Gun changes billl passes state house!

I wish I could have stated it as well as Tipmoose did.

Our "rights" are not absolute. Your 1st amendment right doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and justice Scalia stated in his opinion on the Heller decision that there were limits to the 2nd amendment.
Tip is spot-on about education being the key. Teach the youngsters how to respect and handle a firearm correctly and they'll grow up knowing its not some foreign object to be feared.

aya28ga said:

I wish I could have stated it as well as Tipmoose did.

Our "rights" are not absolute. Your 1st amendment right doesn't give you the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, and justice Scalia stated in his opinion on the Heller decision that there were limits to the 2nd amendment.
Tip is spot-on about education being the key. Teach the youngsters how to respect and handle a firearm correctly and they'll grow up knowing its not some foreign object to be feared.

Click to expand...

Rights are not absolute, and I agree with a lot of what Tip said. That said, mandatory training is a slippery slope. Most required trainings from the government are limited to very specific topics and are usually deal more with the laws and regulations that pertain to that particular topic than anything else. There's an illusion that the current CC class "trains" you to be some sort of civilian ninja. It doesn't. It gives you a few hours of instruction on laws and they make sure you can hit the paper. Many of the folks that currently open carry that will CC if this passes are much more competent than many folks who have passed "the class". Be careful what you wish for, eventually you might just get it....

Some one running off at the mouth using the 1st amendment can be way more deadly than someone carrying a gun. Should we require a training course and common sense testing before a person is allowed to speak to others in public or on an Internet forum

double said:

Some one running off at the mouth using the 1st amendment can be way more deadly than someone carrying a gun. Should we require a training course and common sense testing before a person is allowed to speak to others in public or on an Internet forum

Click to expand...

I would argue that "common sense testing" for speech already exists, you just don't recognize it as such.

Read the rules for posting on this forum. Don't follow the rules that the administrators have established, and you'll be banned.

1st amendment protects you against retaliation from the government, period.

A more logical argument would be to just state, "I don't agree with your point of view".

Tipmoose said:

Allowing me to carry a gun anywhere I want will make me feel better. But it will scare the crap outta people who don't understand guns and haven't been educated about them. And people will vote to control that which they don't understand or fear. The education and acceptance of guns as tools needs to happen first. Then people will accept that I can carry a tool wherever I want without a permit.That route is not one of instant gratification, but of long term survival.

Click to expand...

There's another bill in the General Assembly that would put on the ballot in November an amendment to the NC Constitution to protect our right to hunt and fish. (Where's CRC? He's falling down on the job) That all sounds nice and good but I do have concerns. From what I read, hunters make up about 10% of the voters that cast ballots in an election. There will be an ad war by each side on this issue. Can you convince the other 90% to vote for hunting rights? What happens if the hunting constitutional amendment is voted down? Some may say no change over current situation. But I'm worried that now the other side basically has a voter referendum where the majority of people don't think you have a hunting right so now we can further restrict them or even ban hunting.

Homebrewale said:

There's another bill in the General Assembly that would put on the ballot in November an amendment to the NC Constitution to protect our right to hunt and fish. (Where's CRC? He's falling down on the job) That all sounds nice and good but I do have concerns. From what I read, hunters make up about 10% of the voters that cast ballots in an election. There will be an ad war by each side on this issue. Can you convince the other 90% to vote for hunting rights? What happens if the hunting constitutional amendment is voted down? Some may say no change over current situation. But I'm worried that now the other side basically has a voter referendum where the majority of people don't think you have a hunting right so now we can further restrict them or even ban hunting.

Click to expand...

I have noted that parts of this thread have gone pretty far afield and this question further than most but as I have more than a little knowledge and experience in dealing with the public perceptions of hunting, trapping and fishing I'll chime in here. By federal law the US Fish and Wildlife Service working with the Census Bureau are required to research a wide variety of hunting and fishing related subjects. These include participation rates, economic impact etc for every state. Part of the data derived is used to help determine the amount of money available to the individual states fro federal sportfish and wildlife restoration funds generated by the excise taxes due to the Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson Acts.

