Haywood County, North Carolina, is considering a second amendment sanctuary resolution.  Collectivists are everywhere, even in the mountains of North Carolina.

Sometimes when the topic of gun rights comes up, people pick a side and put blinders on. In general there seems to be no room for compromise, let alone any listening with an open mind to what someone from the opposite side has to say.

But like in so many other ways, Haywood County is a special place where people find ways to overcome obstacles and work through issues.

That was on full display Tuesday evening when the county commissioner meeting room in the Historic Courthouse was jam-packed with people — most of whom were speaking up during a public comment session to ask that Haywood become a gun sanctuary county.

This is when a state or local government body passes a resolution indicating their support for the Second Amendment. Some resolutions resolve to not enforce gun control measures county leaders perceive as violating Second Amendment rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

There were about three dozen speakers, with the vast majority urging the commissioners to become a gun sanctuary county.

But there was a moment in the meeting when views seemed to soften just a bit. All in the room gave Haywood native Natalie Henry Howell a standing ovation when she asked for consideration of two gun control measures that may have saved the life of her son, Riley, who died during a school shooting at UNC-Charlotte after tackling the shooter and saving who knows how many other lives.

Riley was shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun, Howell told the crowd.

“I just want us to give some careful thought on whether or not that’s something we want out there,” Howell said. “The other thing I’d like to give careful thought to is tighter background checks, because I’m not real sure I understand why someone who says they want responsible gun ownership wouldn’t be for background checks that are thorough.”

The Howell family has long made it clear that Riley enjoyed target practice and that their stance is not to undermine the Second Amendment.

“We are not saying no to guns. There are just some things we can and need to do better,” Howell said in an earlier interview. “I hear people say ‘This won’t help’ or ‘That won’t help’ and I say ‘Well, OK, no single measure will end this gun violence epidemic, but it’s a start and will save lives.’”

Ironically, many of the Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions adopted by state or local government bodies advocate not enforcing laws viewed as limiting gun rights in any way. The wording raises questions.

Many speaking at the commissioner meeting said the resolution simply sends a message of support for Second Amendment rights, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that — or with expanding that message to include all the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. But as always, the devil is in the details.

[ … ]

Would a sanctuary resolution raise questions about laws passed by duly elected state and federal governing bodies, but not adjudicated through the court? What about laws upheld by our court system such as prohibiting felons from owning a gun or background checks?

Messages can be sent in multiple ways. There are risks to adopting a resolution worded in a way that could put locally elected officials in a position of picking and choosing what laws to enforce, which should be downright scary to those who believe in our form of government here in the United States. Additionally, withholding county resources from enforcing certain laws, as some of the gun sanctuary resolutions suggest, could set the county up for a lawsuit.

The commissioners all voiced support for gun rights, and all of them indicated they are gun users. They also indicated they are willing to adopt something, but want to be careful of how it is worded.

Well now, this is rich in detail, yes?  I think we all needed to know these things and I see her commentary as profoundly helpful.

The Howell family’s argument is an appeal to emotion, an attempt to garner sympathy from their tragic loss, and (the way I look at it) an inappropriate appeal to the life of their son.  Riley was “shot with rounds 13 through 18 from an extended magazine by a person with diminished mental capacity who should never have been able to own a gun.”

So we might point out that Riley could have been killed with a single round, and thus there is no difference between a single shot rifle and any other.  Furthermore, it would have been better for Riley, despite his heroic actions, to have been armed.  Rather than lobbying for limitations on magazine capacity, she should have been arguing against “gun-free” zones, which are never really free of guns, just free of gun-carrying law abiding citizens.

But more to the point, this isn’t in the least related to the resolution before the County Commissioners.  It’s a misdirect.  The task before them is to adopt the second amendment sanctuary resolution or reject it.  To that issue, I’d like to make some observations (and send this to each member of the county board of commissioners).  The board is made up of Kevin Ensley, Brandon C. Rogers, J. W. “Kirk” Kirkpatrick III, Tommy Long, and Mark Pless.

