NC bill to repeal sheriff-issued gun permits draws criticism

gun-control-is-stupidClick here to read article.

NC representatives swear the following oath: “I, . . . . . . . . . . . ., do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States; that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the State of North Carolina, and to the constitutional powers and authorities which are or may be established for the government thereof; and that I will endeavor to support, maintain and defend the Constitution of said State, not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States, to the best of my knowledge and ability; so help me God.”(1781, c. 342, s. 1, P.R.; R.C., c. 76, s. 4; Code, s. 3312; Rev., s. 2358; C.S., s. 3194; 1985, c. 756, s. 5.) Our representatives need to remember their oath and that the majority of the people that elected them were not Sheriffs. Its not about money but about the peoples constitutional rights.

To learn more about your 2nd amendment rights click here.

Gun Rights Supporters: The good news is that you won a great victory today: House Bill 937…


which dramatically expands the rights of North Carolina gun owners, cleared the Senate and now heads back to the House for a final concurrence vote.

The bad news is that a powerful lobby is marshaling forces against your bill.

First, the good news: The bill is substantially improved from what the House originally passed. Here is what it currently does:

Expands the guns-in-locked-vehicles provision for concealed handgun permit-holders (CHP-holders) to include all campuses rather than simply institutions of higher learning.

Enables CHP-holders to carry at assemblies of people for which admission is charged and any establishment serving alcohol unless the person in control of the premises posts against firearms.

Narrows and clarifies the definition of “recreational facilities” within parks where municipalities may still ban concealed carry in parks.

Removes handgun permits from public record, rendering them unavailable to the media.

Repeals the prohibition on firearms for CHP-holders at funerals and parades.

Repeals NC’s handgun purchase permit system in its entirety.

Expands hunting to include use of sound suppressors.

GRNC wishes to thank Senate leadership

The legislators who made this possible are Senate Judiciary Chair Buck Newton, Rules Chair Tom Apodaca, and especially Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger. GRNC wishes to thank them for working closely with us to ensure lawful North Carolinians can better protect their families. GRNC encourages you to send them a note of thanks.

But danger lies ahead

Now the bill heads back to the House for a concurrence vote, but that could be derailed because the powerful North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) is opposing repeal of the purchase permit system.

Why? It couldn’t be reducing crime. As The Charlotte Observer points out, under the present permit system a slip of paper issued by the sheriff let’s people convicted of felonies use old permits to bypass background checks because permits can’t be revoked.

So why does the NCSA want this archaic, Jim Crow law to remain on the books? All the usual reasons …

Money and power. The current system brings millions of dollars to sheriffs every year and what’s more, NCSA is trying to double the handgun purchase permit fee!

But more important than money is power. Using the “good moral character” outrage that once let sheriffs deny permits to African-Americans, sheriffs arbitrarily deny permits to people they decide have “enough” guns, those who can’t produce 3 notarized character affidavits, and others. It’s conceivable that if you oppose a sheriff’s re-election bid, he could decide you are not of “good moral character.”

Will you let Sheriffs’ lobbyists derail HB 937?

Some sheriffs oppose the purchase permit repeal, some don’t. As usual, lobbyists who represent them might be misrepresenting the wishes of their members, so here is your action item:

CONTACT YOUR SHERIFF: Ask them (1) Whether they oppose repeal of a Jim Crow law which allows felons to circumvent background checks, making law-abiding citizens vulnerable to gun control; and (2) Whether they know that is the position of the association which claims to represent them. Contact them by clicking here.

CONTACT SPEAKER THOM TILLIS: Let him know that you appreciate his earlier efforts, but that the Senate has upped the ante and now he needs to resist the power-hungry NC Sheriffs’ Assoc. and pass HB 937 AS IS by making sure the House VOTES TO CONCUR. To contact Speaker Tillis, by clicking here.

Barack Obama has announced that on June 3 he will sign a UN treaty banning guns and registering gun owners.

Click here to read article on: Obama Administration to Sign U.N. Arms Trade Treaty “In the Very Near Future”.

Click here to read: Obama To Sign International Gun Control Treaty On June 3rd

Click on: Congressman Mark Meadows per Kevin Klein on UN Arms Treaty.

no un gunjpgSubject: Fwd: Treaties and The Constitutionmmw_constitution_010410
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:43:44 -0400
From: Robert Levy (is chairman of the Cato Institute’s board of directors.)
To: Fremont V. Brown III

Begin forwarded message:
From: Robert Levy
Subject: Re: Treaties and The Constitution
Date: September 15, 2011 10:00:10 PM EDT
To: Eichenbaum Dan

On Sep 15, 2011, at 9:25 PM, Dan Eichenbaum wrote:

Q: Any treaty properly ratified supersedes any competing section of a state constitution and applies directly to state law and, therefore, to citizens of the state.

A: Correct, unless the treaty violates the US Constitution

Q: Any treaty, even if properly ratified, cannot supersede, contradict, or abolish any portion of the Constitution of the US.

A: That’s my view, but: (a) the scope of the treaty power is now being litigated in Bond v US (see below); and (b) if the treaty implicates national defense or foreign policy, the executive branch has unilateral authority that exceeds the authority given to Congress on domestic matters.

Q: Would it follow then, that, if any properly ratified treaty contradicts the US Constitution, it would become law of the land until a grievance were filed in court and litigated up to (presumably) the Supreme Court where its constitutionality would be determined?

A: Correct. Treaties are ordinarily not self-executing; they have to be implemented by statute. So any litigation would challenge the implementing statute.

Q: Who would have standing to file such a suit?

A: Anyone who suffers a concrete and particularized injury that differs from an injury suffered by the general public. For example, if a treaty denied a DC resident the right to possess a handgun in his home, that resident would have standing to challenge the statute that implemented the treaty.

Q: I know that individuals have 10th Amendment rights according to the recent SC decision, but would this event be a 10th Amendment case?

A: An individual challenge to a statute implementing a treaty would be an enumerated powers case — i.e., the federal government attempting to do something for which it has no constitutional authority. If the federal government intruded on state sovereignty, that could be challenged under the 10th Amendment. If the federal government violated rights secured by the US Constitution, that could be challenged by invoking the particular right involved — e.g., the 2d Amendment.