Petition to repeal carrying in alcohol establishments

imported post

You know Dre. I don't even do even talk to my wife this much )

Localities are preempted, however, they are permitted toenact ordinancesin regards to specific laws covered under 153A-129 and Chapter 14, Article 36A.

While I make this point I AM NOT GIVING YOU ANY LEGAL ADVICE, IN ANY MANNER, AT ANY TIME...if I was defending you in court for carrying a weapon into an establishment and you possessed a license to conceal a firearm, I would argue that you exempted from the provisions of 14-269. The laws contradict themselves and in this case the law is very specific. If a law is ineffective due to preempted law, the ineffective law is Null and Void.

As far as open carry being legal because there is no law, I agree with you, and I have made that statement several times before. However, several people on this site and some police officers feel that it is not legal because there is no law. I have always stood behind my point that if it is not a law then it is by virtue legal. (And I know we burried the hatchetDre BUT you were the one who told me that I was wrong!) However, the amendments to the laws would define open carry to a point that could not be interpreted in any other way than a LEGAL act; and, the amendments remove restrictions on concealed carry. Kills two birds with one stone.

The point to the amendments are to: (1) have the same rights for open carry and concealed carry, (2) provide a concrete legal definition ofopen carry, and (3) allow firearms to be carried into restaurants, bars, movie theaters, stadiums, at parades, funerals, etc...

Is there a topic I didn't cover, or anything you don't agree with?

imported post

By the way, only 7 people have contacted me regarding the Bill Proposal. 6 are in favor, and 1 wants some changes. I am considering everything. I will give it the weekend, but if people don't show support by signing the Support Letter, then I am going to cut my losses. I am willing to do ust about anything to protect our Second Amendment rights, but I am not going to do it alone.

If anyone has suggestions, put it in writing. Show me what you have. If you agree with the amendments, sign the Support Letter. If not, then please let me know and I will take it down from the site.

imported post

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

Localities are preempted, however, they are permitted toenact ordinancesin regards to specific laws covered under 153A-129 and Chapter 14, Article 36A.

Click to expand...

K, I follow everything else but the preemption thing. Should not the goal be to remove the exceptions to the preemption in order to completely prevent localities from banning firearms ANYWHERE? It seems to me that the changes you've proposed would not do that.

imported post

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

By the way, only 7 people have contacted me regarding the Bill Proposal. 6 are in favor, and 1 wants some changes. I am considering everything. I will give it the weekend, but if people don't show support by signing the Support Letter, then I am going to cut my losses. I am willing to do ust about anything to protect our Second Amendment rights, but I am not going to do it alone.

If anyone has suggestions, put it in writing. Show me what you have. If you agree with the amendments, sign the Support Letter. If not, then please let me know and I will take it down from the site.

Click to expand...

I'd give it some time. I doubt there's more than 7 or so guys that check the NC daily to begin with, lol.

imported post

DreQo wrote:

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

Localities are preempted, however, they are permitted toenact ordinancesin regards to specific laws covered under 153A-129 and Chapter 14, Article 36A.

Click to expand...

K, I follow everything else but the preemption thing. Should not the goal be to remove the exceptions to the preemption in order to completely prevent localities from banning firearms ANYWHERE? It seems to me that the changes you've proposed would not do that.

Click to expand...

The amendment is "Nothing contained within the section shall permit a county to regulate the display of firearms on private property or within a private establishment." The would eliminate the power of a county, city or town to create an ordinance disallowing firearms in any place other than county-owned or city-owned property.

imported post

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

DreQo wrote:

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

Localities are preempted, however, they are permitted toenact ordinancesin regards to specific laws covered under 153A-129 and Chapter 14, Article 36A.

Click to expand...

K, I follow everything else but the preemption thing. Should not the goal be to remove the exceptions to the preemption in order to completely prevent localities from banning firearms ANYWHERE? It seems to me that the changes you've proposed would not do that.

Click to expand...

The amendment is "Nothing contained within the section shall permit a county to regulate the display of firearms on private property or within a private establishment." The would eliminate the power of a county, city or town to create an ordinance disallowing firearms in any place other than county-owned or city-owned property.

Click to expand...

I thought preemption already prevented them from doing that. What we need to do is eliminate their power to do that EVEN IN county-owned or city-owned property, otherwise we'll be in the same boat that we're in now.

imported post

Yes preemption does do that, but since the state has allowed counties, cities and towns to enct ordinances regulating firearms, it removes the preemption clause. The laws contradict themselves.

