NEWS & COMMENTARY NC needs a different system of permitting people to carry weapons away from home

HB 746 should be voted on and hopefully passed but it is not the answer to what this state needs



We received a couple of interesting contacts regarding



HB746 should be reported out of the Senate Rules Committee and calendared for a floor vote. Yes, we have been told that the Whip Process says it would not pass (because a combination of liberals and conservatives who think concealed carry permits are useful and the current system has worked well.) That may or may not be true and we see false logic in requiring training for a person to carry concealed and not requiring any training to open carry, but be that as it may, the bill should still get a vote on the floor and the votes recorded. It will be an issue in 2018 and this vote is important, even if the bill fails. For that reason we support HB 746 and hope it passes, not only in the Senate but that an inevitable veto will be overridden. But we're not holding our breath.



The sad part about HB 746 is that it has consumed far too much energy for so little gain, even if it does pass. The bill clearly illustrates the flaw of the Second Amendment advocates in recent years. We have fallen into a Gordian Knot trap of wrestling with gun control advocates about getting them to give us a little bit while ignoring the fundamental issue: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



Read HB 746 and you see that it deliberately concedes principle for practicality. It accepts unconstitutional restrictions in return for getting something passed. For example, the laundry list of places one cannot carry a weapon continues. There is nothing in the constitutions (state or Federal) that says the right to bear arms is protected only in some places but not in others. Then the bill accepts the concept that some citizens can be more severely restricted, not because of anything they have done or not done, but simply because they don't have the appropriate job (law enforcement, DA, judge, Legislator etc.).



Again, while we support HB 746 at this point, we think it is important before the 2018 elections for the Second Amendment advocates in the state to develop a true "constitutional" bill. To do that we need a Constitutional Amendment to Article I. Sec. 30 to remove the last sentence: "Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."



A bill should then be crafted which changes the conceptual foundation of gun control under Article I. Sec 30. It should be based on the concept that any citizen who has not otherwise forfeited their Second Amendment right by their overt actions shall not be denied the right to bear arms. That would include the right to carry wherever you go. The debate then should be on what actions constitute sufficient grounds for losing that right. Obviously, for example, a person convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime should be one of those actions that extinguish that person's right to bear arms. There are other such actions but the important thing about them is that they should not be "suppositions" that a citizen "might" do something wrong, but rather based on actual behavior of the individual. We should all be presumed innocent until we actually commit a prohibited infraction prescribing the penalty of loss of Second Amendment rights.



We would also agree that the state has not only the authority, but the duty, to prescribe standards for the exercise of Second Amendment rights. That is true just like the government can prescribe standards for a person to drive a car or fly an airplane, or even shoot fireworks. Or who can perform surgery, etc.



One such standard should be passing a background check and completion of appropriate training, demonstration of proficiency in the use of a weapon and a demonstrated knowledge of the law of self defense and use of deadly force.



In fact, we think there should be several levels in these proficiency standards. A lower level might restrict carrying a weapon which could be used strictly in self-defense, where the person is not trained to use it without imminent danger to others. A higher standard might be with a higher demonstrated proficiency, the permit would allow the person to carry anywhere the public is permitted to be. And a higher standard might allow a comparably trained permittee to exercise the same rights as a law enforcement official if comparably trained and with demonstrated proficiency.



We'll leave it to those smarter than us to sort out whether proficiency should be based on the type of weapon permitted to be carried and used.



The basic rationale for the multi-level certification is that the use of a firearm indeed requires abundant proficiency and someone who has achieved that proficiency should be afforded greater civil protection, just like a law enforcement is afforded.



Simply stated, the permit system should be competency based and not based on a presumption that law abiding citizens must be restricted in order to constrain non-law abiding people.



We don't pretend to know all the "I's" and "t's" that would need to be dotted and crossed in such a bill but we do think permits should be based on proficiency rather than on a "one size fits all" approach.



The right to carry a weapon in public is not an absolute right that cannot be properly restrained, any more than free speech can be restrained to restrict libel or slander or the classic "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater," or allowing your children to play will rattlesnakes at a church service, or genital mutilation in the name of a religious belief. To be sure, the state has the power and duty to protect the public safety. The need is to develop a rational basis for the restrictions that can be reasonably ascertained to accomplish the legitimate state purpose with the least intrusion into our rights. HB 746 does not even attempt to do that. In fact it accepts unreasonable restriction that will never accomplish a legitimate purpose.



