Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > 2nd Amendment Forum
o

Notices

2nd Amendment Forum Current 2nd Amendment Issues- READ the INSTRUCTIONS!


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2019, 12:48 PM
dmk0210 dmk0210 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 43
Likes: 1
Liked 45 Times in 14 Posts
Default 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

Grass Roots North Carolina - Senate Republicans to Gut Concealed Carry

Quote:
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,

Last edited by s&wchad; 06-18-2019 at 08:49 AM. Reason: Clean-up title
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #2  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:33 PM
delcrossv's Avatar
delcrossv delcrossv is offline
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Outer Uzbekistan
Posts: 4,656
Likes: 8,566
Liked 11,674 Times in 3,054 Posts
Default

If I lived in NC, I'd be in a car to Raleigh! Ridiculous.
__________________
SWCA #3356, SWHF#611
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #3  
Old 06-20-2019, 05:37 PM
fiasconva's Avatar
fiasconva fiasconva is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: York County, VA
Posts: 3,766
Likes: 0
Liked 4,903 Times in 1,808 Posts
Default

Local sheriffs have a lot of power in these cases. My father-in-law was denied a permit to purchase by the local sheriff in his small hometown. He stated the my father-in-law had enough guns already. This was a man who went through WWII with my father-in-law but still denied his request. He called the mayor to complain and he said there was nothing he could do.
__________________
Why duck?? It's a 9mm!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:24 PM
dmk0210 dmk0210 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 43
Likes: 1
Liked 45 Times in 14 Posts
Default

More on this:

Quote:
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

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:28 PM
dmk0210 dmk0210 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 43
Likes: 1
Liked 45 Times in 14 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiasconva View Post
Local sheriffs have a lot of power in these cases. My father-in-law was denied a permit to purchase by the local sheriff in his small hometown. He stated the my father-in-law had enough guns already. This was a man who went through WWII with my father-in-law but still denied his request. He called the mayor to complain and he said there was nothing he could do.
That is exactly the problem with this legislation. Paul Valone makes that point succinctly here:

Quote:
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.”
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-20-2019, 07:56 PM
SMSgt's Avatar
SMSgt SMSgt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 6,555
Likes: 3,343
Liked 9,152 Times in 3,432 Posts
Default

"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"

One of the reasons I will never move back to NC.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:49 PM
Steve K Steve K is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Southwest Virginia
Posts: 273
Likes: 348
Liked 291 Times in 104 Posts
Default

I am surprised to read about this type of legislation. This is a definite Constitutinal violation since it is arbitrary. However, there have been so many unconstitutional laws passed why would this be any different?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 06-21-2019, 07:55 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,707
Likes: 19,260
Liked 11,729 Times in 5,348 Posts
Default

NC, much like VA, appears to be infected with the creeping blue slime mold that was spawned in the northeast and west coast states. Fight the good fight, don't just lay down your rights.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 06-21-2019, 04:46 PM
fordson's Avatar
fordson fordson is offline
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: NE FL
Posts: 1,883
Likes: 1,395
Liked 3,992 Times in 1,249 Posts
Default

And Rep are purposing this change. Why?
__________________
"Your other right........."
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-22-2019, 09:01 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,707
Likes: 19,260
Liked 11,729 Times in 5,348 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fordson View Post
And Rep are purposing this change. Why?
Not all Republicans understand nor desire to fully support the second amendment, especially if it comes down to garnering votes for reelection. It's sort of the reverse logic of many Democrats, who will profess to support the second amendment until they are elected. Basically, it's pandering.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #11  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:23 AM
alwaysoutdoors alwaysoutdoors is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The South
Posts: 809
Likes: 221
Liked 665 Times in 295 Posts
Default

Thats BIG.

