Petition to repeal carrying in alcohol establishments

imported post

Let me say first off I am not a member of any big gun group (NRA, GOA, and SAF). The only organization I am part of that I give money to is my church. That is all I have time for. If you were to speak with my friends, I would probably be known for my presentations, lessons and seminars on the Creation/Evolutionism topic. I invest a lot of time into that issue. I am not a gun nut, but I love freedom, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Founding Fathers. I am also sick and tired of constantly disarming myself every time I go to a movie, a steakhouse, or any normal place where my safety can be violated.


Now to the meat of the matter at hand. I am currently at the petitiononline.com sight and am going to put on a petition to have statute 14-293.3 repealed or done away with (whatever the lawyer term is for making those laws go away). In case you are like me and can’t remember what that statute says…


14‑269.3. Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.


First of all the site says to prepare a statement. This is where I need your help because I cannot just sit here for days and write a masterful statement. If any of you have seen the statements for and signed the open carry petition for SC, then you know a little of what I’m going for. In the statement we need to give reasons for the law to be erased from the book. I can think of a couple.


1. I don’t drink, so prohibiting me from carrying is not fair
2. Leaving my firearm in the car is more hazardous because of vehicle theft. The gun is much safer with me, under my jacket or in a holster on my hip.
3. Criminals are not deterred by laws such as these and will carry firearms in these places anyway, leaving honest citizens disarmed and helpless.
4. Other States allow there citizens to carry in these places without incident, and in some cases allowing citizens to carry in these places has saved lives.


I can’t think of anything else right now. If you can think of more reasons, post them here, once we have a good case I am going to need assistance again with typing up a statement. There are a few other loopholes, but these are the biggest ones.


Step 1, some reasons for the law to be fried, step 2, a statement. The rest is not that hard, such as a petition title, what type of information to be present (names + address or just names etc.) Help me guys, this is huge for the State and it could all start in this thread. I need some assistance.

imported post

I think when they made the law they were only thinking of going to bars. I think it's ridiculous that I can't carry in 90% of the restaurants I eat at, especially since I don't drink in them.

imported post

The only issue I see in abolishing that law is that other laws in place would allow the owner of the establishment to post a sign prohibiting guns. The heart of the matter is that business owners also need to be prevented from disallowing the lawful carry of firearms.

If you would like help in writing the Senate Bill Proposal, I would be more than happy to help. You will also need to have a Senator/Congressperson sponsor the bill before it will be considered. The Senator/Congressperson will have the responsibility of having the bill read before the State Senate. For it to become law, you need a 2/3 vote in favor of the bill.

When writing the proposal, it must be iron-clad to prevent it from being denied and to prevent any loopholes being found within the applicable law which would allow interpretation by any judge or LEO.

Who should support the new bill? Easy: Patrick McHenry and Virginia Foxx (both extremely FOR the Second Amendment). Foxx's view on the Second Amendment is very strong; "We should concentrate on locking up criminals and deterring criminal behavior – not imposing criminal penalties on law-abiding citizens who are merely trying to enjoy their freedom and to protect their families and their property."

While many people may not "like" Hilary Clinton, it is important to recognize that she holds a very powerful position in our country, and although she believes gun laws are inevitable, she is Pro-Second Amendment rights.

imported post

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

The only issue I see in abolishing that law is that other laws in place would allow the owner of the establishment to post a sign prohibiting guns. The heart of the matter is that business owners also need to be prevented from disallowing the lawful carry of firearms.

I don't see that happening. Since they own it, it should be their choice, just like if you were going to their house it is their choice. Then again, it has been made illegal to smoke in buildings in other states no matter how the owner feels(including bars). Notice, I am not against our rights to carry as you can tell from my other posts, I am just taking everybody's rights into consideration.

Click to expand...

imported post

I am originally from NY and the three things that piss me off the most are (1) no smoking in bars, (2) the original ban on trans fats and (3) no carry of firearms, period. The majority of people who go to bars smoke (not all but most), everything was fine with smoking sections, but an outright ban on smoking, well that violates my rights. And, don't tell me I can't eat McDonalds. For almost a month, McDonalds in NYC was not allowed to serve fries until they changed the recipe.

The FDA approves fries but the state does not. The Constitution approves the right to bear arms, but a state does not. If the Federal government put a ban on gun carry, openly or concealed, a state would not be able to overturn that decision by enacting a law; so, why can a state overturn the Federal governments allowance of firearms carry?

imported post

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

I am originally from NY and the three things that piss me off the most are (1) no smoking in bars, (2) the original ban on trans fats and (3) no carry of firearms, period. The majority of people who go to bars smoke (not all but most), everything was fine with smoking sections, but an outright ban on smoking, well that violates my rights. And, don't tell me I can't eat McDonalds. For almost a month, McDonalds in NYC was not allowed to serve fries until they changed the recipe.

The FDA approves fries but the state does not. The Constitution approves the right to bear arms, but a state does not. If the Federal government put a ban on gun carry, openly or concealed, a state would not be able to overturn that decision by enacting a law; so, why can a state overturn the Federal governments allowance of firearms carry?

Click to expand...

