Question of the Day: Gun Rights. What Next?

As you know, the streets have not run red with blood since concealed carry laws have been liberalized. (I love that word in that context.) Nor has the explosion in concealed weapons permits turned recently reclaimed territory into the Wild West (setting aside the fact that the Wild West was a monastery compared to the ganglands of New York City and other conurbations of the time). While some state residents continue to live under the yoke of nearasdammit total gun control, those that have thrown off their ballistic shackles continue to defend and extend their rights, facing the same old non-arguments. For example, North Carolina Rep. Mark Hilton is legislating to “allow” guns in bars and deny “city councils and boards of commissioners the option of banning guns from playgrounds, athletic fields and facilities, and swimming pools” .  . .

Jonathan Carr, a lobbyist for the N.C. Pediatric Society, said that organization was concerned that the bill would put more weapons in public places. “We believe there’s more likelihood of injury and deaths to children.”

Is that really the best gun control advocates and the Raleigh News and Observer (reprinted in The Miami Herald) can do? More guns = a greater chance that a child may die? No stats, no hyperbole, nothing? Are gun rights advocates really just mopping up in North Carolina? Seem so . . .

A gun bill left over from the flurry of gun bills that cleared the North Carolina General Assembly last year was resurrected Thursday. This one, HB111, would allow anyone with a permit to carry a concealed weapon to bring that gun into a restaurant that serves alcohol, which is currently illegal.

The bill also clarifies what part of park property that firearms would be allowed on. A law that went into effect in December gave city councils and boards of commissioners the option of banning guns from playgrounds, athletic fields and facilities, and swimming pools.

Gun-rights advocates say some cities and towns have expanded gun bans beyond those specific places. This bill would prohibit guns from being banned on greenways, biking or walking paths, and open areas that are on park lands.

Rep. Mark Hilton, a Republican from Catawba County who has been the key sponsor of the gun bills, told a Senate judiciary committee on Thursday that the state restaurant association and the sheriffs’ association do not oppose this version of the bill.

Under the legislation, restaurant owners would still be able to prohibit customers from bringing weapons, concealed or not, into their establishments, but they would have to post a conspicuous notice to that effect.

Hilton said there are about 250,000 permit-holders in the state and less than 1 percent of them have had their permits revoked. In other words, this is a law-abiding segment of the population, he said.

Why that’s 2500 potential concealed carry killers! Someone call the Violence Policy Center!

Meanwhile, I reckon it’s time to concentrate the gun rights fight in anti-gun states. I’m also up for using open carry (a.k.a,, tough love) to “sell” gun rights to citizens living in condition white about the whole gun thing. Others STFU (visually speaking) and stick to the courts.

How do you think this battle should proceed?

 

comments

  1. avatar John says:

    Suppressors should not require a tax and should become common place. Do it for the children’s hearing…

    1. avatar ready,fire,aim says:

      hear,hear….i mean.. here,here

      1. avatar James St. John says:

        Huh, what’d you say?

        1. avatar soccerchainsaw says:

          In the immortal words of my late grandfather-in-law: “Huh, hell, you heard me the first time.”

    2. avatar Nate says:

      In addition to non-taxed suppressors, I think there should be a push to also remove the tax on SBRs and SBS; or at the very least, change the law to a barrel length requirement to 14″ or greater with an overall length requirement of 22 or 24″.

  2. avatar TS says:

    PLEASE COME TO CALIFORNIA AND HELP DELIVER US FROM TYRANNY!!!!

    Oh.. sorry… I should cry out so loudly….

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Deliver yourselves. You have a vote. Use it. Organize. Sue. Cause legal problems for the gungrabbers. Fight for your right to party.

      1. avatar Accur81 says:

        I am fighting for gun rights and voting for gun rights in CA. It would be nice to have help. Feinstein won by a landslide, but not with my vote.

        In the meantime, I’m mentoring another buddy on his new AR-15, CA’s crazy gun laws, and how to use his sweet new gun.

        It’s good to see other states doing well, WI in particular.

        1. avatar AznMike says:

          Doing well in what way? From what I’ve seen, to me at least since I’m a student, CCW is pretty damn hard since there are a bunch of businesses that post the “No Weapons Allowed” sticker. Like I said, I’m a student and CCW is not allowed in any of the campus buildings.

  3. avatar CarlosT says:

    I think it’s slightly more nuanced than that. I think we should concentrate on legal fight in the anti-gun states and on the the legislative fight in the pro-gun states.

    In the anti-gun states, now that the Second Amendment has been incorporated, there is more leverage than ever against gun control laws. With well selected cases with well selected plaintiffs, the cause could score major victories. Maybe we can finally get rid of those de facto No Issue enclaves around the country, for one thing.