“Too many guns already”?lol
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:26 AM
Old_Cop Old_Cop is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Crawford County PA
Posts: 3,703
Likes: 4,367
Liked 6,709 Times in 2,417 Posts
Default

This is the result of northern migration from states like NY and NJ.
__________________
Made it, Ma! Top of the world!
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #13  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:36 AM
stansdds stansdds is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,707
Likes: 19,260
Liked 11,729 Times in 5,348 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old_Cop View Post
This is the result of northern migration from states like NY and NJ.
There is a good degree of truth there, plus the involvement and money of Michael Bloomberg.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-24-2019, 07:16 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
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
Baloney. There is no such language on the application for a North Carolina permit to purchase a handgun.

Click here and read it. Someone get back to me when you find the section that talks about "good moral character".
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:47 PM
tops's Avatar
tops tops is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC, Yadkin County
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 25,453
Liked 8,521 Times in 3,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
Baloney. There is no such language on the application for a North Carolina permit to purchase a handgun.

Click here and read it. Someone get back to me when you find the section that talks about "good moral character".
Under N.C.G.S. 14-402, a county sheriff is only authorized to issue a permit to receive or purchase a handgun when an application is submitted by a person who is a resident of his or her particular county.[10] The sole exception is that the sheriff may issue a permit to a non-resident when the purpose of the permit is collecting. Before issuing a permit, the sheriff must fully satisfy himself/herself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, that the applicant is of good moral character and that the person, firm, or corporation wants to possess the weapon for one of the following purposes: The protection of the applicant's home, business, person, family, or property; target shooting; collection; or hunting
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-24-2019, 11:09 PM
BC38's Avatar
BC38 BC38 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 13,474
Likes: 1,145
Liked 18,396 Times in 7,278 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alwaysoutdoors View Post
Thats BIG.

“Too many guns already”?lol
Another subjective judgement being used to deny someone their rights.

Absolutely mind boggling.

How about being told you can't publish a book or article because "you've published too many already"?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:43 AM
WCCPHD's Avatar
WCCPHD WCCPHD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 2,982
Liked 12,275 Times in 1,884 Posts
Default

In NC, NC General Statute 14-402 requires a permit to purchase a pistol (also references handgun). It sets out that the sheriff of the county is the issuing authority.

The following section, 14-403 speaks to the required permit and conditions for issuance. It is copied below in its entirety.

§ 14-403. Permit issued by sheriff; form of permit; expiration of permit.

The sheriffs of any and all counties of this State shall issue to any person, firm, or corporation in any county a permit to purchase or receive any weapon mentioned in this Article from any person, firm, or corporation offering to sell or dispose of the weapon. The permit shall expire five years from the date of issuance. The permit shall be a standard form created by the State Bureau of Investigation in consultation with the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association, shall be of a uniform size and material, and shall be designed with security features intended to minimize the ability to counterfeit or replicate the permit and shall be set forth as follows:

North Carolina,________ County.

I, ________, Sheriff of said County, do hereby certify that I have conducted a criminal background check of the applicant, ________ whose place of residence is________ in ________ (or) in ________ Township, ________ County, North Carolina, and have received no information to indicate that it would be a violation of State or federal law for the applicant to purchase, transfer, receive, or possess a handgun. The applicant has further satisfied me as to his, her (or) their good moral character. Therefore, a permit is issued to ________ to purchase one pistol from any person, firm or corporation authorized to dispose of the same.This permit expires five years from its date of issuance.This __ day of ______, ____.___________________________________Sheriff.

The standard permit created by this section shall be used statewide by the sheriffs of any and all counties and, when issued by a sheriff, shall also contain an embossed seal unique to the office of the issuing sheriff.
__________________
Bill
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #18  
Old 06-25-2019, 03:11 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog View Post
Baloney. There is no such language on the application for a North Carolina permit to purchase a handgun.

Click here and read it. Someone get back to me when you find the section that talks about "good moral character".
Quote:
Originally Posted by tops View Post
Under N.C.G.S. 14-402, a county sheriff is only authorized to issue a permit to receive or purchase a handgun when an application is submitted by a person who is a resident of his or her particular county.[10] The sole exception is that the sheriff may issue a permit to a non-resident when the purpose of the permit is collecting. Before issuing a permit, the sheriff must fully satisfy himself/herself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, that the applicant is of good moral character and that the person, firm, or corporation wants to possess the weapon for one of the following purposes: The protection of the applicant's home, business, person, family, or property; target shooting; collection; or hunting
Quoting North Carolina's General Statutes is all well and good, but it doesn't have a thing to do with what I said in Post #14. You're talking about something entirely different.

