NC: Legislation SB S90 to change CCL process from “SHALL ISSUE” to “MAY ISSUE”
Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree3Likes
  • 2 Post By dmk0210
  • 1 Post By dmk0210

Thread: NC: Legislation SB S90 to change CCL process from “SHALL ISSUE” to “MAY ISSUE”

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Member #
    15883
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    176
    Liked
    19 times

    NC: Legislation SB S90 to change CCL process from “SHALL ISSUE” to “MAY ISSUE”

    Please contact your reps about this one. You might have a cool sheriff now, but imagine what happens when you get a bad one elected and he decided no CCLs unless you're one of his cronies


    https://www.grnc.org/defend-your-rig...oncealed-carry


    This is not a drill, and this is not a joke. Republicans in Raleigh are in the process of gutting NC’s “shall issue” concealed carry permit application structure...


    Regarding concealed carry permit (CHP) applications, we are furious (yes, furious ) to be forced to announce that the Republicans you sent to Raleigh have snuck language into the Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) of a bill that would, in essence, transform North Carolina from a “SHALL ISSUE” state into a “MAY ISSUE” state.




    We at GRNC are incensed and you ought to be as well. As you know, GRNC engineered NC's "shall issue" concealed carry law in 1995. Since then, GRNC has been instrumental in greatly improving it with restaurant carry, limited school/campus carry and more. We're not about to stand by and watch a naked power grab by NC's sheriffs, aided by Republican senators, roll back all of our progress.


    Are You of “Good Moral Character?”
    Last week, in Raleigh, Republicans snuck new language into a PCS for Senate Bill S90("Protect Religious Meeting Places") (=H110), and it’s worth noting that, initially, S90 was not even written to deal with the concealed carry application process. It’s also worth noting that before the poisonous PCS, S90 was a promising pro-gun bill.


    Yet, the PCS language strips “shall issue” status from the people and confers “may issue” power to your county sheriff. According to the PCS, a sheriff can deny CHPs by claiming applicants are not of “Good Moral Character,” the same shameful Jim Crow-era language that still exists on Pistol Purchase Permit applications, which GRNC has been fighting to eliminate.

    And you’ve probably guessed already: there is no strict definition for “good moral character,” and truly, no definition would suffice in this context anyway. Therefore (and conveniently), lacking “good moral character,” grounds for denying a CHP, is an open-ended label that any sheriff could attach to any applicant for any reason.


    Shifting Power from Citizen to Sheriff
    Lest you wonder, “good moral character” has nothing to do with an applicant’s criminal history. Exhaustive, indeed intrusive, criminal and medical background checks, and (de facto) long waiting periods are already part of the CHP application process. The sheriff’s personal, subjective and nebulous analysis of your character can have no legitimate purpose. The only clear purpose of this language in S90’s PCS is to take power away from you, the law-abiding citizen, and hand it to your county sheriff to lord over you, so he can withhold your rights at will.


    Perhaps you’re thinking, “Sheriffs would never use this new power to deny permits to qualified people.” Yet, if they’d never use their newfound power, why enshrine it in our state’s laws? It can have only one purpose, and if there is no intention to use it (now or later), it would not have been proposed as substitute language for S90.


    What You Can Do


    Are you prepared to live in a state that treats gun rights the way California does—like “gun privileges?” Are you ready to cede your Natural rights to your county’s sheriff, so he can ration them back to you as he sees fit? If not, please join other gun rights supporters in putting an immediate halt to this attack on your gun rights (from the Republicans no less!). Once again, we must remind these politicians who “brung ‘em” to the dance, and it looks like we’ll have to be more stern than usual.


    Below, see how you can easily contact Senate Judiciary Committee members (and Sen. Berger) to tell them, emphatically, that any vote, indeed any support whatsoever, for S90’s Proposed Committee Substitute will be considered a severe and blatant anti-gun action!




    EMAIL MEMBERS OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: Use the copy/paste email list provided below and the copy/paste text provided under ‘Deliver This Message.


    PHONE REPUBLICAN LEADERS & YOUR SENATOR: This is serious and so phone calls to committee chairs and to your own senator are just as important as sending an email message. Please use the phone numbers provided below to contact Judiciary Committee leaders. Also, please call your own senator (find contact details below). When you reach each senator's office, tell him or her:
    I am a gun rights voter, and I am enraged that Republicans are seeking to force a huge step backwards for gun rights in our state. The ostensibly pro-gun party should be ashamed to be identified as the party that introduced Senate Bill 90's PCS language, which would grant "may issue" power to sheriffs for Concealed Carry Permits, stripping citizens of the unalienable portion of unalienable rights. Any Senator supporting this PCS will be considered anti-gun, and will pay at the polls. Thank you.


