PDA

View Full Version : NAGR supports weaker NC CC bill, Bill sponsor says NAGR had zero to do with his bill.




GunnyFreedom
03-03-2017, 06:06 PM
The NAGR drama in NC continues. Now the bill they are claiming credit for, Chris Millis's HB201, Chris Millis denies that NAGR or NCGR had any input at all on the bill, plus it's actually a weaker Constitutional Carry bill than HB69 they attacked. Indeed, some of the "weaknesses" they claimed HB69 had it doesn't but HB201...DOES. Like how HB69 lowers the restrictive standard to a Dishonorable Discharge, while HB201 retains "other than honorable." By telling lies to condemn the better bill, and supporting the weaker bill (while claiming credit for it's authorship which the actual bill writer utterly denies) NAGR has made it clear that they have no interest in advancing gun rights, and are only interested in taking out the competition, the legitimate 20-year strong no compromise gun-rights org in NC.


Gun Rights Supporters:

Recent communications from a shadowy entity calling itself “North Carolina Gun Rights,” have admonished NC gun owners that House Bill 69 (“Constitutional Carry Act”) introduced by Representative Larry Pittman (R-Cabarrus, GRNC ****), is a “compromise carry” bill which “is nothing more than gun control dressed up in language designed to trick gun owners.” This entity has even obliquely referred to Grass Roots North Carolina as a “fraudulent” gun rights organization.

Behind the entity are former operatives of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), Noel Fritsch and Reilly O’Neal, who promised that Rep. Chris Millis (R-Onslow, Pender, ****) would introduce a “real” constitutional carry bill. Ignoring for a moment that Rep. Millis maintains that Fritsch and O’Neal had absolutely nothing to do with drafting his bill, he has indeed filed it as House Bill 201. GRNC thanks Rep. Millis for sponsoring HB 201, and for his 100% pro-gun voting record (including being one of only a handful of Republicans who voted against all weakening amendments to pro-gun HB 562 in 2015).

Hmm. Claiming credit for the work of others, I wonder where I have seen THAT action before.........


But is HB 201 the “real” constitutional carry bill which puts Rep. Larry Pittman’s HB 69 to shame? Nope. With relatively minor exceptions, it is pretty much the same bill, having largely been copied from HB 69 – which is fine since HB 69 is, despite whining from Fritsch and O’Neal, a perfectly adequate vehicle for constitutional carry. Below is a preliminary analysis of the strong points and weak points of each. (Further analysis will be required to fully understand the implications of each bill.)

Commonalities of HB 69 and HB 201
Both bills remove the need to have a concealed handgun permit to carry a concealed handgun in places where you may currently do so. Neither bill opens up new areas to concealed carry. (As we noted earlier, going after current “gun-free” zones in this bill would result in opposition from squishy Republicans. GRNC has already recruited sponsors to reduce such restrictions in other legislation.) Both bills create a new Article 54C which mirrors the prohibitions currently in place for permit-holders by applying them to people who carry without permits. Each bill has strong points and weak points.

Strengths and weakness of HB 201
To give you a flavor for how “out of the loop” Fritsch and O’Neal are, they claimed that “under H.B. 69, a veteran who gets a divorce or is found guilty of committing adultery could be DENIED their right to carry in North Carolina.” That assertion was false because, unlike our present concealed handgun statute, HB 69 changes the prohibition for carrying concealed from veterans “other than honorably discharged” to just those dishonorably discharged. A dishonorable discharge results only from serious crimes involving courts martial.

Savor the irony, however, that the flaw DOES exist in HB 201, the bill the duo claim is “real.” And why, you ask, does the Millis bill still contain the “other than honorable” flaw when it was corrected in Pittman’s bill? Because unlike HB 201, which was drafted without our input, GRNC helped Rep. Pittman draft HB 69 and corrected the flaw during the drafting process. (Decide for yourself which organization is “fraudulent.”)

The bill NAGR opposes would allow anyone who did not get a Dishonorable Discharge from carrying. The bill NAGR supports would only allow those who have an Honorable Discharge to carry.


HB 201 also still requires concealed handgun permits for members of the National Guard, district attorneys, judges, magistrates, clerks of court, and others who choose to carry in sensitive areas. HB 69 eliminates the need for permits.

Once again, the HB69 which NAGR and NCGR oppose, is far stronger on securing the right to bear arms than the HB201 which they support.


Amusingly, Section 2 of HB 201 exempts from certain restrictions “any person listed in G.S. 14-415.41”, which creates a bit of a problem because G.S. 14-415.41 does not exist either in current law or in the language of HB 201. It does, however, exist in HB 69, suggesting that Millis lifted the text from HB 69 but forgot to include the new G.S. 14-415.41.

L M A O :D


One “advantage” of HB 201 is that it also repeals our Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit system. This, however, is a two-edged sword because it will raise opposition from the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association and likely some GOP legislators. For these reasons, GRNC has recruited a sponsor for separate legislation to repeal the purchase permit system.

The only thing HB201 has in it which HB69 does not, is the elimination of the Pistol Purchase Permit process, which elimination is getting it's own separate bill. Because, one subject per bill. Or is that not supposed to be one of our principles anymore?


