User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/16/2015 11:39:49 PM EDT
[#1]
http://www.wral.com/tuesday-wrap-guns-n-money/14720539/
In the House, amendments restored the pistol purchase permit for handgun sales, nixed the idea of allowing lawmakers and their staffers to carry concealed weapons in the Legislative Building and reinstated lifetime bans for concealed weapons for people convicted of certain misdemeanors, such as stalking and child abuse. The revamped bill won initial approval from the House, and more amendments are expected Wednesday before the final vote. http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2015&BillID=h562 Click on edition 6 on the left side for the latest version of the bill. § 14 - 409.41. Chief law enforcement officer certification; certain firearms is still intact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 7:30:29 AM EDT
[#2]
extremely watered down version now. pretty much everything that was good/holy has been stripped.
pretty pointless now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 9:41:53 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: extremely watered down version now. pretty much everything that was good/holy has been stripped. pretty pointless now. I've been sending pointed e-mails to all the supposedly Republican representatives. None of the defeatists that surrendered to the Democrat-dominated-and-run NCSA (AKA "Red Roy Cooper's Stooges") is my rep, but I will work and donate to defeat all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 10:06:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Republican SUPER-majority in the General Assembly
I am not sending you the canned e-mail I was encouraged to send. I speak from the heart - frankly. The current pistol purchase permit system (NCGS "§ 14-403 and your proposed amendments) is a joke. Even the NCSA's own report - the one you mandated in law that they forgot to deliver - admits that it is, at best, useless and costly; and at worst, both a vessel of petty tyranny for sheriffs to capriciously deny a fundamental Constitutional right and a way for felons to circumvent the NICS background check. Yes, the NCSA's own report admits that felons with pistol purchase permits are buying pistols. To continue it is illogical - unless the goal is to continue the power of the high sheriff to deny anyone he doesn't like that person's right to purchase a pistol. In 1919 your predecessors in the Democrat Jim Crow General Assembly passed this statute to disarm blacks and undesirables (like Republicans). AG Roy Cooper - the next Democratic candidate for Governor - wants this statute preserved. His Democrat sheriff toadies want it. What other fundamental Constitutional right is subject to a county official being satisfied of my "good moral character"? You want me to grovel before the mighty High Sheriff and beg his permission to buy a hand gun - which the Supreme Court of the United States says is a fundamental Constitutional right - if that mighty High Sheriff deigns to be satisfied as to my "good moral character"? Frankly, I can't understand why Republicans are lining up to support preserving this Democrat vestige of the Democrat Jim Crow era. Do you think they are going to like you? Vote for you? Support you? Donate to you? Better change that 'R' to a "D' then. Or repeal NCGS § 14-403 and stop gutting H562.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 10:26:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Republican SUPER Majority in the NC General Assembly In 2013-4 you passed HB937. You directed the county sheriffs to tell you how many prohibited persons still had Pistol Purchase Permits. You said the NCSA could compile one report for all the sheriffs. They did. It's a doozy. The PPP as per NCGS 14-403 that y'all are so hot to save for the Democrat-dominated NCSA is a failure. NCSA keeps saying the FBI-run NICS is "inadequate" compared to the mighty High Sheriff's mystical better knowledge. Their own report says different. Heck, our own law requires sheriffs to do a NICS check - and the majority of the time, that's all they do (except to impose arbitrary hoops and demand references and check to see if the applicant is a political or personal enemy). Have YOU read the report - ? Some highlights from the NCSA report with most in sheriffs’ own words:
Yeah. Keep fighting to preserve this mess. Keep helping Democrat Roy Cooper with his gubernatorial campaign. Keep showing the voters that voted for you that you can't be trusted. Sincerely |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 1:11:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20150617/north-carolina-house-votes-to-remove-important-right-to-carry-provision-from-pro-gun-bill Your NRA will continue to work with legislators and educate them on why it is more important to support the Second Amendment, rather than support local elected officials that want to maintain the ability to deny permits to individuals who are not prohibited from purchasing or possessing handguns by law. We will work with the North Carolina Senate to return the language that replaces the PPP system with NICS.
Please contact your state Representative and voice your appreciation for their vote AGAINST the McNeill Amendment, or voice your disappointment if they voted FOR the McNeill Amendment, a provision that fails to support the Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2015 11:10:25 PM EDT
[#7]
Well, it passed the Senate tonight.