I agree. That is why I am not in a hurry to move back to NY even though I want to. I am from Syracuse by the way.

imported post

Nassau County (Long Island). And, seeing that there are no hunting areas within Nassau County, you can not carry a gun at all. And, the Ne York State Supreme Court has continually failed to uphold a person right to possess a weapon in the home.

imported post

Johnston-Wake,
If you want to put together some legislation, I'll continue with the petition, that way we can get two birds with one stone. The idea to make it so that property owners have to let armed people on their property is not a good idea because that is the opposite of what we have now, which is sorta hypocritical. If an owner of an establishment does not want guns on his property, he should be able to say no. If we don't like that, we can eat somewhere else.

You seem more connected then I do with good Reps. I live in Meck. county so I can't expect to have my libral reps hear me out. So I'll stick with the petition, and if you want, you can put together some legislation. I will however, strongly suggest that you leave out the part where property owners have to let armed people on their property, like Flordia has. If you find this point too disagreeable, then perhaps you may feel the need to stay neutral in our endevor.

imported post

TO: North Carolina State Legislature and Governor Bev Purdue:

Statute 14-269.3a:
Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.


We hold that all citizens who may lawfully purchase and carry a firearm should be allowed to carry in places that statute 14-269.3a prohibits.

1. 1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.
   
   2. The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right for an individual to keep and bear arms. The US Supreme Court affirmed this last year in the case DC vs Heller.
   
   3. The Constitution of North Carolina also guarantees the right to keep and bear arms for defense.
   
   4. Many people who attend these establishments do not drink or consume alcohol, but are still barred from lawfully carrying their firearms into these establishments.
   
   5. Leaving a firearm in the car is more hazardous because of vehicle theft. The gun is much safer in possession of the legal owner.
   
   6. Criminals are not deterred by laws such as these and will carry firearms in these places anyway, leaving honest citizens disarmed and helpless.
   
   7. Forty (40) other States in the Union allow carry in these establishments.
   
   8. In these States the carrying of firearms in these establishments is common and it does not alarm law enforcement or other citizens.

For the aforementioned reasons, we the people of North Carolina hold that all citizens who may lawfully purchase and carry a firearm should be allowed to carry in places that statute 14-269.3a prohibits.




That's what I have so far. Any ideas to add? Anything I should take away? We really need this part to look good. This where everyone needs to have input.

imported post

My suggestion on creating a provision which forces business owners to allow open carry or concealed carry is something worth negotiating, however, my main issue is that there needs to be a set standard of laws. I have spoken to a few people with political influence and I am drafting a rough sketch of what I think would be a great compromise. It would be nice to have people right there own thoughts on exactly how the law should be written. While people seem to chime in and say this law or that law should be changed, it would be nice to know how they think it should be changed.

imported post

Looks good to me.

imported post

Johnston wake,
I don't want the law changed, I want it gone. the law does not need to be replaced with another law. One less law to worry about is fine by me

imported post

The law about not being able to carry where admission has been charged needs to be dropped, too. I hate having to leave my pistol in my car when I go to the movies or bowling. And I especially hate having to leave it at my house when I drive an hour each way to go race my car at the drag strip.

imported post

Isn't it currently illegal to consume alcohol and possess a firearm? If so, why not allow individuals with no intention to consume the ability to carry? If that is correct you may want to work it in. I just cannot track down the specific law, only a vague reference to it on a CCP site.

imported post

chiefjason wrote:

Isn't it currently illegal to consume alcohol and possess a firearm? If so, why not allow individuals with no intention to consume the ability to carry? If that is correct you may want to work it in. I just cannot track down the specific law, only a vague reference to it on a CCP site.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is illegal to drink any alcohol while having any firearm in your possession, that should stay for obvious reasons. You are right about we should be able to carry if we don't drink, that is what this thread is about.

imported post

Just saying that would make a good addition to the list that is up.

imported post

CheifJason:

The law you are looking for is NCGS 14-415.11(c) which states, "... 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."

imported post

Alright, it looks like we are on a roll here. Johnston, you keep working on that legislation. Partemisio, your input has been helpful. I'll keep this thread open so you can reread my petition statement and see if I need to reword anything, or clarify. More people might show up here, but for now, it's the three of us. Let's fine tune this thing, and when the petition is complete, I'll PM one of the Super Moderators and see if they can get this in the hot topic section so people can start signing the petition. I think three is better than a ton of people throwing in comments that slow things down.

If anyone else reading this thread wants to read the statement and add or suggest something, that's fine, just keep in mind that I'll have the final say since it's my petition. Johnston here expressed that he would be interested in some input for his legislation he's drafting. We can add those suggestions here as well, so we won't have two separate threads going. Keep in mind though, since he's doing the rough work, he gets the final say on what the final draft will look like.

imported post

Yes. I am "in". When all is said and done, I will post the draft on my agency website. The best thing at this point will be to get people on board. I spoke to a friend of mine who is a Lobbyist in D.C. and he suggests no less than 20 signatures in support of the needed changes. Although, he did say that most bills require the support of 100+ people for state law bills to be put on the calender for open discussion and voting.

imported post

I'll be more then happy to do whatever I need to help.

This and being able to carry into places that charge admission are top priority for me.