http://www.wral.com/gun-bill-would-allow-restaurant-carry-make-permit-holders-confidential-informaiton/12043058/

Quote :

"Gun bill would allow restaurant carry, make permit holders confidential information RALEIGH, N.C. — The first firearms-related measure to be filed this session would allow concealed handgun permit holders to bring their guns into restaurants where alcohol is served. House Bill 17, "Gun Permits/Restaurants & Confidentiality," would also remove information regarding who has a concealed handgun permits from the list of information government collects that is a public record. The lead sponsor on the measure if Rep. Justin Burr, R-Stanly."

1/30/2013 3:26:12 PM

Good.

1/30/2013 4:05:48 PM

Should make late night runs to the Waffle House more interesting.

1/30/2013 4:29:31 PM

i agree both of these things. where is the problem?

1/30/2013 4:31:47 PM

I concur. You are only legally allowed to carry if you have no trace of alcohol in your system. The folks who are going to act like assholes and bring a gun into a restaurant or bar and get drunk don't give a shit about the law anyway. If I want to go out to eat with the family I can carry. If I want to go watch State play some basketball and toss a couple back, I will keep that bitch at home.

1/30/2013 4:43:51 PM

I always thought that disallowing concealed carry without a metal detector at the door was schizophrenic policy. Even from a liberal point of view, it has to be recognized that a gun-free zone without a physical perimeter of some type doesn't make sense.

Question: is there any such thing as an opt-in or out by the business owner? Can an owner designate their restaurant as a place where you can carry if otherwise not allowed, or the other way around?

1/30/2013 4:56:47 PM

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/gun-free-business-policies-and-opt-out-statutes.html

According to that, NC is not an opt-out state. So guess not.

1/30/2013 5:06:27 PM

shouldn't that conflict make conservative's heads explode?


HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT MANDATE HOW PRIVATE BUSINESSES OPERATE!!!! Oh, it's about guns? Nevermind, then.

1/30/2013 5:11:41 PM

Quote :

"Can an owner designate their restaurant as a place where you can carry if otherwise not allowed, or the other way around?"

"No Firearms" signs have the force of law in NC. If there a clear and obvious sign at all entrances stating the firearms are not allowed, you can't carry there. It's a crime if you do.

There are currently no provisions in the NC statutes allowing a person to concealed carry on a premises that both sells and serves alcohol. The same is true for educational property, places that charge admissions, etc...

This website is a good legal reference for handgun laws: http://www.handgunlaw.us/

1/30/2013 5:11:58 PM

Meh. This is just the conservative firewall against an imaginary boogyman.

1/30/2013 5:21:05 PM

A check and balance against poor service.


"I ain't gonna tell you again that my sweet tea won't sweet enough"

1/30/2013 5:25:39 PM

1/30/2013 5:26:08 PM

Why don't we just legalize everything and rely on signs to dictate where we can do what.

1/30/2013 5:31:49 PM

It does make me ask why, in the 21st century, living in North Carolina, would someone feel overly compelled to carry a handgun with them everywhere? And just saying, "Because I can.." isn't good enough. I don't care that people do carry a firearm, I just see it more of a hassle and pretty silly.

1/30/2013 5:33:26 PM

Quote :

"It does make me ask why, in the 21st century, living in North Carolina, would someone feel overly compelled to carry a handgun with them everywhere?"

Options. True, bad things rarely happen. But having a weapon gives you more options in the event that something does happen. I can't fight a 250lb guy if he decides to rob me on the street or kick down my door in the middle of the night. Even if no criminals have weapons of any kind, I'm probably going to lose most fist fights. I may be able to flee. However, a gun may be the difference between staying in one piece and being killed. It provides an options for something other than my bodily harm in a situation where escape isn't an option. With luck, I'll never need the gun.

1/30/2013 5:46:39 PM

While walking from a bar downtown after 2:00 am, have you ever been beaten to a pulp, robbed, and left in a pool of blood on the sidewalk? I haven't either, but I know someone who has.

1/30/2013 5:47:49 PM

^ A bar is a poor example considering you can't carry if you've been drinking.

1/30/2013 5:51:11 PM

Quote :

""No Firearms" signs have the force of law in NC. If there a clear and obvious sign at all entrances stating the firearms are not allowed, you can't carry there. It's a crime if you do. There are currently no provisions in the NC statutes allowing a person to concealed carry on a premises that both sells and serves alcohol. The same is true for educational property, places that charge admissions, etc..."

So you can't opt in... but you can never opt out. I heard those same rules applies to lodging facilities in CA.

1/30/2013 5:53:03 PM

^^^Was this the same guy who was stabbed in the middle of the night in his own bedroom?