So, enjoy hunting with your SBRs!! And we'll see how the "Shall Sign" process goes on NFA items. Also made carrying concealed where posted an infraction instead of a misdemeanor for those with a CHP. Several other things still in the bill that the House didn't remove...just too bad HB562 got weakened as much as it did. Quick summary from NRA email: This legislation makes several important changes to North Carolina gun laws, including:
• Requiring the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of a jurisdiction to certify the transfer or making of a firearm in a timely manner. • Clarifying the exemption for keeping a firearm in a vehicle by a person with a valid Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) while the vehicle is on the property of a public school. • Establishing an affirmative defense for an individual in certain situations where he or she uses a firearm on prohibited school property "in response to a threatening situation in which deadly force was justified..." • Improving the existing Range Protection Law, which would help to protect established shooting ranges from new local ordinances designed to shut them down. • Improving the issuing process and removing unnecessary disqualifiers for CHP applicants. • Lowering the penalty for carrying a firearm with a valid CHP on posted property from a misdemeanor to an infraction. • Removing the prohibition on using a lawfully possessed short barreled rifle for hunting. • Strengthening North Carolina’s preemption statute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2015 8:11:31 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, it passed the Senate tonight. So, enjoy hunting with your SBRs!! And we'll see how the "Shall Sign" process goes on NFA items. Also made carrying concealed where posted an infraction instead of a misdemeanor for those with a CHP. Several other things still in the bill that the House didn't remove...just too bad HB562 got weakened as much as it did. Quick summary from NRA email: Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, it passed the Senate tonight. So, enjoy hunting with your SBRs!! And we'll see how the "Shall Sign" process goes on NFA items. Also made carrying concealed where posted an infraction instead of a misdemeanor for those with a CHP. Several other things still in the bill that the House didn't remove...just too bad HB562 got weakened as much as it did. Quick summary from NRA email: This legislation makes several important changes to North Carolina gun laws, including: • Requiring the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of a jurisdiction to certify the transfer or making of a firearm in a timely manner. • Clarifying the exemption for keeping a firearm in a vehicle by a person with a valid Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) while the vehicle is on the property of a public school. • Establishing an affirmative defense for an individual in certain situations where he or she uses a firearm on prohibited school property "in response to a threatening situation in which deadly force was justified..." • Improving the existing Range Protection Law, which would help to protect established shooting ranges from new local ordinances designed to shut them down. • Improving the issuing process and removing unnecessary disqualifiers for CHP applicants. • Lowering the penalty for carrying a firearm with a valid CHP on posted property from a misdemeanor to an infraction. • Removing the prohibition on using a lawfully possessed short barreled rifle for hunting. • Strengthening North Carolina’s preemption statute.  ... uh, I meant to say, I do not condone breaking laws. Would have been better if passed in the original form, but a win is still a win.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 8:54:33 PM EDT
[#9]
HB562 signed into law today. A majority of it effective 7/1/15, including NFA "shall sign" and hunting with SBRs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 9:17:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HB562 signed into law today. A majority of it effective 7/1/15, including NFA "shall sign" and hunting with SBRs. I would rate these things this way: - Shall Sign: 8 points - Hunting with SBR's: 2 points - Removing Pistol Permits: 90 points We got 10 out of a possible 100 points. Yeah, now we have "shall sign" legislation, but with trusts & corporations still available and 41P still not implemented, this is necessary, but largely academic. Hunting with SBR's wasn't NEARLY as important as hunting with suppressors. Necessary, yes, but still minor. How they could strip the PPP repeal from this bill and call it a victory is beyond me. These are baby steps. I don't want the PPP repeal to take another 10 years. We need to vote the RINO's out. Now is the time! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 1:36:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Yeah, this is a minor victory no where close to being a major victory.