This is no small matter you’re taking up.  If you’re scared of lawsuits and things not being adjudicated through the courts, you need a gut check and review of your world and life view rather than a vote on this resolution.    Passing this resolution with the thought that you’re making some sort of “symbolic statement” is not just dishonest, but dangerous.

These sorts of resolutions have been passed before in various places, only to later learn that the county wasn’t serious about them and had no intention of using assets to enforce them, with the result that county residents who believed them were taken before federal courts for violating laws governing things like ownership of suppressors without having submitted approval to the ATF.

It is the worst sort of thing you can do, to set up your constituency for failure because they believed you, when you were actually making “statements,” or worse, telling lies for the sake of convenience or reelection.  You see, this resolution is before you because your constituency knows that the second amendment is under attack.  Adjudication through the courts has helped to get us where we are today rather than stopping or slowing it.

When the second amendment resolution passed in Lincoln County, the chairman of the board of commissioners said “If the state or even the federal government comes down with additional regulations, it’s gonna say that Lincoln County is not gonna come forth with that and it’s gonna be hard to take guns in Lincoln County.”  And said this: “If it comes to pass that they want to infringe upon the people’s rights to carry guns, it’s going to be a bad day for somebody.”

It sounds to me like she’s serious and knows what she believes.  Sheriff Mack, founder and president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, had this to say about things.

“A lot of those sanctuary cities and counties across the country don’t go far enough,” said Mack. “What do you do if they still come in and try to take law abiding citizens’ guns? [The sheriffs] need to actually intervene and interpose and not let it happen.”

You see, people like this are committed.  They know that the board of county commissioners must be on the side of liberty.  They know that the Sheriff and his deputies must be in agreement, and they know that the county attorney must also be on board.  Otherwise, it’s like the opinion pages of the Greensboro News & Record, saying, “To a large degree, these resolutions are harmless. They break no laws, nor do they change any laws. If they provide some degree of comfort to local residents, more power to them. Gun violence is regularly in the news these days, and we could all use a little comforting.”

If you see yourself as passing “harmless resolutions that comfort people,” then you should stand down now.  But if you see yourselves as an essential cog in the liberty machinery of America, and are seriously committed to the fight, I commend this resolution to you.

Either way, as long as you’re being honest about things, my readers in your county will know where you stand.

UPDATE: Gaston County, N.C., is also considering a 2A resolution soon.  I just penned a letter to them, encouraging their acceptance of the resolution, but with the same stipulations of seriousness.

UPDATE #2:  Mr. Tracy Philbeck, Chairman of the Gaston County Board of Commissioners, sends this article in response.

News from North Carolina.

LINCOLN COUNTY, N.C. — Officials with the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners voted to declare the county a “Second Amendment Sanctuary,” WBTV reports.

The vote happened Monday and a resolution says:

“The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners hereby expresses its intent to uphold the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of Lincoln County and that public funds, resources, employees, buildings or offices not be used to restrict Second Amendment rights or to aid or assist in the enforcement of the unnecessary and unconstitutional restriction of the rights under the Second Amendment of the citizens of Lincoln County to keep and bear arms.”

The resolution states that officials voted over concerns that legislation could be passed that infringes on “the rights of the citizens of Lincoln County to keep and bear arms or which may unduly restrict their right to the same,” and that “the criminal misuse of firearms is not a reason to infringe the rights of law-abiding citizens of Lincoln County.”

Open letter to the commissioners of Lincoln County

Dear commissioners,

I applaud your efforts to protect our God-given rights to keep and bear arms.  No doubt, what is happening in Virginia will come further South as nanny-state controller and collectivist Michael Bloomberg pours his ill-gotten money into our state just like he did in Virginia.  They want Virginia to be the model for gun control.  They have said so.

I also applaud your attention to detail – you have struck while it’s appropriate, not waiting for the efforts of Raleigh to infringe upon our God-given rights to make it clear that you won’t participate.

