NC H61 - Let's get pushing

np307

Happy to be here.
Joined
Feb 1, 2017
Messages
1,327
Location
Davidson County, NC
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Here's the short version:

  1. Permitless carry would be instituted at equal status with a CHP with exceptions regarding carry in a place serving alcoholic beverages and carry on educational property
  2. The language which caused the whole "mental health waiver" for PPP is eliminated which should speed the process up considerably in the left-leaning areas. The PPP itself is retained though.
  3. CHP is retained and is expanded to include carry on private post-secondary educational property (not just stored in a car).
  4. Provision is made for both a firearms safety and wildlife conservation elective for high school.
Could be better but its a definite improvement to our laws. Looks like some calls are in order. Going to also need a close watch on amendments. While I hate that it retains the PPP, that may be the thing that saves this bill.

Link to full text: https://www.ncleg.gov/Sessions/2019/Bills/House/PDF/H61v0.pdf

Edit to add: don't freak about about how much of this bill looks new, lots of statutes had to be changed to remove prohibitions exempted by CHP.
 
Last edited:
Well, let's see how far this gets.
 
Last edited:
In its current form, Governor will veto, R's no longer have the votes to override, and no D will ever vote for anything pro-gun. It's possible they could do some horse trading, for example, toss out the campus carry in exchange for Extreme Risk Protection Orders. I wish they had done this two years ago instead of wasting a legislative session pushing constitutional carry.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it doesn't look good for getting past Roy. We would need 2 dems to cross over in the senate and 8 to cross over in the house, which is pretty unlikely. @MostWanted this bill is almost identical to the one pushed in 2017 that got killed in committee, so I'm not sure what you want?
 
I agree that it doesn't look good for getting past Roy. We would need 2 dems to cross over in the senate and 8 to cross over in the house, which is pretty unlikely. @MostWanted this bill is almost identical to the one pushed in 2017 that got killed in committee, so I'm not sure what you want?

For a start, the best defense is a good offense. ;)

I was just at the Legislature this morning actually and while I haven’t read the bill yet, I did get a lot of face time in with various representatives & their smoking hot aides. :eek: I am always blown away by the amount of Grace Kelly type beauty in that building..
 
I’m sure it’ll go far with a Democrat governor. Same dog and pony show as always, they had all the time in the world to fix this but instead we’re to worried about the gays getting married and which toilet people used. But it’ll help fill the accounts of their fund raising divisions(NRA,GRNC).
 
I’m sure it’ll go far with a Democrat governor. Same dog and pony show as always, they had all the time in the world to fix this but instead we’re to worried about the gays getting married and which toilet people used. But it’ll help fill the accounts of their fund raising divisions(NRA,GRNC).

They, the R's, will use it to raise campaign funds for reelection. If they had fixed it when they had the chance, it would have killed it as a money maker for them.
 
They, the R's, will use it to raise campaign funds for reelection. If they had fixed it when they had the chance, it would have killed it as a money maker for them.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!! Winner, winner, and all that...

It's not about doing what's good, it's about getting reelected, always has been, always will be. The only thing that would even hope to stop the madness is term limits. But they will never vote for that.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it doesn't look good for getting past Roy. We would need 2 dems to cross over in the senate and 8 to cross over in the house, which is pretty unlikely. @MostWanted this bill is almost identical to the one pushed in 2017 that got killed in committee, so I'm not sure what you want?

Maybe I misunderstood. Is this a constitutional carry bill? If so, then I misread it.
 
Could have changed CHP to CWP while they were at it and remove ambiguity of traveling with long guns...
 
Back
Top Bottom