Gold Carry State

[WalkingWolf]

The only part I see, while reading the pdf, mentioning a felony is the "§ 14-415.1. Possession of firearms, etc., by felon prohibited." section where it is changing 14-415.1. The rest looks rather benign when compared to the current law. Since those are in different sections, I don't think they could reasonably be connected.

I could have mistaken it, but the only penalties I found were at the bottom of the bill, and if I remember correctly it said all sections and subsections. If that is right then any violation in the bill would be a felony. Right now my service is running so slow the pdf's are timing out. Hopefully tomorrow the servers will be back to full speed. Unless they spell out the penalties for the bill, and it does not, then IMO the penalties would be those at the end of the bill.

 

[carolina guy]

I could have mistaken it, but the only penalties I found were at the bottom of the bill, and if I remember correctly it said all sections and subsections. If that is right then any violation in the bill would be a felony. Right now my service is running so slow the pdf's are timing out. Hopefully tomorrow the servers will be back to full speed. Unless they spell out the penalties for the bill, and it does not, then IMO the penalties would be those at the end of the bill.

That bill modifies three sections in NCGS...

 

[NC-Heel]

This will exclude the establishments that are normally called "restaurants" and only include "bars" as they have to restrict entry to those under 21.

Could you please cite the statute that says they have to restrict entry.

 

[rotorhead]

Don't you think it is wise to get approval and input from gun owners before you surprise them with a law? Did you ever think that what YOU want may not be in the best interest of Open Carry. This is one of the biggest problems with politicians, the surprise hit legislation, without any regard for the people that elected them.

CC carriers is but a small percentage NC gun owners, but the laws you surprise the owners with may not be in the best interest of all gun owners, just a small group. Don't you think that some owners may feel sold out could be the source of discontent?

I read HB111 quickly but I will read again, BUT it appears to me that a person if it is passed, that wanders into a restaurant that serves alcohol without a permit will be charged with a felony. NOW it is only a misdemeanor, how is that looking out for open carry? If what I read is right it not only pandering to CC instructors and the state, but outright making felons out of OCers.

WalkingWolf,

I think the confusion about the felon part is due to that HB111 introduced several proposals, not just restaurant carry. It not only proposed changes that would allow people with a CHP to carry in establishments where alcohol was both sold and served, but it also beefed up punishments for felons that were caught carrying firearms if the crime also resulted in injury to a person. The two items were separate issues in the bill, but proposed as part of the same bill. If you break the bill down, you'll see where it dealt with both carrying in restaurants, and then went on to address felons who were caught with weapons, and allowing the state to charge them with another felony for it if the crime resulted in injury. As well, it also introduced wording to clarify the law on local government's authority to prohibit the concealed carry of firearms. So really, the bill dealt with three separate items.

February 16, 2011
*H111-v-5*
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO ALLOW PERSONS WITH CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMITS TO POSSESS HANDGUNS IN RESTAURANTS IF NOT PROHIBITED BY THE POSTING OF A NOTICE PROHIBITING POSSESSION ON THE PREMISES, TO IMPOSE CRIMINAL PENALTIES ON FELONS WHO UNLAWFULLY POSSESS FIREARMS WHEN THE VIOLATION RESULTS IN INJURY TO A PERSON, AND TO CLARIFY THE LAW ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT CONCEALED CARRY OF FIREARMS.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:...

That's the gist of what I'm seeing , anyway. Three separate issues that were proposed on the same bill, which is fairly common on any legislation, not just gun related bills. I don't see where a non-felon being caught with a concealed firearm in an establishment that both sold and served alcohol would be charged with a felony.

However, I'm not a lawyer so it's just my opinion of what I'm reading in the bill. If it was reading that way, then I'd bet it was a mistake and not intentional, and something that would certainly need to be addressed in future legislation before it was proposed again. I'm like you, I'd like to see OCrs have the same legal abilities to carry under the law. Making us felons (I have no permit) for making a simple mistake like carrying into a restaurant that served alcohol would not sit well with me at all.

But due to the nature of the bill introducing the two items as separate issues, I can safely say that wasn't the case. It's just a little confusing because the two issues were stuffed into the same bill. I may be wrong though. I'll take a more in depth look and see what I see.

Thanks!

 

[carolina guy]

Could you please cite the statute that says they have to restrict entry.