    ATTEND TUESDAY'S COMMITTEE HEARING: The presence of gun rights voters at this meeting is critical. Committee members must know that we see what they're trying to do, and that we're serious about stopping them. Please attend Tuesday's committee meeting. You may have an opportunity to speak, so arrive early in case you need to sign up. Find details below.


    PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC: Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles. Please CLICK HERE to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your donations are put to the best possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated.



    NC Senate Judiciary Committee, Copy/Paste Email List:


    [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];[email protected]; [email protected]







    Senate Member Phone
    Senator Danny Britt, Jr.
    Senate Judiciary Committee Co-chair (919) 733-5651
    Senator Warren Daniel
    Senate Judiciary Committee Co-chair (919) 715-7823
    Senator Phil Berger
    Senate President Pro Tempore (919) 733-5708
    Please call your senator, too.
    Need name/contact information?
    Click Here and select the 'NC Senate' option to find your senator.


    Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee
    Attend to Stop the Gutting of Concealed Carry
    WHEN: Tuesday, June 18, 2019, 10:00 am
    WHERE: NCGA Legislative Building
    Room 1124/1224
    16 West Jones Street
    Raleigh, NC 27601
    IMPORTANT
    NOTES: Please arrive early to allow extra time to park and to get through building security.
    Please dress for the press. Business attire preferred. Please no inflammatory slogans on clothing or otherwise.

    Please bring a roll-up paper sign with the following message on it:


    "SENATOR BERGER: DON'T GUT CONCEALED CARRY"





    ---------------------------------------------------
    DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
    ---------------------------------------------------





    Suggested Subject: "Don’t Gut Concealed Carry"





    Dear Senator:


    I have just learned of the Republican Party’s effort to transform North Carolina’s concealed carry permit (CHP) application structure from “shall issue” to “may issue.” I see that Republican senators have snuck language into S90’s Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) that would grant sheriffs unchecked power to deny concealed carry permits to any applicant, any time, for effectively any reason. The PCS’s language, which poisons an otherwise pro-gun bill, allows a sheriff to declare that an applicant, any applicant, is not of “good moral character.” This is the same shameful Jim Crow-era language that still exists on the Pistol Purchase Permit application, language that ought to be removed (not added elsewhere).


    Of course, “good moral character” has no particular definition, nor would any be satisfactory given the context. Exhaustive and intrusive background checks and (de facto) long waiting periods are already part of the CHP application process. The sheriff’s personal, subjective and nebulous analysis of an applicant’s “character” has precisely zero legitimacy. Clearly, its only purpose is to wrest power from the law-abiding citizen and hand it to our county sheriffs to lord over the citizens, so sheriffs can withhold Natural rights by fiat.


    This is unacceptable! I am incensed that the members of the Republican Party would even consider such an anti-gun scheme. North Carolina is not California, it is not New York, and gun voters will not allow this state to transform into one of these states in the context of the recognition of the Second Amendment.


    Be warned:
    Any favorable vote, even the slightest measure of support for S90’s PCS, with its “good moral character” clause, will be perceived as a threat to every gun rights voter in this state, myself included. Do not doubt it, backing S90’s PCS will be recorded as an extreme anti-gun action!


    Put a stop to S90’s anti-gun PCS now. I will be monitoring your actions on this critical matter through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina


    Respectfully,
    AZAK and otus like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member

    Member #
    15883
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    176
    Liked
    19 times
    More on this:
    ================================================
    To: The Honorable Phil Berger, President, Pro Tempore
    From: F. Paul Valone, President, Grass Roots North Carolina
    Re: Senate Bill 90

    Dear Senator Berger:

    Having read your Facebook message in support of the Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for Senate Bill 90 (originally, “Protect Religious Meeting Places”), it is regrettable the bill fell short of expectations. That said, however, I suspect you will agree that it is unproductive to have members of the Senate Republican Caucus denouncing the state’s primary gun rights organization, especially considering the help our political action committee has given conservative political candidates to the North Carolina General Assembly.