As far as carry on state and city-owned property, it is worth a shot, but do you actually think they will allow you to carry in a courthouse or police station?

imported post

Count me in, just 2 quick questions are we to print the proposal letter and then mail it to you? Or are you going to have the petition available to be signed online? Either way just let us know and thanks for all your hard work and everyone else that helped.

imported post

You can either print it and mail it to me or you can e-mail it to me if you have a scanner. Physical signatures are much more effective. And, in many cases, electronic signatures are not accepted.

imported post

Printed, signed, and it's going in the mail in the morning. I will try to get some more folks to do the same this weekend at work.

imported post

HA! OK. Just thought I should make this public. For the person who sent me the PM telling me I should not post a mailing address because someone who is Pro-Gun Control might show up at my house, two thoughts:

(1) My K-9 (Retired PD) has complete, unleashed roam of my property. No trespassing. And the JCSD believes in bite first, ask questions later for dogs.

(2) If you knock on my door and want to chat about the petition, go for it. Want to talk about anything else, lets just say you will be removed from the property, in cuffs, at a high rate of speed.

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

imported post

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

You can either print it and mail it to me or you can e-mail it to me if you have a scanner. Physical signatures are much more effective. And, in many cases, electronic signatures are not accepted.

Click to expand...

Can we get multiple signitures on the letter. I could hit up sme family and neighbors etc. More bang for the buck.

imported post

I'm going to be taking this to work Monday and see how many people I can get to sign it. I've just recently come across opencarry.org by accident (great site). I have a few friends that own guns which i'm sure would be more than happy to get involved. Even some of them did not know you could open carry until talking with me. But anyway lets be patient and get everyone that we know involved and make as many copies as we can. Have who ever signs it to get a copy to people that they know and you'll be surprised how many signatures we can get. What is the time limit your looking for?

imported post

If you want, I can type up a multiple signature form letter tomorrow that you can print and hand around. The more the merrier! If you would like me to type it up, send me a PM with you e-mail address.

imported post

I got 6 today, more to come I'm sure. Needed a holster so I hit up some patrons at the gun shop, left some with them to look over later. Got my mom and step dad trying to get some too. Here we go. :celebrate

imported post

Yea, that would be great Johnston-Wake. If you don't have it ready by Monday I will start with the one you already have. I have no problems making copies and passing them out. Thanks

imported post

I have visited the site before and finally joined. This has been an interesting and needed discussion.

I am a member of the NC State chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. We will be holding our next meeting this coming Tuesday. I plan to take copies of the proposal for discussion and support letters for people to sign.

In the meantime, I personally have some issues with the current proposal.


-In 14-269.2 (b) you have removed "a curricular." Based on the additions to 14-269.2 (g) & (h), this does not need to be removed. The removal would also seem to remove the penalty for non-licensed persons to carry to curricular activities.

-In 14-269.2 (g) line (8) should be changed to read: "A student or employee of a college or university in possession of a permit obtained from Campus Police."

-In 14-269.2 (f) you have removed line (3). I suggest that this line be moved to section 14-269.2 (h).

-In 14-269.2 (h) you have added line (3). Students for Concealed Carry on Campus has no official position on open carry, but is primarily concerned with concealed carry. We may not be able to support this bill if this line is included. We will discuss this at our meeting on Tuesday.

-In 14-269.3 (b) I suggest the addition of the following line: "(6) A person licensed by the provisions of G.S. 14-269 when not consuming alcohol." This may not be needed based on line (1), but I feel it would be better to explicitly state this to remove the room for later interpretation.

-In 14-277.2 change (c) to read: "The provisions of this section shall not apply to a person exempted or licensed by the provisions of G.S. 14-269..." Remainder follows as you have currently written. Same reason as above.

-In 14-288.7 change (b) to read: "This section does not apply to persons exempted or licensed by the provisions of G.S. 14-269..." Remainder follows as you have currently written. Same reason as above.

imported post

If you use the term "or license" that can be misinterpreted to permit only those people who have a permit. Since there is no permit to open carry, then people who wish to open carry would be exmpt. Plus, if you already expempt by the provisions listed, that would mean you are already in possession of a license. No need for the double wording.

Again, with the word circular removed, that would permit open carry when taking your child to school and picking them up.

There is no need to retract a law, which is very difficult to do, but the additions to the laws would permit open carry, in general, in the same places you may concealed carry; and, it would laso allow you to conceal carry everywhere, with the exception of a court, police station, etc...

imported post

Multiple Signature Form

Go to: http://www.ncopc.org/pdf/Multiple-Signature-Support-Letter.pdf

Download and sign away!!!

imported post

I'm on board! Printed the form and will be collecting signatures from my friends and family. Thanks for your hard work on this.