Note that I was addressing the fact that GRNC states unequivocally that the NC Application for a Pistol Purchase Permit contains language that "is the same shameful Jim Crow-era language that still exists on the Pistol Purchase Permit application..."

That's what I'm referring to, the actual application form itself, not some cockamamie determination that a county sheriff might or might not make about an applicant.

Here's the link to the application form again. Read the application again and tell me where there's anything on it referring to "good moral character".

If you want to talk about General Statutes, though, be aware that in 2015, the law was changed to state that applicants are no longer required to furnish sheriffs affidavits or any other document or proof of their "good moral character". Bold print in the quote below is mine and highlights the change.

"Limits on character affidavits. A sheriff may decline to issue a permit to a person who lacks good moral character. In evaluating an applicant’s moral character, G.S. 14-404(a)(2) states that the sheriff may consider “affidavits, oral evidence,” or other information. Historically, some sheriffs have required that applicants submit affidavits from others concerning the applicants’ character. However, new G.S. 14-404(e1) provides that a sheriff may require only the following from an application: a standard SBI application form; a five dollar application fee; ID; proof of residency; and the AOC release concerning court orders discussed above. Therefore, it seems that sheriffs are no longer permitted to require affidavits."

So in the end, all a county sheriff has to work with in order to form his opinion regarding an applicant's moral character is the information provided on the application and background check paperwork. I genuinely don't believe a sheriff's opinion, or his interpretation of an applicant's answers to questions would hold up under a serious legal challenge in North Carolina's Superior Court, if the sheriff's opinion is offered as a reason for denial of a permit. Judges deal in facts.

Again, my previous post doesn't have a thing to do with what's in the General Statutes...it's only about the language on the application form.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WCCPHD View Post
In NC, NC General Statute 14-402 requires a permit to purchase a pistol (also references handgun). It sets out that the sheriff of the county is the issuing authority.
Yes, well, I don't think anyone here is denying that North Carolina county sheriffs are the issuing authority for purchase permits or the NC Concealed Handgun License.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-26-2019, 11:50 AM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,689
Likes: 57,536
Liked 52,812 Times in 16,465 Posts
Default

This has me really worried, not. I’ve been through much worse, carrying over 35 years in a May Issue state.

Yawn.

Any updates?

Last edited by ladder13; 06-26-2019 at 12:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-26-2019, 12:35 PM
WCCPHD's Avatar
WCCPHD WCCPHD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 2,982
Liked 12,275 Times in 1,884 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13 View Post
This has me really worried, not. I’ve been through much worse, carrying over 35 years in a May Issue state.

Yawn.

Any updates?
As of 6/26/2019 Senate Bill 90 still appears as first introduced as a bill to "Protect Religious Meeting Places." No proposed committee substitute has, as yet, been introduced nor appears on the NC General Assembly website.

Link to Senate 90 if anyone wants to read it as written.

Senate Bill 90 (2019-2020 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly
__________________
Bill
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #21  
Old 06-26-2019, 02:33 PM
ladder13 ladder13 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NC
Posts: 30,689
Likes: 57,536
Liked 52,812 Times in 16,465 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WCCPHD View Post
As of 6/26/2019 Senate Bill 90 still appears as first introduced as a bill to "Protect Religious Meeting Places." No proposed committee substitute has, as yet, been introduced nor appears on the NC General Assembly website.

Link to Senate 90 if anyone wants to read it as written.

Senate Bill 90 (2019-2020 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly
I see nothing in there suggesting anything nefarious in regards to PP’s....for now.

