Lawsuit Forces Wake County, NC Sheriff to Expedite Pistol Permit Processing

Wake County Sheriff Gerald Baker

Wake County Sheriff Gerald Baker (Courtesy North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association)

The declaration of a pandemic was just what the anti-gun doctor ordered earlier this year, giving jurisdictions around the country a ready-made excuse to slow down their process of allowing citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights. A number of states — the usual suspects — either shut down their background check system, their permitting process or generally slow-walked applications.

They blamed it on record volume, staff shortages, a concern for state employees and/or social distancing requirements.

Whatever the ostensible cause, these hoplohobic officials did what they could to cut off or greatly extend the time it takes to secure government permission to own, buy or carry firearms, thus depriving citizens from their Second Amendment rights.

The obviously obstructionist activity has prompted a number of lawsuits; more than a dozen in Illinois, another in Connecticut, one in New Jersey, another in Philadelphia….

In July, a group called Grass Roots North Carolina filed a lawsuit against Wake County Sheriff Gerald Baker. It was the third time they’d sued the Sheriff since he shut down pistol and concealed carry permitting process for a month at the beginning of the pandemic. This suit was brought over the Sheriff’s failure to comply with the state’s statutory 14-day time limit for processing pistol permit applications.

As part of the judge’s order on the first lawsuit, Baker “agreed to modify the application process so as to minimize or alleviate the admission of applicants for said permits to the Public Safety Center during the term of the current declared states of emergency and to resume processing applications in as timely a fashion as possible under the current conditions.”

But Grass Roots N.C., in a news release Monday, Aug. 3, says Baker “may be thumbing his nose at the law: Despite a consent decree requiring him to issue handgun permits, Baker appears to be dragging his feet in order to issue the minimum possible number of permits, clearly defying the decree.”

That’s a clear infringement of an enumerated civil right. It appears the deluge of lawsuits may have finally made an impression on Sheriff Baker. This from newsobserver.com:

The Wake County Sheriff’s Office announced Friday it will once again process pistol permit applications within 14 days.

During an unprecedented increase in applications, people have had to wait for permits for up to 70 days.

It’s bad enough that citizens in most states are required to ask for permission to carry a firearm, a right that’s covered by the very plain language of the Second Amendment. Worse still is the requirement that a law-abiding individual obtain a government permission slip just to own a handgun (or any other type of firearm).

Whenever these decisions are left up to government officials, they’re open to manipulation and abuse by those who would prefer that the only people allowed to own or carry a firearm wear a uniform. It’s good to see Grass Roots Carolina’s lawsuits pushing Sheriff Baker to once again comply with state law. We’ll now have to see if he actually gets his department back in compliance or continues his obstructionism.

comments

  1. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

    On a totally unrelated note, in the past 48 hours:. Biden “declared winner”. Alex Trebec dies of cancer. Covid 19 vaccine announcement, Dow sores over 1100 points….. I’ll take “improbable coincidences” for one-thousand, Alex.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Yeah, I was a bit amused by the timing of Pfizer’s vaxx announcement as well.

      As for Trump, he’s ‘biden’ his time and collecting the necessary evidence for prosecution.

      1. avatar Pb_fan59 says:

        Sure wish I’d have bought stock in Orville Redinbacher !!

      2. avatar Nonips says:

        I pray they can get the evidence of criminal behavior of our election so we don’t have these perverted vile people in office. To destroy America

        1. avatar LOL @ GOP says:

          Don’t worry, they are only in power for another two months.

        2. avatar [email protected] donkey D sucker says:

          [email protected] is just a stupid mouth breathing communist…. he/she/it will be getting its just reward very soon…… VERY SOON YOU COMMIE BASSTURD…

        3. avatar LOL @ GOP AND THIS ASSHAT ⬆️ says:

          Ooooooo. I’m real scared.

      3. avatar KenW says:

        I haz, if you still are looking to register your name and get an avater I left the instructions back in the Biden declared pres post.
        And why does the Sheriff need to be involved in permits? NC is worse than us ? Hmm can we send them a free Ag Sec ?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I got your instructions. Will look into it. Think I have an avatar chosen.