However, as I have warned my readers in Virginia, this is only the beginning.  If you will, it’s the first volley.  There is much more to come, and you must show your resolve in the coming days, weeks, months and years.  The controllers don’t rest, and neither can you.  To them, this is the long war.  Your resolve will require the same level of commitment.

This resolution will require commitment and absolute devotion to your duty, and even more.  Law enforcement officials will need to be fisked to see exactly where they stand.  The Sheriff, township LEOs, and city police, must be on board.  Regulations will have to be passed, or rejected, based on your commitment to the 2A.

It may come down to even more.  The resolution you passed means, as best as I understand it, that you will not allow county resources to be used to infringe on the RKBA.  This is well and good, but it won’t be enough if what is happening in Virginia is our tutor.

County LEOs must be willing to prevent others from infringing upon those same rights, and that might mean meeting them at the roadways and interdicting their efforts.  It might mean preventative tasks rather than merely sitting on the sideline and refusing to participate.  If you won’t help them, they may take on the task without your help.

Furthermore, I would have liked to see a stronger statement, more like what we are seeing in Virginia.  We know their game, and while state authorities might be claiming to honor our God-given rights by allowing bolt action rifles and three-round magazines for deer hunting, we all know that the second amendment isn’t about deer hunting with bolt action rifles or turkey hunting with 12 gauge shotguns.  It’s about much, much more than that.

The resolutions in Virginia make it utterly clear that they know the governor of Virginia is out to confiscate and/or register modern sporting rifles, standard capacity magazines, handguns of all kinds, and is pressing a host of other infringements (such as shutdown of shooting ranges and prohibitions on shooting in the bush or where regulations don’t cover).

You see, their designs are comprehensive, far-reaching and all-inclusive.  The very nature of the controller is to control everyone and everything.  They cannot not do that.  “Can a leopard change it spots?”  So your resolve must be as absolute as is theirs, and as is the governor of our very own state, who is as much of a controller as the governor of Virginia.

Your warnings to the controllers cannot be empty warnings.  Otherwise, they are toothless and meaningless, and you may as well have never acted to begin with.

Are you up to the task?

I was watching this video and they got a bit long winded, so I bailed out.  But not before learning about a bill to require registration of so-called “assault weapons” in North Carolina.

You see, we get a routine influx of New Yorkers, Californians and others into N.C. that tilts our politics left, and this sort of thing comes up often.

But this might be a bit different given the proclivities of the current person who lives in the governor’s mansion.  I think I’ve located it here.  It does exactly that as I read it.  But if some other reader knows something else please let me know.  Also, I assume that GRNC knows more about this than I do, so I’ll try to check with them on this.

So there’s a fight right in my own yard to deal with.  It’s not just happening in Virginia.

News from NC.

Obviously we’re going to suggest no one take a firearm to a bus stop to pick up a child, but as far as criminal behavior, we can’t find a criminal violation,” said Chris Honeycutt with the Stanly County Sheriff’s Office.

Ignoring the question whether it was wise to carry a rifle to a bus stop, the Sheriff’s office made the right call here.  As we’ve seen before, North Carolina is an open carry state, and that includes any firearm.

I hope that North Carolina LEOs are finally learning this lesson.  It’s damn well taken long enough.

GRNC:

To GRNC supporters from GRNC president Paul Valone:

The good news is that, at least for now, you have won a great victory. The Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for S90 has been pulled from the Judiciary Committee calendar and will not be considered tomorrow. If you had planned to attend the meeting, please do not go… at least for now.

It has come to our attention that Senator Dan Britt has been responding to the many respondents to GRNC’s alert by telling them we are incorrect about the bill. At least initially, Sen. Britt apparently didn’t understand his own bill… perhaps because it was the NC Sheriff’s Association that fed him a bill of goods. Now that he apparently understands the problem, he has professed the best of intentions. We will take him at his word.