    In a letter Sen. Dan Britt recently sent to those who contacted his office regarding the S90 PCS, he dismissed our concerns, saying: “Language in the PCS clearly states ‘shall issue’ and nowhere did it state ‘may issue,’ as has been reported by GRNC.”

    In truth, what the PCS says is far less important than what it does. Under the proposed G.S. 14-415.12(a1)(2), an applicant for the new “Class A” (concealed handgun) permit would also have to qualify for a “Class B” (pistol purchase) permit. And under the proposed G.S. 14-415.12(a)(4), an applicant for the Class B permit would have to satisfy a sheriff of their “good moral character” – an arbitrary clause dating from 1919 which was originally used to deny guns to minorities during the Jim Crow era, and has since been used for generations to wrongfully obstruct handgun purchases.

    I’m sure you are familiar with the transitive property of equality: if A equals B and B equals C, then A equals C. In this case, if a concealed handgun applicant must also meet the requirements for a purchase permit, and the purchase permit allows sheriffs to arbitrarily pronounce “good moral character,” then concealed handgun applicants are subject to sheriffs’ “good moral character” judgment, which would make concealed handgun permits “may issue.”

    As I said in a recent alert, this debacle could have been avoided if Sen. Britt had simply contacted stakeholders – including GRNC – when drafting the PCS. Britt told me he was “under the impression” we had been contacted, but apparently “impressions” can be misleading: the first we heard of the S90 PCS was when it was presented as a “done deal.” Moreover, despite Sen. Britt’s assertion, no “supporting documents” were ever sent to our organization.

    One organization, however, apparently was consulted. According to Britt, the North Carolina Sheriffs Association had a hand in drafting the bill, and seems to have done a fine job of drafting language to expand money and power for its members at the expense of gun owners.

    Said Sen. Britt in his letter to GRNC supporters, “At the request of Grass Roots [sic] representative Paul Valone, I will not make an effort this session to ease the pistol purchase permit requirement.” In truth, what I asked Sen. Britt to do – and am asking you to do as well – is to “ease” the pistol purchase permit requirement by repealing it entirely. As I’m sure you agree, racist Jim Crow language originally intended to deny guns to blacks has no place in modern statutes.

    There can be little doubt that GRNC and gun voters have supported ostensible Senate conservatives. As you know, in 2018 the GRNC Political Victory Fund made independent expenditures – including mailings, automated telephone alerts, social media advertising and radio spots – for a number of Senate Republicans, including Carl Ford, Wesley Meredith, Jeff Tarte, and Trudy Wade.

    As a senator in his second term, Britt attempted to explain the “political realities” to me, insisting that a vote for full repeal of the purchase permit law would expose Republicans in marginal districts to defeat. As I explained to him, in my twenty-five years of political action, the reality I have discovered is that the longer a party holds power, the more it clings to power. The more it clings to power, the more risk-averse it becomes. And the more risk-averse it becomes – resulting in little or no action on behalf of voters who gave it a majority – the less enthusiastic its base becomes, eventually deserting the party at the polls and leading to loss of its majorities. I fear that is what we are experiencing today.

    Sen. Britt also said, of me: “If he changes his mind and would like a seat at the table to meet in a professional manner along with representatives from the National Rifle Association we will be glad to work with him going forward.”

    Ignoring for a moment that the “seat at the table” pablum is typically directed at those whom politicians deem to be underlings, I suspect you share my concerns about the “professionalism” of the NRA. The group was absent from the current debate, perhaps due to its ongoing internal struggles. And you probably remember the days we sat together in your office, when the Democrats controlled the legislature, lamenting NRA endorsements for anti-gun Democrats such as Senate President Pro Tem Marc Basnight, Speaker Jim Black, and Governors Jim Hunt and Mike Easley.

    In your Facebook message touting the bill, you expressed your support for the Second Amendment. In years past, you were indeed a Second Amendment stalwart. But rather than relying on a flawed bill like the S90 PCS to demonstrate your support, I suggest you pass legislation to protect churches which happen to be co-located with schools, to protect children from violent sociopaths by arming faculty members, or even for permit-less concealed carry such as House Bill 746, which in the last session passed the House but died for lack of a Senate hearing.

    As always, I stand ready to help you defend and regain our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

    Armatissimi e liberissimi,


    F. Paul Valone
    President, Grass Roots North Carolina
    Executive Director, Rights Watch International
    Radio host, Guns, Politics and Freedom

    ================================================
    AZAK likes this.

 

 

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New

Sponsors

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.