No. How many "bars"...establishments like "biker bars" allow those under 21 to enter? I haven't seen any, or at least ones that do not allow those under 18 to enter. If I am wrong, then please show me the examples...just citing my personal observations. If you can show me that I am wrong, I will be happy to see it.

The way the statute COULD be re-written is for places that restrict entry based upon age AND allow the sale and consumption of alcohol. Nothing was said about it being a state requirement for age restriction.

 

[NC-Heel]

No. How many "bars"...establishments like "biker bars" allow those under 21 to enter? I haven't seen any, or at least ones that do not allow those under 18 to enter. If I am wrong, then please show me the examples...just citing my personal observations. If you can show me that I am wrong, I will be happy to see it.

The way the statute COULD be re-written is for places that restrict entry based upon age AND allow the sale and consumption of alcohol. Nothing was said about it being a state requirement for age restriction.

In Charlotte, Leather & Lace allows 18 o 21 year olds in. That would be an example of a biker bar. Coyote Joes allows 18 to 21 year olds in. That would be a example of a country bar.

So now you want to change it to age restricted. Lots of restaurants restrict the age of patrons in the bar area. Your example of this would be McCoys smokehouse does not allow anyone under 18 to sit at the bar. Been to plenty of pool halls that sell alcohol and allow under age people in. Restricting age is not required but instead is business policy.

The only way to differentiate between the two would be to start making the ABC enforce the private memberships again. Did you know that law even existed? i haven't had to apply, and wait 24 hours before entry is allowed, to become a member of a bar or nightclub in over 15 years.

 

[carolina guy]

In Charlotte, Leather & Lace allows 18 o 21 year olds in. That would be an example of a biker bar. Coyote Joes allows 18 to 21 year olds in. That would be a example of a country bar.

So now you want to change it to age restricted. Lots of restaurants restrict the age of patrons in the bar area. Your example of this would be McCoys smokehouse does not allow anyone under 18 to sit at the bar. Been to plenty of pool halls that sell alcohol and allow under age people in. Restricting age is not required but instead is business policy.

The only way to differentiate between the two would be to start making the ABC enforce the private memberships again. Did you know that law even existed? i haven't had to apply, and wait 24 hours before entry is allowed, to become a member of a bar or nightclub in over 15 years.

Ok then...as you have argued around the point, we get back to where most of the people on this board are...just allow OC/CC and not restrict based upon where the person is, but rather who the person is (felon or not) and if they are going to act in an otherwise illegal manner.

How many people in these "biker bars" already carry illegally? Did the law stop them? No. So, we get back to the original problem, you are only restricting otherwise LAC's ability to defend themselves.

If (as you presume) it is so "hard" to regulate these bars (wonder how the other 49 states manage it), then just stop trying. Otherwise, you could just change

§ 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.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269;
(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;
(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and
(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event.

to say something like

§ 14‑269.3. Carrying weapons into 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 establishment in which alcoholic beverages sales and consumption comprise more than 10% of gross receipts. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269;
(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;
(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and
(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event.

Now...if you want to quibble over the %...go ahead...otherwise, do you have a better suggestion?

 

[rotorhead]

Ok then...as you have argued around the point, we get back to where most of the people on this board are...just allow OC/CC and not restrict based upon where the person is, but rather who the person is (felon or not) and if they are going to act in an otherwise illegal manner.

How many people in these "biker bars" already carry illegally? Did the law stop them? No. So, we get back to the original problem, you are only restricting otherwise LAC's ability to defend themselves.

If (as you presume) it is so "hard" to regulate these bars (wonder how the other 49 states manage it), then just stop trying. Otherwise, you could just change


to say something like



Now...if you want to quibble over the %...go ahead...otherwise, do you have a better suggestion?

How about we just drop the restriction from state law altogether and let the business owners decide?

 

[WalkingWolf]

How about we just drop the restriction from state law altogether and let the business owners decide?

Bingo! less laws are good, it save trees.

 

[carolina guy]

How about we just drop the restriction from state law altogether and let the business owners decide?

+1 !!

 

[rotorhead]

Bingo! less laws are good, it save trees.

Lol yeah. Saves on my nerves, too.

I say go for everything. make one omnibus bill to eradicate all restrictions that limit gun ownership and carrying on lawful gun owners. Why not? Go for the whole thing in one shot. Compromise a little here and there if you have to and then go back later and try again. Keep pounding these politicians until they are tired of seeing our faces/ emails/ calls/ etc.

