{"id":296,"date":"2012-05-24T01:50:15","date_gmt":"2012-05-24T01:50:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/grnc.org\/wp\/index.php\/2012\/05\/24\/grnc-alert-5-23-12-keep-pressure-on-to-stop-state-of-emergency-gun-ban\/"},"modified":"2012-05-24T01:50:15","modified_gmt":"2012-05-24T01:50:15","slug":"grnc-alert-5-23-12-keep-pressure-on-to-stop-state-of-emergency-gun-ban","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/grnc.org\/wp\/2012\/05\/grnc-alert-5-23-12-keep-pressure-on-to-stop-state-of-emergency-gun-ban\/","title":{"rendered":"GRNC Alert 5-23-12: Keep Pressure On To Stop \u2018State of Emergency\u2019 Gun Ban"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Unconstitutional gun ban pulled from calendar for \u2018more time to review the issue\u2019<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n


<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n


Your voice is being heard: Now you must deliver a \u2018no compromise\u2019 message!<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

As you recall, House Bill 489, formerly dealing with mechanics\u2019 liens, was stripped to replace its guts with \u201cDangerous Weapons Restrictions in Emergencies.\u201d The bill is ostensibly intended to replace North Carolina\u2019s ban on transportation of firearms and ammunition outside the home during declared states of emergency \u2013 which was declared unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in Bateman v. Perdue \u2013 with a law which would pass constitutional muster.<\/span><\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the current proposal is worse than the original law, offering no significant protections but instead new restrictions which reach into your very home. Because the \u201cProposed Committee Substitute\u201d won\u2019t appear on the legislature\u2019s web site until it is heard, you can see it at: <\/a>http:\/\/grnc.org\/https:\/\/grnc.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2012\/05\/H489-CSSA-71.pdf <\/a><\/span><\/p>\n

WHO IS BEHIND HB 489?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

What is becoming clearer, however, is that this might be a case of inadequately supervised staffers running amok. When emergency management bill HB 843 went to the Senate Judiciary I Committee, it still contained the language found unconstitutional in Bateman. Committee chair Sen. Pete Brunstetter then reportedly gave it to staff to \u201cfix.\u201d But instead of simply repealing the now-unconstitutional gun ban, they apparently took it upon themselves to draft new gun bans. Equally clear is that although HB 489 was Rep. \u201cSkip\u201d Stam\u2019s bill, Stam wasn\u2019t even informed that his bill would be gutted before it was attempted.<\/span><\/p>\n

What remains to be seen is whether Brunstetter and other Republicans will do the right thing and simply repeal the old ban. Right now, too many are still making noises about using gun bans to combat looting during natural or manmade disasters \u2013 once again falling for the old trap of targeting lawful guns instead of unlawful behavior.<\/span><\/p>\n

Thanks to overwhelming input to the committee, it has been pulled from the calendar pending further review. Now it\u2019s time to contact YOUR state senator<\/span><\/strong> and let them know that you will tolerate nothing less than the repeal of the unconstitutional gun ban, and that you will accept NO NEW BANS<\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n

THE FLAWS IN HB 489<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

To give you the flavor of the bill, consider part of its long title: \u201cAn Act to Authorize<\/strong><\/span> the Possession, Storage, and Use of Dangerous Weapons During a State of Emergency for Self-Defense in a Person\u2019s Home\u2026<\/em>\u201d [Emphasis added]<\/span><\/p>\n

You read it right: Bureaucrats would \u201cauthorize\u201d keeping firearms in the home, leading us to ask what other fundamental rights they might someday feel the need to \u201cauthorize.\u201d Freedom of speech, perhaps? Of religion?<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Fundamental flaws in HB 489:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n