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2013 5:53:32 PM

It looks like I'm work about the opt-out idea. This is the statute:

Quote :

"§ 14-269.3. Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (b) This section shall not apply to the following: (1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14-269; (2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment; (3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and (4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event. (1977, c. 1016, s. 1; 1981, c. 412, s. 4, c. 747, s. 66; 1993, c. 539, s. 165; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)"

The owner or lessee of the premises or business can grant permission to others.

1/30/2013 5:58:42 PM

Quote :

"A bar is a poor example considering you can't carry if you've been drinking."

you can go to a bar and not drink (although i don't)

Quote :

"Was this the same guy who was stabbed in the middle of the night in his own bedroom?"

it wasn't actually his bedroom, he was staying at his girlfriend's house. she got away. and no, different people. although i bet you knew that, so i'm assuming you're just asking to be a jerk.

[Edited on January 30, 2013 at 6:15 PM. Reason : ]

1/30/2013 6:12:15 PM

This should pair nicely with NC's Shoot First law (stand your ground).

1/30/2013 6:12:32 PM

Why would I know that? Both events seem unlikely, so it could easily have been the same dude with some key information being omitted.

Carry on.

1/30/2013 6:16:18 PM

I didn't proofread my post in time so my joke was ruined

1/30/2013 6:26:18 PM

You can opt in any time you like but you can never leave?

1/30/2013 6:32:20 PM

such a lovey place...

1/30/2013 6:34:46 PM

great legislation. hope it passes.

1/30/2013 7:21:09 PM

wdprice3 do you think business owners should be allowed to disallow firearms from their establishments?

1/30/2013 7:40:53 PM

if they want to put up a sign that assures them that only criminals will be armed in their establishment on private property, then that's fine by me.

1/30/2013 7:53:22 PM

I can't speak for wdprice3, but I generally subscribe to the idea that people can't do what they want with their property. So if a business owner wants to ban people carrying concealed firearms, that's their option. I can always vote with my dollar and go somewhere else.

In other states, the law works that it's not a crime to have a weapon where there's a "no guns allowed" sign, but that you're compelled to leave if asked to do so. Reference the statues for states like Florida for an example.

1/30/2013 8:05:32 PM

Quote :

"In other states, the law works that it's not a crime to have a weapon where there's a "no guns allowed" sign, but that you're compelled to leave if asked to do so. "

i love this shit. keep it concealed like you should and they'll never know the difference. should the need for lawful use of the firearm arise, they'll probably be happy you disobeyed their goofy little sign.

if the hoplophobes knew how many CCers they encounter every day their heads would explode.

1/30/2013 8:16:58 PM

This is feel-good, pandering legislation. It's not actually meaningful. Sort of like the new AWB proposed, which has 2000 exemptions to "assault weapons" that are banned.

1/30/2013 8:52:30 PM

none of those 2000 "exemptions" would be banned under that law anyway. you could literally remove that list from the text of the bill and nothing would change

1/30/2013 9:27:47 PM

Quote :

"This is feel-good, pandering legislation. It's not actually meaningful."

Actually, for CCP holders, it is meaningful. Under current law, if you're carrying and decide you want to grab lunch from say Chili's or or MacGregor's or hell even Kanki or any of the other Japanese steak houses, as soon as you walk in the door you've just committed a crime unless you remove your gun and leave it in your car. And to be honest, I'd much rather the guys carrying continue to carry while they have lunch rather than removing their gun and leaving it unattended.

1/30/2013 10:39:28 PM

Quote :

"wdprice3 do you think business owners should be allowed to disallow firearms from their establishments?"

I'm not sure how you can tell private business owners what to do on their own property. Well, actually I can, but that only works if it's a liberal cause.

If a business owner wants to create a free kill zone, then go ahead. I vote with either my dollars or I may or may not still carry in said business. The only thing I'd like changed is to take the criminal portion out of this law. It should simply be trespassing.

Quote :

"This is feel-good, pandering legislation. It's not actually meaningful. Sort of like the new AWB proposed, which has 2000 exemptions to "assault weapons" that are banned."

No. What ^ said. It's not smart to force people to leave firearms in cars in parking lots. Too many smash and grabs. Some of you lefties complain about ill-secured firearms being stolen and adding to crime; then you should be against a law that forces people to leave guns in cars. It's a bad idea all around.

Also, the CCH list should not be public information, partly for the same reason.

1/31/2013 9:11:10 AM

Do you really think that someone could safely fire a firearm in a crowded restaurant? It would, at the very least, cause hearing damage to anyone in a few foot radius, right?

1/31/2013 9:15:12 AM

^ I think the libertarian position is "yes, but that should be the business owner's call"

Sometimes I feel like there's a lot of willful ignorance of what the crazy conservatives are saying around here. The arguments about effectiveness a gun in a circumstance is obviously aside from the point, because you're treating it as a national (global?) decision whereas he's treating it as a psuedo-individual or organizational decision.