The sheriff permission to buy a handgun is total BS and needs to be removed. I mean the reason for this law was racist to begin with, so on that principle alone it should be done away with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 4:43:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Well, I just sent an email to the Wake County SO to ask how to submit a form 1. Lets see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 8:15:03 PM EDT
[#13]
I'm happy that the shall sign is in place and hunting with sbr's (sbr's were OK by my game warden) but we all know why the PPP isn't going any where. Big $$$$$$$$$$$
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 11:22:00 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but we all know why the PPP isn't going any where. Big $$$$$$$$$$$ It's not about cash...it's about power, or perceived power. They charge $5, but it costs somewhere around $56 to process each one based on the report I saw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 4:01:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not about cash...it's about power, or perceived power. They charge $5, but it costs somewhere around $56 to process each one based on the report I saw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but we all know why the PPP isn't going any where. Big $$$$$$$$$$$ It's not about cash...it's about power, or perceived power. They charge $5, but it costs somewhere around $56 to process each one based on the report I saw. I was told by the local sheriff (Ingram) it was all about the money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 5:02:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was told by the local sheriff (Ingram) it was all about the money. He probably does not do the level of research that other counties do. Due Diligence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 11:37:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not about cash...it's about power, or perceived power. They charge $5, but it costs somewhere around $56 to process each one based on the report I saw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but we all know why the PPP isn't going any where. Big $$$$$$$$$$$ It's not about cash...it's about power, or perceived power. They charge $5, but it costs somewhere around $56 to process each one based on the report I saw. Then it costs the tax payers more money for a system that's already in place when purchasing a firearm from an FFL dealer. The time they spend doing background checks could be spent doing stuff like real police work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 11:47:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, I just sent an email to the Wake County SO to ask how to submit a form 1. Lets see what happens. OST for the answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 3:57:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, I just sent an email to the Wake County SO to ask how to submit a form 1. Lets see what happens. Report back ASAP! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 10:16:12 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Report back ASAP! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well, I just sent an email to the Wake County SO to ask how to submit a form 1. Lets see what happens. Report back ASAP! I received an email back this weekend that currently with a few exceptions Sheriff Harrison is not signing off. I responded asking if NC H562 would change that. I will report back with what I hear. Just received this ETA: Currently the new Statute is under review. But it appears as if applicants will be required to go to the police chief of the city or town the applicant resides in or the Sheriff, if in an unincorporated area. We will have more information forthcoming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2015 6:49:39 PM EDT
[#21]
I predict non-signing sheriffs will continue to refuse to sign until they get tired of losing in court.
But I asked CCSO Services anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2015 2:19:03 PM EDT
[#22]
My email to the CCSO Services office was answered by the CCSO lawyer. Your inquiry concerning procedures regarding Chief Law Enforcement Officer certification pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §14-409.41. As you may be aware, the governor signed the Bill (H.B. 562) into law as N.C. Sess. L. 2015-195 on August 5. Since then we have been examining potential procedural policies related to the new law. While those policies have not been fully promulgated, we have completed the preparation of a form for requests for certification. You may wish to request that form which is a fillable PDF form, which must be completed by typing the required information into the form, and returning it to the Sheriff’s Office’s Services Division, Gun Permits Office. We will be making determinations as to whether the Sheriff will be in a position to grant such an application for certification. If you have additional questions, please contact us. Thank you. Ronnie M. Mitchell Legal Counsel | Office of the Sheriff | Cumberland County NC 131 Dick Street | Fayetteville, North Carolina | 28301 Telephone: 910.321.6764 | Facsimile: 910.321.6780 "We will be making determinations as to whether the Sheriff will be in a position to grant such an application for certification." That sounds to me like Sheriff Butler will continue to refuse to sign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/13/2015 5:10:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Maybe they need a reminder of what their own propaganda says...
http://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The_Office_of_Sheriff_in_North_Carolina-Sept152014.pdf  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2015 11:42:09 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Maybe they need a reminder of what their own propaganda says... http://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/The_Office_of_Sheriff_in_North_Carolina-Sept152014.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2243566/sheriff.jpg Oh, they know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:51:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Any update on this?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 3:27:26 PM EDT
[#26]
I received this. I thought there were 5 sections under 14-288.8(b).
"You may go to either the Sheriff or the police chief for the city/town you live in, however you still must meet one of the four qualifications under 14-288.8(b)(1)-(4) to be eligible under State law." |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 3:46:31 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I received this. I thought there were 5 sections under 14-288.8(b). "You may go to either the Sheriff or the police chief for the city/town you live in, however you still must meet one of the four qualifications under 14-288.8(b)(1)-(4) to be eligible under State law." There are five. And you could argue you meet three of them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 4:53:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are five. And you could argue you meet three of them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I received this. I thought there were 5 sections under 14-288.8(b). "You may go to either the Sheriff or the police chief for the city/town you live in, however you still must meet one of the four qualifications under 14-288.8(b)(1)-(4) to be eligible under State law." There are five. And you could argue you meet three of them. I asked about section 5. "You do not lawful possess that weapon until after you have obtained a tax stamp, so (5) does not apply. That part of the statute is for persons from other states who already have a NFA weapon and are relocating or have a Trust established." |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