    2. avatar red wolf says:

      “Trebec”

      “Sores”

      Don’t ever change, Trumpbillies.💩🤡

      1. avatar Red wolf is the product of two inner city crackheads... and he's a great argument FOR ABORTION says:

        Shut the F up you little transvestite suckling H0mo… red wolf won’t be around much longer…

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      I’ve seen vaccine announcements of one or another for months. Until it’s being distributed, it’s nothing. And this one will be tough to distribute because it requires a lot of refrigeration.

      But if you’re one of those people that thinks covid is ‘magically’ going to go away after election day like Trump says… magic isn’t real. As bad as it was in April it’s going to be a lot worse this winter.

      The stock market jumped because it wants trump gone. He’s a nightmare for stability. But it’s going to have major problems if the GOP doesn’t hold Georgia.

      1. avatar ImaDot says:

        China virus may not go away, but with demos in power; their shills in the press will just stop reporting the count. Presto, change-o…no more virus as far as the ‘public’ is concerned!

  2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Another of the reasons for ” Shall not be infringed” was written. License out a right you already have, what could be wrong with that ? Couldn’t be abused could it. Join up in supporting the Constitutional Convention movement.

    1. avatar Paul says:

      Dude, there has been talk of a constitutional convention for – I dunno, thirty years? Maybe more? That crap scares me. Get a bunch of progressives at a constitutional convention, we might as well stick our heads between our knees and kiss our asses goodbye.

      I’d rather walk through a minefield, to be honest. We might have a battle plan for the convention, but like every battle plan, the enemy gets a vote on it.

      The Supreme Court that we have right now is our best hope for restoring lost rights.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        The plan you need is for states to get on board with the Convention in the first place.

        The way a Convention is set up basically ensures that it cannot be hijacked, which is kinda the point of the whole thing because it’s specifically meant to go around Congress and the Founders were not stupid enough to think that a situation in which the States decides to give Congress the finger would be one in which Congress and others wouldn’t try to meddle.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          “The way a Convention is set up basically ensures that it cannot be hijacked”

          Strych9, the Democrats could hijack a school bus. The thought of a Constitutional Convention gives me the willies.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Maybe the age of military service needs to be raised to 26 , right after the health care on their parents runs out.”

          Nope.

          “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

          “as….may be proposed” is not a declaration that Congress may or may not (might or might not) propose a Mode of Ratification, but that one or the other Mode will control, based on whichever method Congress chooses. This wording requires Congress to be part of the amendment process, however the amendment is initiated.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          “…the Democrats could hijack a school bus.”

          Ralph, could and would.

          But you can’t really hijack the bus when the hostages are free to leave. That’s how a convention is structured. The states agree to what’s under discussion and their delegations can simply pack up and go home if some group tries to hijack the whole thing. They need 3/4ths (38 currently) of the states to approve anything.

          States can always walk away and there are enough red states to do just that. If you accept the current election map you still have 23 red states as of this writing. That’s nearly double what you need to stop a convention in it’s tracks.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “….there has been talk of a constitutional convention for – I dunno, thirty years? Maybe more? That crap scares me.”

        There is a reason “talk” remains talk. A constitutional convention is restricted to making recommendatons. Period. The current state of the union is so different from the “founding” that comparisons to environment and participants is not even relevant. The “founders” were significant actors in the existing Confederation, not people trying to restore the Confederacy to some prior condition. The “founders” sent their proposed constitution directly to the States. The existing constitution requires the Convention recommendations (proposed constitutional amendments) be sent to the sitting Congress, not directly to the states. The existing Congress (with no required timeline) then sends the recommendations to the states for ratification, or reoudiation.The prescribed ratification process is the same as any proposed amendment initiated in Congress.

        Of note, any constitutional amendment proposed by a Constitutional Convention is dropped into the contemporary political environment. The power structure existing at that time will determine success or failure of the proposed amendment(s). If a proposed amendment is ratified, legal challenges to laws, policies and regulations spawned by the newly ratified amendment(s) are then subject to the judicial politics of the courts at the time. For those who believe a radical takeover of a Constitutional Convention would result in a government not recognizable to the founders, fear not. If “radicals” had the power to get a revolutionary repeal of our current constitution via a convention of states, those same radicals would already have the power to do the same without using a Constitutional Convention, at all.