Why Sen. Britt was wrong about the S90 PCS
In its current form, the S90 PCS would indeed make concealed handgun permits discretionary by adding essentially the same subjective “good moral character” clause which sheriffs have been using to arbitrarily deny pistol purchase permits for many decades. It would do so under a new GS 14-415(a1)(2) by requiring applicants for concealed handgun permits (which it now calls “Class A” permits) to also qualify for pistol purchase permits (renamed “Class B” permits).

The language is, at best, vague. We can argue forever whether its vagueness limits or actually expands sheriffs’ arbitrary “discretion,” the bottom line is this: 1919 Jim Crow language originally intended to deny guns to blacks has no place in modern statutes, and especially not in a hugely successful “shall-issue” concealed handgun statute which GRNC got passed back in 1995, and which has produced a huge plummet in NC violent crime ever since.

Why a ‘fix’ won’t work
We appreciate that Sen. Britt has offered to “fix” the language to remove the “moral character” clause from the concealed handgun language. While a nice gesture, doing so fails to address the problem that the S90 PCS is flawed not only in execution, but in concept.

The portion of the PCS dealing with pistol purchase permits (a/k/a “Class B” permits) purports to be an improvement because it “authorizes” (yes, “authorizes”) applicants to purchase as many handguns as they want over 5 years for a higher $25 fee. Ignoring for a moment, that “authorizing” handgun purchases turns a right into a privilege, and that people of lesser means, who can afford only one defensive handgun now experience a 500% “tax increase” (from $5 to $25) to buy a single handgun, please consider the following.

Six years ago, thanks to the efforts of GRNC and then-Sen. Buck Newton, as part of restaurant carry bill H937, the NC Senate voted to repeal our Jim Crow pistol purchase law in favor of point-of-sale checks as done in nearly all other states. Unfortunately, when the bill was sent to the House, then-Speaker Thom Tillis insisted the measure be removed.

By contrast, what the NC Senate is doing now is to cement our Jim Crow purchase permit law permanently in place, permanently enshrining it in such a way to make full repeal all but impossible. It is often said that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” In this case, the mediocre is the enemy of the morally just.

Sheriffs association: All about money and power
At issue is the role of the NC Sheriffs’ Association (NCSA) in this debacle. By all indications, they wanted the “moral character” clause added to concealed handgun permits and were, perhaps, disingenuous in their negotiations with Senate bill sponsors.

As GRNC VP Don Pomeroy notes, in at least its original form, the PCS lines the pockets of NC sheriffs while hanging the NC Department of Public Safety out to dry.  Language in this bill would strip 100% of the permit fees currently shared with NCDPS and create a cash windfall by giving that money to sheriffs increasing their current share of the permit fees by over 100%.

Moreover, the PCS would have given sheriffs power over to whom they issued either pistol purchase permits or concealed handgun permits… if they issued such permits at all.

The second you turn your head, the communists are at it again.  They never sleep, do they?  There isn’t a single God-given right you have they wouldn’t take to themselves if they could, there isn’t a single dollar you or anyone else has that they wouldn’t take if they could, and there isn’t a single bureaucratic machine they don’t like.

That’s right.  Your single guess was good enough, and you got it right.  North Carolina CLEOs and the Sheriff’s association.

Or in other words, the communists.

Thanks to Paul Valone and GRNC for their diligent work on this and similar issues.  We’d be in a pickle without them.

I appreciate the folks on reddit/firearms keeping me up to date on the latest attempts at communist gun control in the North Carolina House of Representatives.  H.B. 86 is summarized as follows.

AN ACT TO REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR THE PURCHASE OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR LONG GUN; TO REQUIRE A 72-HOUR WAITING PERIOD BEFORE A PURCHASED  FIREARM MAY BE DELIVERED OR OTHERWISE POSSESSED; TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF AN ASSAULT WEAPON OR LONG GUN TO PERSONS UNDER A CERTAIN AGE; TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OR POSSESSION OF A BUMP STOCK OR TRIGGER  CRANK; TO REQUIRE THE SAFE STORAGE OF A FIREARM; TO REVISE RECIPROCITY LAW FOR A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT; TO REQUIRE THE REPORTING OF A LOST OR STOLEN FIREARM; TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON WHO OWNS A FIREARM TO CARRY FIREARM LIABILITY INSURANCE; TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF AMMUNITION MAGAZINES; TO REPEAL THE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL  REGULATION OF FIREARMS; AND TO ALLOW THE DESTRUCTION OF A SEIZED FIREARM.