And a lot of other folks fill in the interim years and also research additional data related to hunting and fishing. For at least three or four decades the level of general public support for hunting has remained remarkably consistent. Across the entire US population the level of support for hunting in general (either strongly approve or moderately approve) is around 70-80% with 6% either not caring or don't know and 15% who strongly or moderately disapprove.

As of the 2010 printing of my copy of "The Sportsman's Voice-Hunting and Fishing in America" (published by Responsive Management")shows the 2005 and 2006 surveys of North Carolinians at 84/81% approved of hunting and 12/13% who disapproved of hunting. Of note 57% said they "Thought it very important that people have the opportunity to hunt in the state."

All this national info was aggregated from a number of studies with a variety of question sets but there are a few consistent trends. If hunting is primarily for a trophy the level of support drops to 10-22% depending on the state. The same folks say that when hunting is for meat and a trophy the level of support hovers around 55-60% and if hunting primarily for food the level of support jumps to 65-92%, again, depending on the state (MD was the odd one out at 66% everyone else was in the 80s and 90s on this question).

Another important trend, and one that seems strange given the drop in overall participation rates, is that since the 90s overall level support for hunting has crept up 5% all while disapproval has dropped 6%. Go figure.

FWIW, I can find no case where folks in NC were asked about deer or bear hunting with dogs. From what I have on hand Georgia was the only nearby state asked that question (back in 1992) and 67% were opposed to the idea.

Well, I'll get down off the soap box now. If someone wants to start a thread about the proposed ballot initiative I'd be glad to post this to that thread and footnote it so folks have some talking points and background to reach out to others with. I can also reach out to the authors to see if they have a newer data for NC than 2006.



Lance

Wow, Lance...that's some really good information. Thanks for posting!

We have constitutional carry in WV as well, so far it has caused no issues whatsoever.

Good stuff Lance - NC is getting a great asset with you moving down here!

From the NRA

Finally, the Senate has not yet taken up the omnibus gun bill passed by the House, House Bill 746. Please continue to contact your state Senator and urge them to support this important pro-gun reform.

Unfortunately, opponents to our Right to Keep and Bear Arms have been wildly misrepresenting what HB 746 does, so please help to set the record straight.

HB 746 does not change the current requirements for those who wish to acquire a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP). It does not lower the age at which one can obtain a CHP, which remains 21, and it does not change any of the CHP training requirements.

HB 746 addresses a completely different section of North Carolina law. It simply changes the manner in which one can currently carry a handgun without first obtaining a CHP. Current law allows anyone who is at least 18 years old, and can lawfully possess a handgun, to carry one without a CHP, provided the handgun is visible. This law has been in place since long before the current CHP law was established in 1995, and there have been no discernible problems. The only significant change to the current laws governing the carrying of handguns contained in HB 746 would be how the handgun is carried, not who can carry it.

It is perfectly acceptable for anyone who is at least 18, and can legally possess a handgun, to carry it exposed. But the second one decides to put on a jacket or place the gun in a purse, as a matter of comfort or convenience, that person is somehow less safe or less trustworthy. HB 746 fixes this discrepancy in state law. Please continue to contact your state Senator and urge them to support HB 746 without any amendments.

Click to expand...

aya28ga said:

Hmm....

There's a lot of 18 & 40 year olds I know that can't be trusted with a water pistol, much less a firearm.
I think if you're going to take on the responsibility of carrying a firearm, then you have the obligation to acquire the training and proficiency to use it. Yes, I'm saying the CCW classes should be tougher / stricter, and with some sort of annual re-qualification.

Click to expand...

Hell man there's a lot of idiots giving those classes that have no business playing with guns let alone teaching others.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go ahead and repeal Driver's Ed law and write in a clause prohibiting insurance companies from escalating premiums for young drivers while they're at it. Look at the millions of dollars the state would save in funding the program and the money parents spend on assigned risk premiums. There is a hidden agenda on passing this bill and it is about alternate revenue. It is not as simple as repealing a piece of legislation. While the sheriff might lose $90 from permitting, there will be a replacement method of collecting revenue.