|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 18, 2010, 09:08 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
|
There's a lot of corruption in North Carolina government but any Southern state that still elects Democrats is going to be portrayed as "progressive" by the liberal media, no matter what. The states gun laws don't look too onerous on paper, but there are some problems. Citizens have to apply to their county sheriff for their CCW permit, and its a pretty expensive item. Afterward, the citizen has no control over how long it takes that county sheriff to get his paperwork in to the state bureau of investigation, who must check the citizen out before the permit will be approved. If and when the citizen passes the SBI check, the state doesn't send a CCW permit directly to the citizen, it sends an ok to issue a permit back to the county sheriff, where, once again, the citizen has no control over how long it takes to get that permit back to him/her. As a result, in this age of instantaneous electronic communication, the CCW procedure in North Carolina can literally take up to four months. Of course, there may be a way to cut through the red tape. I've heard that soon after you apply for your CCW permit or a renewal of it in North Carolina, you get a letter from the sheriffs re-election committee requesting a contribution.
|
July 18, 2010, 09:44 AM | #27 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 198
|
law soot
n.c. is pro gun as you can get,you can open carry anywhere ,even in your car.without a permit,you can purchase a handgun from an individual in most countys,charlotte has bad crime,west coast style gangs,and has purchase permits,to buy pistols,good ol boys selectively enforce gun laws on a us and them basis,most places down east they all carry hogleggers,for snakes n rats n such,on several occations in my younger days the sherrrif searched my truck and returned my pistol unloaded,and informed me to keep it on the seat in plain view,he could of messed up my whole day if he was an anti
|
July 18, 2010, 09:51 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 728
|
As for carrying during a declared emergency, one only needs to look at New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There were cases there where the LEO's entered private property to disarm citizens who were threating no one by being armed.
|
July 18, 2010, 10:21 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Location: New Philadelphia, Oh
Posts: 238
|
blume357, if I am wrong on this one, then I know first hand of quite a few that are up a creek, so to speak.
**Just called a local gunshop that I deal with a good bit and one of the owners (trustworthy man and has excellent reputation in this area) explained that, by strict word of law, Yes a permit is required. But, in this area, a bill of sale identifying both parties and make model serial and such of gun will suffice, to keep seller out of hot water.** No offense to any members here, but this is a man that I trust also. DG45, I've got my CCW and haven't received any 'donations wanted' calls. Maybe these were coincidences that timed well with the renewals? I hope so. My county sheriff's office certainly leaves a lot to be desired. They will not be getting money from me. Last edited by sixgun67; July 18, 2010 at 10:34 AM. |
July 18, 2010, 10:27 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 17, 2008
Location: SE North Carolina
Posts: 203
|
NC Gun Law
A permit or valid CWP is required to purchase any handgun in NC, FFL or private sale. I do not care what your local gun store says, your are in violation of state and federal law if you don't have one or the other. Explain it to BATFE or the SBI, Oops, you can't.
The permit to purchase came about as an anti union move to prevent labor from arming itself during the struggle ro orgaize textile plants. Or so I have read several places. The whole system is a pain, the real problem being that your are dealing with the goverment. Many sheriff's office employees are political hacks, in some counties. Some departments are very pro-gun. All depends on the high sheriff, and you get what is elected. Sometimes good, sometimes bad. Pray and Shoot Daily. Lee Jones(Celtgun) We do not have government by the majority; rather; we have government by the majority who participate. Thomas Jefferson |
July 19, 2010, 01:15 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Location: New Philadelphia, Oh
Posts: 238
|
celtgun, that's fair enough. I would then ask how is an individual to know, after calling an 'authority' (which is what I at least would reasonably assume a licensed dealer to be) for an answer to this question, that the said authority is giving false info?