I see that the totalitarians are shooting for the moon.  This has every fevered wet dream that has ever crossed the mind of the statists except outright ban of so-called “assault weapons,” which I’m certain would be in there without at least a hint that this bill might fail.

Age limits, waiting periods, fees to make it more expensive to own a firearm, charges for people who had access to a firearm when someone invaded their home and used it in self defense (i.e., “safe storage”), permitting for long guns as well as pistols, etc.

So instead of going in the right direction, which would be to do away with the pistol permitting scheme, which we all know is merely a way to raise revenue for the county sheriffs, they are going in the wrong direction, which is to expand this bastard program to long guns.

Well, allow me to take a very little time and help you to understand how most of us think about the issue of weapons.  We believe that ownership of the means of self defense and the amelioration of tyranny is a God-given right, not subject to amendment by men.  The constitution, which forbids what you are trying to do, is a covenant, an agreement between men concerning how we will live.  When either side breaks the covenant, it is forever broken, releasing the offended party from its obligations, and consequences necessarily follow from that.

All gun control, since God expects, even requires, that men defend home and hearth by whatever means is necessary, is wicked.

The Bible does contain a few direct references to weapons control. There were many times throughout Israel’s history that it rebelled against God (in fact, it happened all the time). To mock His people back into submission to His Law, the Lord would often use wicked neighbors to punish Israel’s rebellion. Most notable were the Philistines and the Babylonians. 1 Samuel 13:19-22 relates the story: “Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!” So all Israel went down to the Philistines to have their plowshares, mattocks, axes, and sickles sharpened…So on the day of battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in this hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them.” Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon also removed all of the craftsmen from Israel during the Babylonian captivity (2 Kings 24:14). Both of these administrations were considered exceedingly wicked including their acts of weapons control.

The Almighty is the Lord of men, not tin pot dictators, and it is He who demands fealty.  Whether this bill gets a hearing, what ultimately happens means absolutely nothing concerning our rights.  It can only damn you in eternity as you attempt to supplant the edicts of a Holy God.  Our rights stand firm, do not change, and will not bend, since they are a function of the very character of the Almighty.

But just in case any of this isn’t clear enough to you, let me share what’s currently happening with and to the communists in Maryland, who are also attempting gun control.

Here I am with Wicomico County Sheriff Michael Lewis, who says he “will not comply” with onerous gun laws like long gun licensing and confiscation.

The brave gun owners of Maryland are saying, “We will not comply.”  And rest assured, whether North Carolina gun owners show up in droves or not to any such hearings in the North Carolina Senate or House, neither will we.

At some point, totalitarians must hear the word ‘no’.  Your move.

Via WoG, this:

‘Hunting & Fishing’ ballot initiative: a thin veil covering the GOP’s apathy toward gun owners…

Other organizations may be happy with a hunting and fishing ballot initiative posing as pro-gun legislation, but we at GRNC are not fooled by a wispy, token gesture in the absence of real pro-gun legislative action. Second Amendment voters like you played a pivotal role in Republicans gaining and maintaining a supermajority in the NC legislature, but how has Republican leadership repaid you for this? Simple:

1. GOP Senate leaders, like Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger, have spent a full two years ignoring gun owners, refusing to give GRNC’s ‘Permitless Concealed Carry’ bill (HB 746) even a hearing, let alone bring it to the floor for a vote.

2. Republicans in the NC House, like Speaker Tim Moore, have refused to give a hearing to the time-critical School Self-defense Act (HB 1039), which would help protect our vulnerable school children.