Last edited by ladder13; 06-26-2019 at 03:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-26-2019, 04:16 PM
WCCPHD's Avatar
WCCPHD WCCPHD is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 2,982
Liked 12,275 Times in 1,884 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ladder13 View Post
I see nothing in there suggesting anything nefarious in regards to PP’s....for now.
Could have been a trial balloon to see who "shoots at it." They bear close watching. No man nor beast is safe when the NC General Assembly is in session.
__________________
Bill
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #23  
Old 06-27-2019, 11:12 AM
URIT URIT is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: New Bern NC
Posts: 2,451
Likes: 7,466
Liked 2,329 Times in 1,100 Posts
Default

I suspect we will see a lot more open carry if a sheriff decides to be limit CCL.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #24  
Old 06-27-2019, 12:19 PM
vt_shooter's Avatar
vt_shooter vt_shooter is offline
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: New England
Posts: 1,671
Likes: 4,570
Liked 4,553 Times in 1,290 Posts
Default

Nearly all gun control legislation benefits criminals in one way or another while doing nothing to curb violence.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #25  
Old 06-27-2019, 12:55 PM
mauser9 mauser9 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Northeast
Posts: 3,163
Likes: 8,321
Liked 2,808 Times in 1,682 Posts
Default

Worth fighting for sure. Ma. became "may issue" for long guns as well as handguns a while back. Only thing exempt is black powder guns. But what do you expect from Ma.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-29-2019, 01:31 PM
Watchdog Watchdog is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 21,054
Liked 32,463 Times in 7,773 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by URIT View Post
I suspect we will see a lot more open carry if a sheriff decides to be limit CCL.
Without opening the whole open carry can of worms here (let's don't do that), I'll just say I doubt we'll see that, and let it go at that. That isn't the issue here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vt_shooter View Post
Nearly all gun control legislation benefits criminals in one way or another while doing nothing to curb violence.
That may be true, but this isn't a gun control bill.

Also, this PCS never was, and still isn't, the Second-Amendment-sky-is-falling thing GRNC tried to make it out to be.

Their stating that "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)" and "I see that Republican senators have snuck language into S90’s Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS)..." is just hot air.

No one can "sneak" language into a PCS, an amendment, or a bill. Everything pertaining to a bill is public knowledge before it even comes up for a vote. I don't know why GRNC didn't publish a link to the PCS in question. There isn't anything sneaky about it...it's all there in black and white for anyone (including legislators) to read. Anyone can read it by clicking here. There's no big secret here. Does anyone here really believe that NC legislators aren't provided copies of anything related to the bill? By using the "sneak concept", GRNC plays word games with North Carolina gun owners and their emotions concerning the Second Amendment. In this case GRNC was using inflammatory rhetoric and fear mongering to get NC gun owners all bent out of shape over basically nothing. GRNC's blatantly false statements make them appear to be anything but a knowledgeable Second Amendment advocate for North Carolina gun owners, collectors, and sportsmen.

Keep in mind a PCS is a Proposed Committee Substitute. This was and is nothing more than a proposed proposal.

All this is my opinion, by the way. No one has to agree with it.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #27  
Old 06-29-2019, 06:35 PM
tops's Avatar
tops tops is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: NC, Yadkin County
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 25,453
Liked 8,521 Times in 3,188 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchdog;14047428

Keep in mind a PCS is a [I
Proposed[/I] Committee Substitute. This was and is nothing more than a proposed proposal.
A proposal means someone is thinking about it and my thinking is that if it is proposed enough it will finally come to pass.
I am 77 and have saw many changes and laws made that many people thought would never pass. Larry
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When did S&W change their bluing process for EPA concerns? rajbcpa S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 13 01-22-2019 03:10 PM
issue with trigger and breakdown process? M&PNoobie Smith & Wesson M&P Pistols 3 11-27-2016 11:28 AM
1905 Hand ejector 4th change issue arnyishere1 S&W-Smithing 0 02-27-2014 03:54 PM
MOD 29 2012 issue finish issue> RON K. S&W Revolvers: 1980 to the Present 10 10-24-2013 06:08 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:12 AM.


Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)