Winston-Salem Parks and greenways - including Salem Lake Trail -- no guns

Winston-Salem goes contra to state law and restricts concealed carry (with permits) on trails, parks and greenways. Effective Dec 1, a new state law, HB 650, provided that:

§ 14‑415.23. Statewide uniformity. It is the intent of the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform system for the regulation of legally carrying a concealed handgun. To insure uniformity, no political subdivisions, boards, or agencies of the State nor any county, city, municipality, municipal corporation, town, township, village, nor any department or agency thereof, may enact ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning legally carrying a concealed handgun. A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to permit the posting of a prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun, in accordance with G.S. 14‑415.11(c), on local government buildings and their appurtenant premises. [statute revision removed the word "parks" here and added the following language:] A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to prohibit, by posting, the carrying of a concealed handgun on municipal and county recreational facilities that are specifically identified by the unit of local government. If a unit of local government adopts such an ordinance with regard to recreational facilities, then the concealed handgun permittee may, nevertheless, secure the handgun in a locked vehicle within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on the motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, the term "recreational facilities" includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility."

So, the state legislature removed the word "parks" and mandated that all cities and counties could only prevent concealed handguns (with permits) in government buildings and "recreational facilities" -- and defined that as either a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, or an athletic facility.

But the Winston-Salem city council was confused by the words "recreational facilities" and decided to define that as follows: "a building, structure, or place including a walking trail, greenway and body of water such as a lake for engaging in sporting events, recreational activities, fitness or physical training" and has posted signs preventing concealed carry on the Salem Lake trails (7 miles around the lake) and all greenways. I'm not making this up. Here's the link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75041388/Winston-Salem-Ordinance-Banning-Concealed-Carry

Hopefully GRNC will get wind of this, and sick their legal pit bulls on Winston-Salem, and get this fixed ASAP...

Greenville redefined "dog park" to "playground"

They ignore state law, but expect us to obey their illegal ordinances...

Dreamer said:

Hopefully GRNC will get wind of this, and sick their legal pit bulls on Winston-Salem, and get this fixed ASAP...

Click to expand...

We were fighting with them while it was going on. More to come.

If someone will post a pic of these illegal signs, I will make a "counter sign" to post beside it like the one I made for the illegal signs posted in the WV Rest Stops in Morgantown.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-Stop-for-OC&p=1693523&viewfull=1#post1693523

I have PhotoShop and I'm not afraid to use it...

I know it's just a short session coming up, but is there any way to see if the legislature would fix this mess they started? Maybe Hilton from Catawba? Might be a plus that Hickory went whole hog on allowing carry. I guess there are 2 options; 1- they are just naive enough to believe those definitions were OK, or 2- it's intentionally vague like the rest of them.

chiefjason said:

I know it's just a short session coming up, but is there any way to see if the legislature would fix this mess they started? Maybe Hilton from Catawba? Might be a plus that Hickory went whole hog on allowing carry. I guess there are 2 options; 1- they are just naive enough to believe those definitions were OK, or 2- it's intentionally vague like the rest of them.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the process, unless money is involved nothing can be introduced this session. It will be next year before anything can be done. From the GRNC alerts you probably saw there is a possibility of a lawsuit. And that's all I can say about that.

cricketdad said:

My understanding of the process, unless money is involved nothing can be introduced this session. It will be next year before anything can be done. From the GRNC alerts you probably saw there is a possibility of a lawsuit. And that's all I can say about that.

Click to expand...

My understanding of the process is that unless a LOT of money is involved (especially of the baksheesh type), little gets done in Raleigh during ANY session... :banghead:

IN the short session, only those bills required to make changes to the budget (money), or bills that "carried Over" from the long session can be heard.

As to carry over bills, not only are there a couple of firearms related bills that language could be inserted fixing this issue, there are always a couple of "extra" bills, that can be gutted of the actual language that passed, and new language inserted. Sen. Andrew Brock will no doubt be very willing to help out on this issue.

RayBurton72 said:

IN the short session, only those bills required to make changes to the budget (money), or bills that "carried Over" from the long session can be heard.

As to carry over bills, not only are there a couple of firearms related bills that language could be inserted fixing this issue, there are always a couple of "extra" bills, that can be gutted of the actual language that passed, and new language inserted. Sen. Andrew Brock will no doubt be very willing to help out on this issue.

Click to expand...

Ray, I know HB111 made crossover. What other firearm bill made it?