If that’s not a sharp enough stick in the eye, NC’s GOP Executive Director, Dallas Woodhouse, recently proclaimed on Facebook that the GOP will not move pro-gun bills during this session. And yes, you read that right, Dallas Woodhouse is not the Democrat’s Executive Director, he is the ostensibly “pro-gun” Republican’s.

4. Now, our state’s Republican politicians have further “repaid” you by putting forth a virtually meaningless ballot initiative, meant only to conjure thoughts of gun rights and to get conservative voters to the polls. Unfortunately, the ballot initiative does little or nothing to advance gun rights in our state. It definitely won’t protect school children, nor will it help you protect your family.

Good.  No one gets my vote by allowing me to pick up crumbs that fall from the master’s table.  I still want the idiotic, communistic system of CLEO approval for handgun purchases to be thrown out of the state.  I have a CHP for the simple and only reason that I cannot purchase handguns in NC without it.

Because NC republicans are communists.  Oh, and by the way, I don’t give a shit about your stupid hunting and fishing ballot initiatives.

Citizen Times:

“I don’t think we’ll take up gun legislation of any type,” said state Rep. Chuck McGrady, a Henderson County Republican first elected to the General Assembly in 2010, the same year Republicans established control of the body.

“To get to a different place on guns, you’d have to have a different mix of legislators — it’s a pretty conservative state,” McGrady said. “I do anticipate we’ll be putting some monies into the school safety issue.”

That would revolve around “hardening” schools — adding security, police officers and other physical measures that would make schools more difficult for a shooter to attack — not measures designed to make it harder to buy guns.

State Rep. Brian Turner, a Democrat who represents part of Buncombe County, said it’s unrealistic to expect the Republican-dominated legislature to impose rules making it harder to get guns when the body opens the 2018 session May 16.

“If we do see something, I would imagine it would probably be along the lines of the hardening of schools and adding additional resource officers,” Turner said. “I think the focus would be less around firearms specifically and more about deterrence and prevention.”

A gun owner and hunter himself, Turner is far from anti-gun. But restrictions on “Title 2 weapons,” such as short-barreled shotguns or suppressors, might make sense, he said.

While North Carolina elected a Democratic governor, Roy Cooper, in 2016, it also went overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump, a Republican. On gun issues, the Tar Heel State is reliably conservative, according to Chris Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University.

Cooper acknowledged Florida’s legislature raised the age to buy an AR-15 to 21 after the school shooting, as the shooter was 19, but he said “it’s unlikely we’ll see a lot of movement” in North Carolina.

“I think there was a policy window that opened briefly, but it appears to be closing,” Cooper said. “Florida had a little bit of movement, and people are talking about the issue, but I don’t think there’s a lot of persuasion going on. Even though people are talking about it more, I think both sides are drawing people more firmly into their own camps.”

Gun control legislation is “a particularly tough sell in North Carolina,” which has a strong tradition of hunting and gun ownership.

“We’ve looked to be to the left of some of the country on some issues, but gun rights is not one of those issues,” Cooper said.

Restrictions on suppressors might make sense to State Rep. Brian Turner because he is an idiot.  If he is a hunter like he says he is, he would understand the value of hearing and how much damage can be done to it.  So I think he is lying.  I don’t think he’s a hunter at all.

Moreover, hunting has nothing whatsoever to do with gun rights or the second amendment or the constitution of North Carolina.  So I think he just threw in hunting to bolster his creds thinking that we’d buy it.  I don’t.  I don’t buy any of his claptrap.  I wish people would stop mentioning hunting in the context of gun rights.  It’s stupid and it makes the person saying it look like an imbecile.

But what I do buy is that the NC legislature will do nothing to enact further restrictions on firearms freedoms without a huge fight.  For the sake of everyone, this isn’t a bridge Turner or anyone else wants to cross.  The only gun legislation I want to see is constitutional carry and repeal of the CLEO permitting process.

Seldom does any newspaper in North Carolina do anything but a hatchet job on gun laws, but the News and Observer has actually done a service outlining where the gun owner stands in North Carolina, good and bad.