Myself, I don't worry. I use my CCW. But, how would the general non-licensed populace know? |
July 19, 2010, 05:44 PM | #32 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
A number of years ago I was dating a woman whose nephew is a police officer. Her son-in-law is a private detective who has a CHL and often carries when working ... but he NEVER practices. We talked about going to the range with him, and at the time I had not gotten my CHL. We encountered nephew LEO at a 4th of July family BBQ, so I asked him if it was okay for me (with no CHL) to take a pistol from home to the range to practice with [name]. He said, "Sure ... no problem." Good thing I didn't get around to taking [name] to the range, because what nephew LEO told me was flat-out WRONG. In my state, it's a felony offense to carry a handgun, even unloaded, outside the house (even on my own property) without a CHL. The only exceptions are transporting (not "carrying") from the shop where bought or to a shop to sell; to a gunsmith for repair; or to or from MY (not my employer's) place of business. Laws are typically not written to be clear to laymen. It ensures a need for lawyers. And it works -- if you want to know what the law says, ask a lawyer, not a shop keeper. (Or a cop.) |
|
October 22, 2010, 12:27 PM | #33 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Candler, NC (NC Mountains)
Posts: 1
|
Just for your info, the "State of Emergency" statutes in here in NC were passed after the MLK riots in 60's. Laws prohibiting firearms in or near a "riot" were also passed at the sametime. So that's the frame of mind the legislatur was in when the law was passed.
Purdue has tried to say that her declaration of emergency for some hurricane did not include any prohibitation on the transportation of firearms & ammo. However, a simple reading of the declaration shows that the law containing the prohibitation was specificially included. Also, the NC criminal statutes REQUIRE the prohibitation when a declaration of emergency is issued. The Governor, the Mayor (in King) and the Chairman of the County Commission of the county being sued could not exempt the prohibitation on carrying firearms & ammo - they don't have the option. So, even though that hurricane came no where close to the western NC mountains where I live, I could not transport my firearms legally while that declaration was in effect. To top it off, the declaration was issued just before opening day for dove season but I believe it was lifted in time. |
October 22, 2010, 07:50 PM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
Quote:
|
|
October 22, 2010, 09:29 PM | #35 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
What I wrote was exactly correct -- if a resident of this state sets foot outside his/her own house with a handgun, and doesn't have a permit, they are committing a felony offense. The only exception is transport to and from a range for participation in an organized competition, or for formal training. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; October 22, 2010 at 09:35 PM. |
|
October 26, 2010, 09:42 AM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
|
In states like that, how do you get the hand gun from the store to your house when you buy it? (I'm honestly curious because I've always wondered how that works).
|
October 26, 2010, 09:52 AM | #37 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
Quote:
Fortunately, at least in this area, those permits are virtually never issued and virtually anyone can at least get a hunting/recreation permit and almost everyone can get concealed carry and, when those permits are issued, everyone involved understands that there must be SOME way of getting the gun home, so the technicality that the law does not provide for such a method is ignored by all involved.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
||
October 26, 2010, 08:33 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 642
|
As I said I do not know what state you are in Aguila Blanca, but your state, as you said, does have an exception for shooting ranges but it is more restrictive than my state of VA. VAs is listed below:
Quote:
|
|
October 26, 2010, 08:39 PM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Wouldn't the FOPA have some relevance to transporting legally owned firearms from one legal location to another?
|
October 26, 2010, 08:39 PM | #40 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Gentlemen, isn't this a little off topic for this particular thread? Did I miss something?
|
January 10, 2011, 11:03 PM | #41 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
For those following the case, Bateman v. Perdue, an exciting (to me, at least) brief was filed today.
Today, 01-10-2011, Alan Gura has filed his Opposition to the States Motion for Summary Judgment. Go to the docket and scroll down to item #73 to read it. As you may remember, the 4th Circuit very recently came out with their opinion in U.S. v Chester, in which they sent back to the district court with instructions to look at 922(9) with intermediate scrutiny and demanded the government to justify the Lautenberg Act. Albeit dicta, the Circuit strongly implied that laws that conflict with the RKBA, as regards law-abiding people, the standard would be strict scrutiny. Their opinion is included as an exhibit, here. With that background in mind, this pleading is priceless! Here are some of the pearls, as I read them... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
January 11, 2011, 07:53 AM | #42 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Attorney Gura is a shining example, but I can't avoid the random thought that he is probably thankful on a daily basis that his opposing counsel are so inept that they seem to consistently hand him "gimmes" on a regular basis. It helps, of course, that he is on the side of the Constitution and that his opponents are trying to circumvent the very document that is the cornerstone of the United States of America.
|
January 11, 2011, 09:14 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
|
In Heller was it not stateded that the Second Amendment allowed citizens to own firearms for self defense? The same reasoning was present in the McDonald case.