        When I pointed all this out to the secretary of the organization pressing for a Convention of States, the conversation went very wobbly. It ended when I mentioned that any amendments designed to return the nation to its founding days, if ratified, would face the same legislative and judicial actions to carve out exceptions to the amendments, or modify via legislation the original intent (as has already happened to the original constitution), the conversation ended abruptly.

        The founders knew what they were doing in displacing the Articles of Confderation, and designed the amendment process (including Convention of States) such that a later Convention could not constitutionally create a new government by simply sending amendments (or a complete new constitution) directly to the states. Doing so would be blatantly unconstitutional.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          “A constitutional convention is restricted to making recommendatons.”

          Reread Article V.

          The “recommendation” (“proposal” actually is the term the Constitution uses) is for Congress to call a convention of the states to consider specifically proposed Amendments. And it’s not a “recommendation” it’s an order (see bold below). The “proposal” is the set of Amendments for consideration. Such a convention most certainly has the power to amend the Constitution provided 3/4ths of the State legislatures (or their delegations, see italics) agree to do so in the same manner by approving the Amendments presented for consideration in the initial application (second bold).

          “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          You are missing the point. “Recommendations” are proposed amendments. A convention of States cannot create ratified amendments, and neither can Congress. Second, the Congress must establish which method of ratification the states must use. There is no process in the Constitution for making such a decision, much less a timeline for sending to the states the chosen method. If the states attempt to ratify a recommendation (proposed amendment) without Congress first assigning the method of ratification, any such amendment ratified by the states is invalid, as the Constitution does not give authority to the states to decide the Method. If Article 5 had not mentioned a prescribed Method for ratification of recommendations from the CoS, things would be different. The states would be free to choose any method they like as a Method of ratification of recommended amendments from the CoS. So….

          If the CoS attempted to replace the entire constitution with another, without a directed method of ratification proclaimed by Congress, such a replacement would be invalid/unconstitutional.

          Article 5 does not bypass Congress; by design.

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Wut?

          “…amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof…”

          There’s your method right there. Convene convention, debate, legislatures vote. If 3/4ths of them vote to ratify an Amendment it is done and “valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution”.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The Congress , …shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,…”

          “when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

          There’s Congress, in the middle of it.

          But there other safeguareds not mentioned in the Constitution:
          – States, through some undetermined method, choose delegates (how many are permitted from each state; how many delegates can vote?)
          – Once in convention, certification of delegates, or agreement there will be none
          – Agreement on what happens if a state delegation drops out
          – Agreement on rules of order
          – Agreement on who presides as final arbiter of disputes
          – Agreement on who presides, and order of succession if presiding officer cannot continue
          – Agreement on how often delegates meet; duration of the convention
          – Agreement on how many delegates are required vote to approve proposed amendments
          – Agreement on how proposals for amendments will be voted on (floor debate? amendments?)
          – Agreement on if proposed amendments are released as approved, or in bulk
          – Agreement on what happens if proposed amendments are not ratified by the states

          And on it goes. Meanwhile, the political landscape in the states is not static. The founders had only 13 states to contend with, and the delegates to the convention were already members of the national legislature.

          Per Article 5 of the Constitution, the COS cannot create valid amendments to the Constitution, only proposed amendments for the states to ratify, or reject. The statement, “…or by Conventions in three fourths thereof…” means conventions in a state as the ratifying agent, rather than the sitting legislature of a state. The reference is not to the COS itself. In such case, all the organizing problems in running a COS can arise again.

          Note: the discussion we are having here is indicative of the problems of a COS.

  3. avatar RSHK says:

    My companion is making $77 hourly at the PC . He has been laid off from work 5 months prior, yet a month ago he rounded up $10258 by simply telecommuting with program he discovered on the web. This is the thing that he does… Give it a shot yourself…Visit Now… earn75..com

  4. avatar Ross says:

    Is it just me or does this guy look like he jumped on a bicycle with the seat removed and he’s trying to figure out how he feels about it?

    1. avatar CentralVirginian says:

      I was thinking the product of fetal alcohol syndrome and seeing as you mentioned the bicycle, he bears a striking resemblance to Deebo from the Friday movies.

    2. avatar Cap’n Crunch says:

      It’s just you, weirdo.

      1. avatar Communistswillpay says:

        No it’s YOU, YOU LITTLE BICH M F E R….