When it comes to domestic violence, North Carolina has stronger gun control rules in some circumstances, and weaker rules in other circumstances.

North Carolina bans people with even a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction from getting a concealed carry permit, and in some cases the courts can also ban domestic abusers from buying guns in the future.

Furthermore, North Carolina is one of only seven states that require judges to force abusers to surrender their guns – if there are allegations of violence or violent threats. Most states just give the judge that option. However, some states also give judges the option to order abusers to surrender guns even in cases that don’t involve imminent threats of violence, but North Carolina specifically forbids that.

Stop there and let’s discuss for a moment.  Notice that in North Carolina a person must surrender his guns if there are only “allegations of violence.”  Yes, I know someone who has had this happen to them, where a bitter separation or divorce was the catalyst for a false charge, and the man had to surrender his guns.  Unproven in court, mind you, no evidentiary basis, mind you, just allegations.

An accused abuser doesn’t even have to be convicted in criminal court of domestic violence to be ordered to surrender his guns; he just has to be subject to a restraining order. When there are particularly troubling allegations, especially involving the abuse of children or threats of immediate violence, courts can grant temporary restraining orders without the accused abuser getting the option to defend himself first.

Gregory Wallace, a constitutional law professor at Campbell University Law School in Raleigh, said concerns have been raised that people can lose their guns – even just temporarily – without the chance to tell their side of the story in court.

“Even though there eventually is a judicial hearing on the matter, these orders can unjustifiably deprive people of their constitutional rights, whether out of malice or sincere but mistaken concern,” Wallace said.

[ … ]

Can the government take your guns?

No. Or, at least, not unless they’re being seized as evidence for trial.

Even when it becomes illegal for people to own a gun – like after they have been convicted of a felony or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital – police don’t come in and take away their guns.

That’s partially because government officials typically have no idea who owns guns, or how many. Durham had been the only county in North Carolina that tracked who owned handguns – but that registry was shut down in 2014 by the North Carolina General Assembly.

Even in domestic violence cases in which the abuser is required to surrender his guns, police can’t go and take the guns. Instead, the abuser has to surrender the guns on his own and promise that he didn’t keep any.

I’m not sure about this part and would have to do more research, but it seems a stretch and I think I recall times when cops have been sent to confiscate weapons in North Carolina.

What guns are illegal?

For the most part, American citizens and legal permanent residents who are over 21 can buy any gun they want. People over 18 can buy rifles and shotguns, but not handguns.

And people who aren’t yet old enough to buy their own guns can still use other people’s guns in certain circumstances, like if they have their parents’ permission.

It’s a common misconception that highly dangerous weapons like machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and other “weapons of mass destruction” are illegal for people outside the military to own. But it’s actually completely legal to buy those weapons as long as you have a National Firearms Act permit, which requires extra fees and background checks.

And this area is one where North Carolina has looser gun control rules than most other states.

Before 2015, local law enforcement officials were allowed to use their discretion in denying someone one of those permits – for example, if the applicant had never been convicted of a crime but the county sheriff knew he was a gang member, or if the sheriff simply didn’t want any locals owning machine guns.

But that changed after former Gov. Pat McCrory signed a wide-ranging gun bill into law that included several changes, including one requiring sheriffs to approve those NFA permit applications as long as the person meets all the guidelines.

I recall when McCrory did this.  It was a sad day when little boy Roy Cooper was elected Governor of NC.  If Pat has just fought the toll lane on I-77, this wouldn’t have happened.

It is one of the few states to require background checks for private sales of handguns, although private sales of rifles and shotguns can still happen without background checks. Private sales include everything except for buying a gun from a licensed dealer – like making a purchase from someone at a gun show at the fairgrounds, or from a friend or family member.

This is poorly stated and incorrect as it reads.  It is impossible for a citizen to perform a background check on his potential buyer according to the stipulations of the NCIS because he has no access to it.  Rather, state law requires that the seller verify that the buyer have a concealed handgun permit.  Whether this happens or not is another issue.