Finally, we think the proposed constitutional amendment should specifically provide for the General Assembly being clearly empowered to nullify any unconstitutional federal law, regulation or court case in its application within North Carolina that the Legislature deems to be an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms. We received a couple of interesting contacts regarding the article we posted yesterday on HB 746. All three missed our point. So here is our position:HB746 should be reported out of the Senate Rules Committee and calendared for a floor vote. Yes, we have been told that the Whip Process says it would not pass (because a combination of liberals and conservatives who think concealed carry permits are useful and the current system has worked well.) That may or may not be true and we see false logic in requiring training for a person to carry concealed and not requiring any training to open carry, but be that as it may, the bill should still get a vote on the floor and the votes recorded. It will be an issue in 2018 and this vote is important, even if the bill fails. For that reason we support HB 746 and hope it passes, not only in the Senate but that an inevitable veto will be overridden. But we're not holding our breath.The sad part about HB 746 is that it has consumed far too much energy for so little gain, even if it does pass. The bill clearly illustrates the flaw of the Second Amendment advocates in recent years. We have fallen into a Gordian Knot trap of wrestling with gun control advocates about getting them to give us a little bit while ignoring the fundamental issue: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Read HB 746 and you see that it deliberately concedes principle for practicality. It accepts unconstitutional restrictions in return for getting something passed. For example, the laundry list of places one cannot carry a weapon continues. There is nothing in the constitutions (state or Federal) that says the right to bear arms is protected only in some places but not in others. Then the bill accepts the concept that some citizens can be more severely restricted, not because of anything they have done or not done, but simply because they don't have the appropriate job (law enforcement, DA, judge, Legislator etc.).Again, while we support HB 746 at this point, we think it is important before the 2018 elections for the Second Amendment advocates in the state to develop a true "constitutional" bill. To do that we need a Constitutional Amendment to Article I. Sec. 30 to remove the last sentence: "Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."A bill should then be crafted which changes the conceptual foundation of gun control under Article I. Sec 30. It should be based on the concept that any citizen who has not otherwise forfeited their Second Amendment rightshall not be denied the right to bear arms. That would include the right to carry wherever you go. The debate then should be on what actions constitute sufficient grounds for losing that right. Obviously, for example, a person convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a crime should be one of those actions that extinguish that person's right to bear arms. There are other such actions but the important thing about them is that they should not be "suppositions" that a citizen "might" do something wrong, but rather based on actual behavior of the individual. We should all be presumed innocent until we actually commit a prohibited infraction prescribing the penalty of loss of Second Amendment rights.We would also agree that the state has not only the authority, but the duty, to prescribe standards for the exercise of Second Amendment rights. That is true just like the government can prescribe standards for a person to drive a car or fly an airplane, or even shoot fireworks. Or who can perform surgery, etc.One such standard should be passing a background check and completion of appropriate training, demonstration of proficiency in the use of a weapon and a demonstrated knowledge of the law of self defense and use of deadly force.In fact, we think there should be several levels in these proficiency standards. A lower level might restrict carrying a weapon which could be used strictly in self-defense, where the person is not trained to use it without imminent danger to others. A higher standard might be with a higher demonstrated proficiency, the permit would allow the person to carry anywhere the public is permitted to be. And a higher standard might allow a comparably trained permittee to exercise the same rights as a law enforcement official if comparably trained and with demonstrated proficiency.We'll leave it to those smarter than us to sort out whether proficiency should be based on the type of weapon permitted to be carried and used.The basic rationale for the multi-level certification is that the use of a firearm indeed requires abundant proficiency and someone who has achieved that proficiency should be afforded greater civil protection, just like a law enforcement is afforded.Simply stated, the permit system should be competency based and not based on a presumption that law abiding citizens must be restricted in order to constrain non-law abiding people.We don't pretend to know all the "I's" and "t's" that would need to be dotted and crossed in such a bill but we do think permits should be based on proficiency rather than on a "one size fits all" approach.The right to carry a weapon in public is not an absolute right that cannot be properly restrained, any more than free speech can be restrained to restrict libel or slander or the classic "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater," or allowing your children to play will rattlesnakes at a church service, or genital mutilation in the name of a religious belief. To be sure, the state has the power and duty to protect the public safety. The need is to develop a rational basis for the restrictions that can be reasonably ascertained to accomplish the legitimate state purpose with the least intrusion into our rights. HB 746 does not even attempt to do that. In fact it accepts unreasonable restriction that will never accomplish a legitimate purpose.Finally, we think the proposed constitutional amendment should specifically provide for the General Assembly being clearly empowered to nullify any unconstitutional federal law, regulation or court case in its application within North Carolina that the Legislature deems to be an infringement on our right to keep and bear arms.

Print Email Comment Share