Strengths & weaknesses of HB 69
As part of his new Article 54C, which regulates carrying concealed handguns without permits, Pittman’s bill creates new sections 14-415.36, 14-415.37, 14-415.38 and 14-415.39, all of which mirror “no carry zones” which are currently law. Creating new sections, however, is at best unnecessary and inelegant. At worst, it stands to inadvertently create new restrictions. We prefer Millis’ cleaner approach, which merely modifies the original sections 14-269.3, 14-269.4 and 14-277.2.

An advantage of HB 69 is that it codifies concealed carry rights for those without permits which are identical to those with permits, whereas HB 201 still restricts concealed carry in certain circumstances to permit-holders alone.

Oh look, a balanced reasonable approach that is capable of examining the strengths and weaknesses of each bill individually! Wow! Too bad the Saber-universe NAGR can't behave like GRNC.


Weaknesses in both bills
Both HB 69 and HB 201 share two glaring flaws which could, if enacted, set us back. First, both create new language which increases the penalty for carrying into posted property from an infraction to a misdemeanor (G.S. 14-415.35 in HB 69, G.S. 14-415.36 in HB 201). HB 69 also specifically creates a new misdemeanor for carrying into a posted restaurant which serves alcohol (G.S. 140415.36). Having successfully fought to reduce carrying onto posted property from a misdemeanor to an infraction in previous legislation, GRNC finds this language unacceptable in either bill. That said, however, the flaws are undoubtedly unintended consequences of drafting complex legislation and can be easily corrected in committee.

What now?
GRNC supports both HB 69 and HB 201. Provided we can get leadership to give constitutional carry a hearing, the likely outcome is a Proposed Committee Substitute bill comprising parts of both. The key will be getting constitutional carry out of committee, and that will require cooperation. What are not required are accusations that the most pro-gun legislators in the state are “lying” or trying to “trick” gun owners into accepting gun control.

Please continue monitoring and responding to GRNC legislative alerts. With your help, we will make constitutional carry the law of the land.

Armatissimi e liberissimi,

F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Executive Director, Rights Watch International

What are not required are accusations that the most pro-gun legislators in the state are “lying” or trying to “trick” gun owners into accepting gun control.

Seriously. STFU NAGR, and GTFO of NC. If all you are going to do is act like a petulant child and falsely impugn the best pro-gun current legislators in NC and trash the best state level pro-gun org in the US, then you are not helping and need to leave NC to us ignorants to handle ourselves. kthxbai.

GunnyFreedom
03-03-2017, 07:12 PM
I'd rather have posted this at the end of my other thread where people interested in the subject would be notified, but then when I went to post this I discovered that thread got locked.

GunnyFreedom
03-03-2017, 08:42 PM
I didn't want NAGR to be sellouts either, but then I'm not the sort to just ignore it when a group I thought I could trust comes into my State desperate to undo all my hard work and the work of pro gun activists over the last 20 years.

Anti Federalist
03-03-2017, 09:01 PM
Glad we missed all that drama in NH.

Keep up the good work Glenn

Matt Collins
03-03-2017, 10:12 PM
Weeds.....


https://maxpull-gdvuch3veo.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/lawn-weeds.jpg



You're in them....

GunnyFreedom
03-03-2017, 10:18 PM
Weeds.....

You're in them....

lol well that was substantive. :D

fr33
03-03-2017, 10:23 PM
Pistol Purchase Permit process? jesus that sounds bad.

Gunny have you tried reaching out to NAGR personally? Or is that bridge burnt already by their actions? They aren't going to go away so it would be better if they improved.

GunnyFreedom
03-03-2017, 10:26 PM
Pistol Purchase Permit process? jesus that sounds bad.

Gunny have you tried reaching out to NAGR personally? Or is that bridge burnt already by their actions? They aren't going to go away so it would be better if they improved.
I have. They accused me of being antigun. These people are straight up batshit.

GunnyFreedom
03-03-2017, 10:32 PM
Pistol Purchase Permit process? jesus that sounds bad.

It is. Dems during Jm Crow made it so you had to have the permission of the County Sheriff to buy a handgun. Dems over the next 90 years doubled down. In the last 5 years, reps have worked to eliminate that, so far they have passed legislation forcing Sheriffs to approve purchase permits for any legal gun owner. That effort was led by Pittman and Speciale, the two members which batshit NAGR claims are trying to dupe North Carolinians into gun control. :rolleyes:

The same and two members who every Session push a bill to end these permits.

Keith and stuff
03-03-2017, 11:33 PM
It is. Dems during Jm Crow made it so you had to have the permission of the County Sheriff to buy a handgun. Dems over the next 90 years doubled down. In the last 5 years, reps have worked to eliminate that, so far they have passed legislation forcing Sheriffs to approve purchase permits for any legal gun owner.

Yeah, Democrats, in efforts to hurt blacks, passed terrible firearms laws all over the South and in Texas. (Republicans did similar things in FL and CA when they banned open carry because of Hispanics and blacks.) That's why historically, Northern New England and parts of the West had the least restrictive firearms laws. That is still the case, though there has been a lot of progress in much of the country.

What also jumped out to me in the NC law is that when a business posts a no firearms sign, that sign actually has legal standing, as opposed to just being a suggestion. I guess it is best to conceal well when carrying in NC, just in case you don't see a sign.

Anyway, sorry for your troubles Gunny :( Keep up the good work!