        DAT BE YO BABY DADDY YOU INNER CITY GHETTO DWELLER….

    3. avatar Wumingren says:

      My first reaction was to punch him right in the ugly mug.

      1. avatar D’Otis says:

        ….writes the ‘man’ who would do no such thing in real life. Another impotent member of the Keyboard Kommando Korps 🤣🤡!

        1. avatar G-muny nilka says:

          Your mother is a nasty crackhead ho…
          And yes, get that freak mfe r within 10 feet of me and see what happens to his cerebral palsy looking a$$

        2. avatar Ghettocreatureswillregrettheirchoices says:

          D’Otis licks hairy taint nightly…. suckling c o c k like a professional LGBTQ h0m0 that he was raised by his ghetto daddy to be

    4. avatar strych9 says:

      At first glance with the small picture on the main page my thought was that he looks like a very, very drunk Michael Clarke Duncan.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        Considering the Michael Clark Duncan is dead, I’d say that you’re spot on.

    5. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

      He may have a lazy eye. Sometimes surgery doesn’t correct it.

      Let’s not attack the man for his looks, just his politics and policies.

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

        Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

        The fact is that now, with the lunatics running the asylum, WE are the radicals.

        1. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

          We can ridicule their political shortcomings. When we play by that rule they turn it against us easily will the average person who doesn’t see the hole field, just the box they are show.

        2. avatar Ing says:

          Bingo.

          Look at what happened with this election. The news media, entertainment, education, the entire federal bureaucracy — the entire establishment is owned and occupied by the other side.

          Our political terminology is 100% backwards now: progressives are regressive; liberals are authoritarians; antiracists are racism on steroids; astroturf is grassroots, and anything grassroots is “the X lobby.” The people who currently call themselves radicals literally ARE the establishment.

          Therefore, since political reality is the opposite of all accepted political terms, conservatives (aka everyone who isn’t “progressive”) are America’s outsiders and radicals now.

          We’re being treated as such, and it’s past time we all started acting accordingly. But I don’t think that’s likely to sink in.

        3. avatar PminFl says:

          REACTIONARY ! civics 6th grade.

  5. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Again I ask….what is the point of having power, if you can’t use it to your personal benefit?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      There’s no point in having power if you can’t abuse it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Zackly

      2. avatar jwm says:

        Power corrupts. Absolute power is kinda neat.

  6. avatar Country Boy says:

    Is Mr. Baker crosseyed? Or is it optical illsion in photo due to angle taken ?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Cross-eyed, forked tongue and a horse’s ass. Man that guy is messed up.

  7. avatar GS650G says:

    I wouldn’t want him in charge of my rights.

  8. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Very sad.

  9. avatar Mark N. says:

    What surprises me is that despite its lead in gun control laws, California has not adopted a system that requires obtaining a permit to just buy a firearm. We do have to get a firearms safety certificate, but that is a multiple choice 35 question test that is easily passed, but no requirement to apply for a purchase permit a la New Jersey or, apparently, North Carolina. Thank goodness for small favors.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Why ban the purchaser when you can ban the guns?

      They’ve got a little list; they’ve got a little list. Gilbert & Sullivan would be so proud.

  10. avatar Arandom Dude says:

    Weird how pistol permits get slow walked in leftist jurisdictions where the person in charge is an anti-2a politician. Where I am they’re processed perfectly fast even though the same concerns about the China cooties apply as in jurisdictions where disarmament advocates run the system.

  11. avatar Montana Actual says:

    Tyrant.

    Tar and feather.

    But we all know there’s no actual repercussions, that’s why they keep doing it. See, sometimes violence is the answer 😉

  12. avatar LastOfTheOldOnes says:

    “sometimes violence is the answer”

    Sometimes????

    Just think, it’s my estimate that the 71,000,000+ Trump voters have over 90% of the over 450,000,000 guns in America, an average of 5.7 guns per voter.

    What are the odds that liberals have any chance of taking this country over, with their basement dwelling millennial semi-males and the screaming young millennial women?

    There will come a point, maybe soon, that we will be heard, LOUD AND CLEAR…..

  13. avatar Billmil says:

    In N.C. the pistol permit is a revenue collection game.
    If you have a Concealed carry you just show it the the dealer fill out the feds paperwork and walk out with your new pistol a few minutes later.