"...shall not be infringed"

 

[papa bear]

see , we can come to a consistences. good one ROTOR

 

[ncwabbit]

Papa bear was Rotor's sarcasm wasted and did it truly escape you?

wabbit

ps: and you mean like AZ, AK, & Vermont rotor?

 

[rotorhead]

Papa bear was Rotor's sarcasm wasted and did it truly escape you?

wabbit

ps: and you mean like AZ, AK, & Vermont rotor?

There was no sarcasm or joking in that one, wabbit lol. That's how I feel about it. Yes, exactly like VT, AZ, & AK- even less if we could do it. I think those states still offer permits in case you want to have one for traveling to other states, which is a decent enough idea. But yes, why not simply draw up a bill and go for the whole thing in one shot, now that we're not burdened with a Democrat Governor and General Assembly?

If it doesn't work, we can at least make them put themselves on record as to how they voted, and then go from there with smaller bills that chip away at the stone? Chances are that such a bill would still fail mostly because politicians are cowards, but still, give it a shot and then go from there.

 

[sharkey]

Papa bear was Rotor's sarcasm wasted and did it truly escape you?

wabbit

ps: and you mean like AZ, AK, & Vermont rotor?

Um, here is AZ we don't have restaurant carry unless you have a permit, it's concealed, and the business is not posted.

Wasn't that one of the concerns?

 

[WalkingWolf]

Um, here is AZ we don't have restaurant carry unless you have a permit, it's concealed, and the business is not posted.

Wasn't that one of the concerns?

Not doubting but could you provide a citation? Are you talking about ALL restaurants, or just alcohol serving restaurants?

 

[sharkey]

Not doubting but could you provide a citation? Are you talking about ALL restaurants, or just alcohol serving restaurants?

Alchohol. Sorry I can't format in Win 8. http://www.azliquor.gov/assets/documents/Title 4 Law Book/2012_T4_lawbook_website.pdf

A.R.S. §4-229. Licenses; handguns; posting of notice

A. A person with a permit issued pursuant to section 13-3112 may carry a concealed handgun on the

premises of a licensee who is an on-sale retailer unless the licensee posts a sign that clearly prohibits the possession

of weapons on the licensed premises. The sign shall conform to the following requirements:

1. Be posted in a conspicuous location accessible to the general public and immediately adjacent to the

liquor license posted on the licensed premises.

2. Contain a pictogram that shows a firearm within a red circle and a diagonal red line across the firearm.

3. Contain the words, "no firearms allowed pursuant to A.R.S. section 4-229".

B. A person shall not carry a firearm on the licensed premises of an on-sale retailer if the licensee has

posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section.

C. It is an affirmative defense to a violation of subsection B of this section if:

1. The person was not informed of the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section before the

violation.

2. Any one or more of the following apply:

(a) At the time of the violation the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section had fallen down.

(b) At the time of the violation the person was not a resident of this state.

(c) The licensee had posted the notice prescribed in subsection A of this section not more than thirty days

before the violation.

D. The department of liquor licenses and control shall prepare the signs required by this section and make

them available at no cost to licensees.

E. The signs required by this section shall be composed of block, capital letters printed in black on white

laminated paper at a minimum weight of one hundred ten pound index. The lettering and pictogram shall consume a

space at least six inches by nine inches. The letters comprising the words "no firearms allowed" shall be at least

three-fourths of a vertical inch and all other letters shall be at least one-half of a vertical inch. Nothing shall prohibit

a licensee from posting additional signs at one or more locations on the premises.

F. This section does not prohibit a person who possesses a handgun from entering the licensed premises for

a limited time for the specific purpose of either:

1. Seeking emergency aid.

2. Determining whether a sign has been posted pursuant to subsection A of this section.

There's an entire thread in the AZ forum that signs do carry weight of law under trespass despite the title 4 exemption for a permitted concealed carrier (if the sign is the wrong format)

 

[WalkingWolf]

Alchohol. Sorry I can't format in Win 8. http://www.azliquor.gov/assets/documents/Title 4 Law Book/2012_T4_lawbook_website.pdf There's an entire thread in the AZ forum that signs do carry weight of law under trespass despite the title 4 exemption for a permitted concealed carrier (if the sign is the wrong format)

That is a shame that carry in any form is attached to a permission card, so it appears that constitutional carry in AZ is not as broad as we have been led to believe across the nation. Nothing can be a right if it is only available by permission.