1/31/2013 9:24:44 AM

Quote :

"Do you really think that someone could safely fire a firearm in a crowded restaurant? It would, at the very least, cause hearing damage to anyone in a few foot radius, right?"

1) By definition, firing a firearm is an unsafe act.

2) If someone is having to draw a firearm in self defense, hearing damage is pretty low on the list of concerns at the moment.

3) Firing in a crowded restaurant is not inherently more unsafe than firing in a crowded grocery store, wal-mart, mall or any other place where the firearms aren't restricted.

4) The more important feature of the proposed law is the elimination of an ineffectual restriction which causes unnecessary handling of the firearm and leaving a firearm unattended just so that someone can get some lunch.

Also what ^ said. There's no reason why a business owner shouldn't be allowed to restrict the activities that occur on their own property, but we don't need a blanket law that does nothing to solve an actual problem.

[Edited on January 31, 2013 at 9:32 AM. Reason : sdh]

1/31/2013 9:30:29 AM

Quote :

"If someone is having to draw a firearm in self defense, hearing damage is pretty low on the list of concerns at the moment."

If it's my hearing, it would be high on my list. I would most certainly take legal action if anyone caused me or my family deafness.

Quote :

"Firing in a crowded restaurant is not inherently more unsafe than firing in a crowded grocery store, wal-mart, mall or any other place where the firearms aren't restricted."

Those places are bigger, and generally not as crowded, additionally, that's a slippery slope argument.

Quote :

"The more important feature of the proposed law is the elimination of an ineffectual restriction which causes unnecessary handling of the firearm and leaving a firearm unattended just so that someone can get some lunch."

Properly securing the firearm is the resposibility of the owner.

Quote :

"There's no reason why a business owner shouldn't be allowed to restrict the activities that occur on their own property, but we don't need a blanket law that does nothing to solve an actual problem."

I think the majority of places would probably still restrict guns on their premises given a choice, so talk about ineffective laws...

1/31/2013 9:37:07 AM

Quote :

"If it's my hearing, it would be high on my list. I would most certainly take legal action if anyone caused me or my family deafness."

1/31/2013 9:46:34 AM

you're not going to be deaf, troll

1/31/2013 9:49:09 AM

Quote :

"No. What ^ said. It's not smart to force people to leave firearms in cars in parking lots. Too many smash and grabs. Some of you lefties complain about ill-secured firearms being stolen and adding to crime; then you should be against a law that forces people to leave guns in cars. It's a bad idea all around."

Just leave it in the glove box captain straw man. In any case, if you're not smart enough to secure your gun adequately, then you sure as hell shouldn't be CCing. Thank god for the thief.

Of course its pandering. Its trivial as fuck. All it does is let legislators claim to be "pro gun rights" in the next campaign without doing enough damage to attract moderate's ire.

1/31/2013 10:00:14 AM

"A one-time exposure to very loud noises like a gunshot at 140 dB can also cause hearing loss."
http://drbenkim.com/articles-decibel.html

1/31/2013 10:01:37 AM

So sue them and enjoy getting laughed out of court

troll

1/31/2013 10:03:29 AM

Quote :

"Also what ^ said. There's no reason why a business owner shouldn't be allowed to restrict the activities that occur on their own property"

I mean, there is. But I still don't like liberals ignoring the core point.

In the extreme, you could have a complete system of laws written for every building/property you enter. This probably sounds hyperbolic but IMO it's a very useful thought experiment. It highlights the reality that we don't/can't understand the law system of the sovereign ground that we live in.

Laws need to be clear and well-known by the population. They're not. You could say that allowing more people to set rules with the force of law would make the situation worse, and it might, but it might not. The problem with government is that there's no competition. Conservatives look at this and say "so we need to reduce the size/power of government". While the power overreach of govt actually is a problem, the correct solution to this problem is to create competition for laws and government.

1/31/2013 10:09:47 AM

wat

1/31/2013 10:11:32 AM

Quote :

"So sue them and enjoy getting laughed out of court"

A gunshot could most certainly cause hearing damage or tinnitus, especially in young children, and one could most certainly file a suit against the responsible party for causing that damage.

1/31/2013 10:34:57 AM

^^ They only way (in light of game theory) to make a government care about a minority is to empower them to kick a deadbeat legislature to the curb and take their tax dollars elsewhere.

1/31/2013 10:53:00 AM

^^ so go for it, troll

1/31/2013 10:54:21 AM

troll rabble rabble rabble troll

what a fantastic soap box poster you are

1/31/2013 11:01:59 AM