If the state is saying that they are not allowing firearms to be transported outside the home or property because there is limited law enforcment available. That seems be at odds with both these decisions since the basis for having a firearm is self defense and now the state is saying we will not be able to provide protection to some citizens and we are not going to let you be able to defend yourself. The argument by Chicago was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. The Supreme Court said it applies to the federal government and the States. I do not see any wiggle room for the state there. So how can the state argue that we are going to limit your right to self defense when we can not provide protection to you in the case of a emergency caused by nature. That is not an argument I would want to defend in front of the court in light of Heller and McDonald.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range NRA Life Member |
February 6, 2011, 12:49 PM | #44 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
The States court ordered response and MTD is in (see the current 2A cases thread for links).
Quote:
No... The plaintiffs need only establish that carry, outside the home was recognized at the time of ratification. It is the very act of the statute that offends the right. But the State does not stop there. The defendants go on to conflate the English right (predecessor to our own 2A) with its various restrictions, to our own version of the right, "This notion that the right to bear arms was subject to governmental restriction carried over into the common law in America." The State then ignores that the English right to arms was subject to the absolute discretion of the Parliament, while ours was went much stronger in character with the words, "shall not be infringed." Having set up this straw man, the State quickly knocks it down with, "Not only does the ability to possess a firearm outside of one’s home during a state of emergency not lie at the “core” of the Second Amendment but, in fact, it does not even reside within the Amendment’s outer limits ... that is, the right to possess a gun in one’s home." Forgive me if I restate the core holding of Heller, the right to possess a gun for self-defense is the "core" holding. The "in the home" portion only answered the question that was asked in that particular case. Once again, we see (what has become) the standard argument by the various defendants, that your right to self-defense stops at the door to your home. |
|
March 29, 2012, 02:07 PM | #45 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Another win!
In Bateman v. Perdue (NC Emergency Powers firarms prohibition), Judge Howard, Eastern District of North Carolina, has struck down NC's ban on possession of firearms outside during a state of emergency. Opinion here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....07258.87.0.pdf First, the Court held that the 2A claerly applies outside the home when addressing the As Applied challenge: Quote:
Quote:
Having addressed the Plaintiffs "As Applied" challenge and invalidating the laws, the Court does not consider the Facial challenge. Quote:
The ruling is pretty tight and should survive appeal, should N.C. decide to go to the 4th Circuit. |
|||
March 29, 2012, 02:38 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Good news! Thanks for the update, Al.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 29, 2012, 07:30 PM | #47 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
This decision is not as broad or as clear as I might have wished, but it does have interesting ramifications.
The decision explicitly recognizes that the scope of the 2nd Amendment extends beyond the home. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
March 29, 2012, 08:04 PM | #48 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Glad you caught all of that, gc70.
Did you also catch that this is an as-applied challenge? This means that for these plaintiffs in these specific circumstances, the law is void. It will probably take a few other claims in State Courts to completely dissolve these laws (facially). But those are other cases. The legal groundwork has been laid, and it shouldn't too terribly difficult for any others to challenge those statutes. It also means that the NC legislature can moot further adverse decisions by excising the bans from the law. Was it all we wanted? No. But it is what we expected. |
March 29, 2012, 08:39 PM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
|
Al, the ruling was more than I expected, even if it was less than I wished for.
It is doubtful that the NC legislature would moot the case. The NC legislature holds its regular session in odd-numbered years (2011); only budget issues and regular session bills passed in one house can be considered in the legislature's short session in even-numbered years (2012). The only way to change the offending laws before the 2013 regular session is for the Governor to call a special session of the legislature. The prospects of a special session are remote because nobody wants one in an election year and the Republican-controlled legislature would not be well-disposed to helping the Democratic Governor and Attorney General pull their irons out of the fire on this issue. |
March 29, 2012, 09:26 PM | #50 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
This should bolster Woollard quite nicely as well.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|