Sen. Bill Cook talks about gun control and preventing another Sandy Hook | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    If our records are anywhere near representative of the population as a whole the most talked about issue in recent days has been "gun control." Every article on the topic we have posted has gone through the roof in our logs that track the number of hits as well as the amount time readers have spent on those articles (indicating that they are reading most of the articles).

    The President has appointed a special group to study what can be done to prevent another Sandy Hook massacre. He appointed Vice President Biden to head up the group. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has said she will introduce a new bill to ban what she calls "assault weapons" even though her previous ban expired without enough support in Congress to extend it. The National Rifle Association has said it will oppose Feinstein's new proposal, which would ban by name more than 120 weapons and establish a national registration system.

    Governor-elect Pat McCrory has called for hiring more school resource officers to place armed police in our schools.

    But most of the people who have commented on our articles posted here are in favor of removing existing restrictions on guns, specifically on the right of people to carry concealed weapons. There is strong sentiment among our readers to allow selected teachers/administrators who volunteer to participate to carry their weapons on school property.

    So we contacted Senator-elect Bill Cook and asked him what he saw happening during this session of the Legislature and what he thinks needs to be done. Here's what he had to say.

    On the issue of banning weapons he said: "I am opposed to what I have heard Sen. Feinstein is proposing. I don't think it will work to try to ban guns. The shooter in Connecticut would not have been stopped by such a ban. We read almost every day about convicted felons in North Carolina having a weapon which is clearly a violation of the law. Bad folks can always get a gun. Gun laws only restrict the honest, law-abiding people and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and nut cases."

    On the issue of having armed guards and teachers/administrators in our schools, Sen. Cook said: "I strongly favor eliminating the 'Gun Free Zones'. These zones do not work. They have worked only to make our schools defenseless against criminals and deranged people who ignore the law. It didn't work at Sandy Hook or other "Gun Free Zones". If there were several people in each school who were trained to use weapons correctly and were screened to insure that they know when and how to use them, then I think some of these tragedies could be prevented or at least made less deadly. Teachers or Administrators who want to, and have legitimate concealed carry permits should be allowed to do so. I think the same should be true for other state employees as well. Knowing that there are going to be people who can defend the people in a building would have a deterrent effect on evil people. Folks that have a concealed carry permit don't wear uniforms and that fact accomplishes two very good things. The evil doer doesn't know where the defense will be coming from and the school doesn't look like an armed camp. It would be more economical to allow selected educators to be armed than it would to hire a bunch of new school resource officers. We have enough concealed carry permit holders who could be just as qualified to use firearms as police officers are. One resource officer is not going to be enough in most schools. This proposal to add armed uniform officers might protect our children but create at the same time a new expensive government bureaucracy and would make our schools look like armed camps."

    Asked if he felt armed personnel in our schools would prevent another Sandy Hook, Sen. Cook was quick to respond: "absolutely not. While it might reduce the number of deaths or injuries when it does happen it is not going to prevent some nut case from shooting up a school, mall, government building, post office or whatever. What it would take to prevent it is to identify these people in advance and get them some mental health help. I understand the mother of the Connecticut shooter had tried to get him some help. I believe we need to do a better job of helping parents and even other family members, as well as educators, identify people who have violent mental health issues and get them the help they need. Some people need to be institutionalized not only for their own welfare but to protect society. While I don't want to make it easy for the government to declare a person mentally dangerous, I do think we've got to support parents and family members who seek help for their loved ones who have violent behavior tendencies."
NC Senator Bill Cook speaking to his constituents in Beaufort County: Above.     photo by Stan Deatherage
    In terms of what new legislation he sees that might be needed Sen. Cook said: "I would like to see us study the Louisiana Right to Bear Arms amendment the people of that state just adopted. As I understand it, the intent is to insure that laws which restrict our inalienable right to keep and bear arms should be subjected to strict scrutiny. That means the government has a duty to show it has a compelling reason for restricting our rights and that it will do so in the least intrusive manner necessary to actually achieve the purpose of the intended law. In my opinion, had we had that requirement the recently adopted prohibition of carrying weapons in parks would never have passed the test of strict scrutiny. I think the same is true for the restriction on carrying a legal concealed weapon in a restaurant. "Gun Free Zones" would be reconsidered as well. Many of our current gun restrictions would not pass the test of "compelling reason." The affect of such gun restrictions are to make it so difficult for people with legal permits that they will just not exercise their right. These people with concealed carry permits are responsible citizens who present no threat to anyone except a criminal or nut case."

    Finally, on banning certain assault weapons he said: "that's a joke. It is not the design of the weapon that is the problem. It's the person with the weapon. What's the difference between a 30-round magazine and 3 10-round clips? Or 6 five round clips. These people who try to say "you don't need 30 rounds" need to understand it is not the government's right to decide how many bullets I carry and how. If I'm responsible enough to carry five rounds, I'm responsible enough to carry 30 rounds. That whole issue is a smoke screen by elitists who think they should decide what the rest of us 'need and don't need.' The right to protect myself and my family, whether at home, on the highway or at the mall is an unalienable right of mine and yours and the government has no authority to infringe on those rights."

    Cook closed by pointing out that he worked last session in support of revising the "Castle Doctrine" but that more needs to be done to reform the gun restrictions liberal Democrats have placed on responsible citizens in our state. "I worked for the Castle Doctrine because I think it is an expression of one of our most sacred rights: The right of self-defense. And I think a corollary to that is that it is my right to decide what kind of weapons I will own and possess and I don't need the government trying to decide what I need and don't need. It's not a question of the kind of gun. It is a matter of my right to make my own choices so long as I exercise those choices in a responsible manner.

    I wish there weren't evil people in the world who comment atrocities like Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech. and others but there are such people. However, as I see it, we only have two ways to stop them. One is to identify them early and put them where they can not hurt anyone. And the other way is to stop them as quickly as possible with deadly force.

poll#30