals, admission charged, public gatherings.

    3. Remove prohibition on CC or OC during a State of Emergency. (we won't be another Katrina)

    This seems to be the consensus. If you guys agree I will put it together for my Representative, and we'll put it before the house. ButI won't move unless you guys agree because any legislation will need all our support.

    Change all of those to "CC and OC", and add this:

    4. Remove prohibition on CC and OC in establishments where alcohol is served and consumed.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    Curins wrote:
    So:

    1. no duty to retreat in your home, or gremlin in the home deadly force authorized.

    2. Remove prohibition on CC or OC in movies, funerals, admission charged, public gatherings.

    3. Remove prohibition on CC or OC during a State of Emergency. (we won't be another Katrina)

    This seems to be the consensus. If you guys agree I will put it together for my Representative, and we'll put it before the house. ButI won't move unless you guys agree because any legislation will need all our support.




    I agree with thesse if you change "or" to "and."


  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, , USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    This sounds really great. Is there anything I can do to help? Write letters, make phone calls. I am willing to do this, please point me in the right direction!

  20. #20
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Just to clarify, everyone does agree that the ban on places that serve alcohol needs to be disposed of as well, right?

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, , USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    I agree

  22. #22
    Opt-Out Members
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    178

    Post imported post

    I think that the only gun ban should be the use of a firearmto commitmurder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.

    Agreed.

  23. #23
    Regular Member SPRINGFIELD_45_ACP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Richlands, North Carolina, United States
    Posts
    124

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    Just to clarify, everyone does agree that the ban on places that serve alcohol needs to be disposed of as well, right?
    Yes i do agree this law is just about @ the top of the list for modifications...

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Wallace, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    116

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    Just to clarify, everyone does agree that the ban on places that serve alcohol needs to be disposed of as well, right?
    I agree that you should be able to go somewhere that serves alcohol. As I said before, I don't agree with actually being able to consume alcohol though.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, , USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post

    ^^ Right, I don't think everyone will agree on being able to consume, and I don't think we should push that. I do think everyone agrees we should be able to carry into a place that serves though.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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