    Wake, Orange and Mecklenburg county are known leftest Democrat ****holes.

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      100% correct. I fucking hate all 3 of them.

    2. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Same here in Montana.

      Same anywhere you have to pay and ask permission to exercise your second amendment right. It’s a scam and a joke. I’m done asking permission.

  14. avatar Matt in Oklahoma says:

    Weird I thought all sheriffs were the saving grace
    Lol

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Sheriffs tend to represent their electorate somewhat more than chiefs, who are once-removed.

      If your electorate is crap, a sheriff is not going to be better.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        It’s Wake County — the electorate is crap.

  15. avatar Klaus says:

    “I think he said the Sherrif’s near,strike up the band”

    1. avatar Tired of Wainting in Louisiaana says:

      “During an unprecedented increase in applications, people have had to wait for permits for up to 70 days.”

      70 Day wait is little compared to Louisiana. In 2016 many took 6 months + and I have 3 friends still waiting this year after submitting applications 90+ days ago.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        NY just before the safe act passed you could call them and they would make you an appointment 8 months away to GET an application.

        Because NY state law says once you turn in an application they only have so long to process it. Well, clever state and county officials decided that they didn’t have to worry about that if they never let you apply!

        1. avatar FormerParatrooper says:

          In Illinois I am at 6 months for a renewal that is supposed to be done in 30 days.

  16. avatar Mark N. says:

    Dude has a plastered on smile like someone who doesn’t smile much. I’d bet he has a pretty solid permanent scowl instead.

  17. avatar Mark says:

    North Carolinians: Start rebuilding your urban gun culture before it’s too late

  18. avatar SalamiSalamiBoloney says:

    Say… wasn’t he the President in “The Fifth Element?”
    http://pm1.narvii.com/6299/b011be1add0ca366e1e2be38d213ac89b896a78b_hq.jpg

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “SalamiSalamiBoloney”

      I miss those old cartoons.

  19. avatar Jeff K says:

    Actually the Pistol Permit system is not that bad; you do not need a NICS check. Wake county is a Democraticly run pile though. For instance: Rockingham County NC put in an extra effort to get out PP’s and CCW’s. My NC CCW lets me buy all the guns I want with no need for a NICS check; just do the 4473 and you are done. Also good in 39 States and Puerto Rico.

  20. I wish they would file lawsuit in Massachusetts, I’m applying for my first LTC and an officer that I know is the one that handles the aplactions. He told me it will take six months to process the LTC permit.( Six months ) Anything could happen in that time frame and I’m screwed, that’s if they even approve it.

  21. avatar Retarded sheriff's shouldn't be a THANG says:

    You mean the retard in the pic is a SHERIFF???…. LOL
    CLOWN WORLD RETARD LOOKING PRODUCT OF TWO GHETTO CRACKHEADS….GD THIS COUNTRY AND WHAT THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING TO IT….

    AS STATED ABOVE… TAR AND FEATHER THE RETARD…

  22. avatar John says:

    I’m a proud member of GRNC. While it’s good to join and support the national organizations, GOA and SAF for myself, don’t forget the state or local gun rights groups. They’re the ones who really watch the governors, state legislatures, county and town governments and local LEO yahoos like this guy. My experience is that GRNC really holds politicians and governments in NC accountable and will quickly call them out on anti 2A bs.

  23. avatar Jimmy James says:

    Just wonder who the genius was that had the idea of reassigning school resource officers to the permits office. Certainly not the sheriff. Talk about your amiable doofusses (i.e. the people who voted him in).

  24. avatar Drew says:

    The Pistol Purchase Permit is a real old Jim Crow law, dressed up with modern race neutral language. The sheriff wants to make sure none of the “wrong folk” were getting hand guns, now do he?

    All gun control is racist.

  25. avatar nenogif says:

    Actually the Pistol Permit system is not that bad; you do not need a NICS check. Wake county is a Democraticly run pile though. For instance: Rockingham County NC put in an extra effort to get out PP’s and CCW’s. My NC CCW lets me buy all the guns I want with no need for a NICS check; just do the 4473 and you are done. Also good in 39 States and Puerto Rico.

    WWW,BONANZU.COM

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