    In the pro-gun states, there are some really obvious measures that should be enacted. For example, why doesn’t otherwise gun-friendly Texas permit open carry? That’s just bizarre. If the Texas legislature passed a bill permitting open carry, does anyone think that Rick Perry would veto it? That’s just unthinkable to me. Texas needs to get that done, if only to make it so a CHL holder reaching up to a high shelf doesn’t commit a crime. Looking around the country there are probably a lot of measures like that that could easily be enacted in pro-gun states.

    1. avatar virtualjohn says:

      I like your basic premise Carlos. In states where we have a legislative advantage work with that advantage through the legislative process to expand the gun rights that have been unconstitutionally and illegally restricted.
      In states where the state legislature and/or governor is going to prohibit any such movement; use the courts. If the cases are well selected and well fought they may set precedent on the national level. You would actually hope for these cases to have to be appealed completely out of the state courts and as high as possible in the federal court system.
      Of course, a constant should be trying to get people elected everywhere that believe in liberty and are willing to fight for it.

    2. avatar Sanchanim says:

      Carlos has a very valid point.
      But having said that, we are drowning here in CA. The liberal cronies in Sacramento have pretty much strangled the life out of this state.
      We used to have open carry unloaded, so gun rights activists would protest in a way, but doing public meetings etc. Then guess what they killed the open carry. We need to really get this state turned around and fast.

    3. avatar ExNuke says:

      It doesn’t directly affect me since I live in a gun friendly state, Mississippi, but rather than Texas or any other state “passing a law to permit open carry” it would be better all the way around if they repealed the law prohibiting it. Not amended or changed or modified, just remove it completely. The government needs to get over the idea that they were granted any power to infringe on the rights of the people.

  4. avatar Mike S says:

    Obvious first- CCW in Illinois.

    Attack “may issue”, and purposeful subversion of a “shall issue” (Rhode Island, anyone?) system wherever it exists.

    Until each of the 50 States has to treat its residents like citizens, all are vulnerable.

    1. avatar LongPurple says:

      +1 I wonder what chance there is to have “may issue” declared un-Constitutional? Problems abound, but that goal may be worth the fight.

    2. avatar Chewbaca Defense says:

      Don’t forget about NJ! I feel like we’re always omitted from the may issue discussion lol

  5. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    mandate that in every state with serious restrictions the legislators lose their police protection at their place of work.

  6. avatar David says:

    It just occurred to me with the law allowing CC in bars you could have not only a designated driver but a designated CCer for those groups that have to go to a bar to get a drink.

  7. avatar irock350 says:

    “setting aside the fact that the Wild West was a monastery compared to the ganglands of New York City and other conurbations of the time”

    Yeah….not sure how you can make that statement. Off the top of my head, Bleeding Kansas, the New Orleans Riots, The Mormons in Utah, The Klan violence throughout the South and into the western territories, the Colfax Massacre. Then there’s the James Gang, The Indian Wars, and your small territory skirmishes between the law and the less than law biding inhabitants. The small tribal goings-on of New York (aside from the New York Draft Riots in 63′) pales in violence in comparison to the South and Western Territories of the 19th Century. Excluding Southern states east of the Mississippi, the violence in Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico, California, Utah, and Kansas during the 1840’s-through to the end of the 19th century is substantial to the relatively calm burrows that drew such fame. New Orleans for example had every bit as much gang violence and vice as New York, how ever Leonardo Di Caprio didn’t make a movie about it. The 1872 constitutional amendments and their debates across all of the United States creates a compelling picture for the beggings of modern day gun reform throughout the United States.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Check the latest stats on deaths in Chicago and get back to us. On a per square mile basis our inner cities are worse than Iraq or Afghanistan.

      1. avatar irock350 says:

        Yes and becuase those crime stats are from the 21st century and not during the days of the “Wild West”, they dont quite make the point I am sure you were going for.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Wrong answer.

      Between 1981 and 1990, when murders peaked, there were a total of 17,000 murders in New York City, none of them the result of civil unrest or war. Bleeding Kansas produced less than 200 dead in 7 years; NYC still produces more murder victims in 7 months. The New Orleans Riot caused the death of less than 50; Gary Ridgeway strangled more people all by himself. Jesse James personally killed less than 20 people, so he’s right there with Joel Rifkin (althought James was responsible for as many as 1000 deaths taking his war crimes into consideration).

      Your numbers just don’t work to refute Dan’s point.