There are clear legal distinctions about the right to carry guns in North Carolina. People can carry openly in some places as long as they can legally own a gun, but no one can carry a concealed gun without a permit.

The concealed carry application process is handled by the sheriff of the county you live in; it consists of a $90 fee, a background check and a test of basic firearms skills.

Anyone who has gotten a concealed carry permit in any other state can also legally carry concealed in North Carolina. And 36 states – including all the states that border us – recognize concealed carry permits granted here.

This oversimplifies what’s required to get a CHP.  One must also have fingerprints made and sign over authority to examine medical records to the CLEO.  The CLEO then has the authority to inquire of medical facilities in the area whether you’ve had admissions for substance abuse or mental health.  The author likely doesn’t know that because he doesn’t have a CHP himself.  He ought to have been required to obtain one before writing this report.

North Carolina has in my opinion draconian gun laws, while being a shall issue state is still overbearing in terms of medical history for a CHP.  All of it is an infringement on the God-given right to keep and bear arms, as we all know.  On the other hand, it’s useful and worthwhile to stay out of prison if for no other reason than to be with and support your family.

Finally, note that North Carolina is an open carry state.  I’ve never even seen any attempts floated to reverse that.  In general, South Carolina has better gun laws that North Carolina, including no CLEO approval for handgun purchases.

How then can South Carolina persist in their idiotic opposition to open carry?

WRAL.com:

Raleigh, N.C. — A House committee voted Wednesday in favor of a bill that would eliminate North Carolina’s requirement that people obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

House Bill 746 creates “parity” for people who are allowed to carry guns openly but suddenly find themselves on the wrong side of the law if they put on a jacket and cover up their holstered sidearms simply because they lack a concealed carry permit, said sponsor Rep.Chris Millis, R-Pender.

“This bill would allow law-abiding citizens to be able to carry concealed, regardless of obtaining the mandatory government permit, and this ability to carry concealed is only in places where it is currently allowable to openly carry a firearm,” Millis said, noting 13 other U.S. states have similar rules on the books.

Concealed carry permits are issued through a county sheriff’s office, which conducts a criminal background check and looks for records of mental illness or incapacity. The requirement has long been a sore spot with gun rights advocates, who say it gives sheriffs too much power to deny gun owners what they say is their constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon.

Grass Roots North Carolina has worked hard for this bill, and I certainly support it.  I also enjoyed meeting GRNC face to face at the recent gun show in Charlotte, and was pleased to hear that some of them read my articles.  But this bill isn’t all that it seems.

Oh to be sure, it’s potentially carry without a permit, but let me ask you a question?  Why would this be the case?

The North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association has taken no position on the bill, but said it’s pleased legislators didn’t also move to revoke permits required to buy handguns. County sheriffs are a key voice in the debate because they issue handgun permits.

The North Carolina Sheriff’s Association has taken no position on the bill.  They couldn’t care less.  It tells you why right in that single sentence.  To give you a little background, at one time the CLEO had to issue both permits to carry and permits to buy a handgun.  The permit to carry involved a lot more than permits to buy, including a comprehensive review of medical records that you must turn over to the CLEO.

They still do that, and they also still issue permits to buy handguns, but oops, what do you know, unintended consequences and all, the CLEOs need more time and more money and more personnel because that mental health screening that was previously done for CHP holders – yea, that one, well, they do it for all handgun purchases now.

So just to buy a handgun requires one and the same process as a CHP holder goes through.  Recognizing constitutional carry is a bit of a ruse and misdirect when they have just now incorporated the full CHP process into handgun purchases.  While several months ago some state senators waxed confused and apologetic over the behemoth new system they didn’t know they were creating, it’s almost as if they planned this whole thing to begin with.

Pardon me if I don’t get giddy over constitutional carry in North Carolina.  Get rid of the communist CLEO permitting system for handgun purchases and then I’ll think you’re actually doing something about liberty in North Carolina.