      1. avatar irock350 says:

        Not going to be a stickler but neither do yours 1981-1900″ Sorry it was too good not to pass up. Give me some time to crunch numbers and I will come back to this.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          1981-1900

          Huh? It says between 1981 and 1990.

    3. avatar joecr says:

      If you’re going to mention a Church, please use the correct name. The correct name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

  8. avatar Mike in NC says:

    A few points about the NC legislation discussed in the N&O article:

    The main issue is restaurant carry where alcohol is sold and consumed. This does not change the prohibition on carrying while there is ANY alcohol in the CHP (Concealed Handgun Permit) holder’s system.

    The need to adjust the park carry law passed last year is a good example of the mistakes that were made by ‘rookie’ republican legislators after taking control of the NC legislature for the first time in 110 years.

    There are many other carry-related issues which still need to be addressed, but due to the nature of the short legislative session will have to wait until 2013.

    Gun control has been chipping away at our liberties for 100 or 150 years. Restoring those liberties will take time.

  9. avatar Bob says:

    1. Getting the Senate equivalent of HB-822 passed. (What is the number of the Senate Bill? SB-1024 or something close to that?) This is the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. It is hard for any state to justify severe May-Issue laws when foreigners can carry in their state, but residents can’t.

    2. Support the efforts of the Second Amendment Foundation and attorneys Gura and Alan Gottlieb as they continue the battle in several courts around the country. Everytime they win another case, it establishes another small ‘precedent’ that chips away at the gun-control laws everywhere.

  10. avatar Van says:

    I’m encouraged that there is progress regarding carrying on Army Corps of Engineers Property. Look up Nunnelee Amendment. It is an amendment to the 2013 Energy and Water and Related Agencies Appropriations bill and tries to accomplish what was proposed in H.R. 1865, Recreational Lands Self-Defense Act of 2011.

  11. avatar Skids says:

    Re-focus our efforts on “may-issue” states to turn them into “shall-issue.” I would also love to see the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act pass, especially as a non-resident member of the military stationed in California. I am not now nor will I ever be a resident of California and while that should not bar me from the right to armed self defense outside of my home, it does. My Utah driver’s license is just as valid in California as it is in Utah and driving is just a PRIVILEGE. My Utah concealed carry license which supports and affirms my natural right to armed self defense should be no different.

  12. avatar Randolphus Maximus says:

    IMO – what’s been happening in the courts and in legislation with CCW and shall issue the past several years is great. As already stated, the regular gun control arguments don’t stand up to the facts or reason. But I don’t believe we will ever see a day (well, probably not in my lifetime) where places like New York City, or the big cities in California will ever recognize gun rights for law abiding citizens. At least the way that freer areas of the country would recognize them.

    Maybe, in a way, it’s a good thing. People vote with their feet, so concentrated areas of like-minded people serves as a beacon for others of like mind. The original vision of the founders was exactly that. Different states would compete with each other. For example, if one state *looks at California* had an onerous tax and regulatory system that strangled businesses large and small, those businesses could move to a different one *looks at Texas* with a better business climate. The same principal could apply in regards to firearms. So if I thought that the hoops and laws deemed necessary to obtain a CCW permit in one state *looks at California* were too much to jump through. I would move to another state *looks at Arizona* and set up shop there.

    /my 2 cents

    1. avatar Bob says:

      Several Supreme Court cases have established that the states are bound to protect (not allowed to violate) your human rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Therefore, Washington, D.C. and Chicago must allow you to possess firearms. The Supreme Court has not been presented with a case that tests the right to “bear arms” outside the home. When that happens, (and it is only a matter of time) then May-Issue laws will also be struck down by the US Supreme Court, because they violate our 2A rights.

  13. avatar Mark says:

    National reciprocity.

  14. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Speaking of ACR, WTF is the 300BLK barrel?

    Gruntle…

  15. avatar Professor X says:

    Campus carry would be nice. The “no gun” signs all over campus provide security only to the universities’ lawyers, and the muggers who wait for students on the edge of campus.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    For about one year now, I have been teaching my family and friends that whoever has the biggest gang, wins. I have decided to modify that slightly. Whoever has the strongest gang and the resolve to act wins.

    We need all citizens who own firearms to act together with unprecedented solidarity. That is the only way to maintain and advance our rights, period.

    I believe the reason that armed citizens have failed to achieve the solidarity and resolve that I described is simple ignorance. My hope is that education on a few timeless truths is the necessary motivation and glue that will lead to the solidarity and resolve that I described.

    1. avatar Sanchanim says:

      +1

  17. avatar flboots says:

    The people from Calif. should just tell the police your an illegal. They have all the rights in the state to do what they want.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email