Publisher's Note: We appreciate this article provided by the Beaufort Observer and their co-publisher, Buzz Cayton, who is a significant asset to the Beaufort County Tea party.
Representatives of the Beaufort Patriot Tea Party traveled to Raleigh Wednesday (3-10-11) on their weekly jaunt to "Petition their government for a redress of grievances" and in the process, among other things, sat in on the House Judiciary Committee as it debated
HB 111 - Handgun permit valid in restaurants and parks. After over an hour of wrangling over Democrat amendments to weaken the bill, the committee approved it and it now goes to the full House for debate and a vote, but only after the Democrats were successful in obfuscating the bill.
The bill itself is simple and the rationale presented by the sponsors at the hearing was straightforward: There should be uniformity in the application of the law to people who have a valid concealed carry handgun permit. Some local governments have adopted ordinances which restrict where weapons may be carried even when a person has a valid concealed carry permit. The bill was designed to make the law uniform across the state.
But Democrats on the committee tried to impose more restrictions and make enforcement more difficult by adding more restrictions. The amendment that got the most debate was one offered by one of the most liberal House members, Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake who pushed for adding a rule that restaurants determine whether a person they serve alcohol to was in possession of a weapon when served alcohol. There was a big debate about whether the wording should be whether a waiter/waitress "may" or "shall" ask a customer whether they have a concealed weapon before serving them any alcohol. Ironically, they did not discuss the broader issue of the current law which provides:
"§ 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."
They only addressed the issue of a customer "being served alcohol." Thus, the outcome, if it stands, will only further complicate the rules about carrying concealed weapons. It was established in the discussion that there has not been a reported problem with people with concealed permits causing a problem after they have been served alcohol. But the committee narrowly accepted Ross's amendment in spite of the fact that speakers representing restaurants objected to the burden it would impose on them to determine whether a customer was in possession of a weapon before being served a glass of wine or a mixed drink.
While not addressed in the committee, it might be noted that the concealed carry law prohibits a person with a permitted weapon in their possession from even entering the restaurant, or even a grocery store, convenience store, a Wal-Mart, etc., that "sells" alcohol. Yet the state's regulations on hunting say that a person is restricted from hunting "while impaired" by alcohol. Thus, there is yet another complication in the variation of the use of alcohol while hunting and while carrying a concealed weapon.
And of course, the ultimate irony in all this obfuscation is that it is our understanding that a person without a concealed carry permit, but with an openly observable weapon is not prohibited from "entering an event at which admission is charged or alcohol sold." So how absurd is that?
Commentary
ob•fus•cate--[ob-fuh-skeyt, ob-fuhs-keyt] -verb (used with object), -cat•ed, -cat•ing.
1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.
Lawyers have a way of making things so complicated. It was mostly lawyers arguing in the Judiciary Committee about what to do about people with concealed carry permits who want to go into a restaurant and get a meal. What they ended up doing was only making things more complicated while not actually solving any identified problem. Such is the nature of lawyers.
Here's the deal. In North Carolina you can get a permit to carry a concealed weapon by having a background check that determines you are not a nut case, having taken a handgun safety course which includes a requirement that the applicant demonstrate they know how to use their weapon and know the laws related to using it and then pay a hefty fee.
The law's been on the books for more than a decade. During that time no person with a valid permit has ever been convicted of illegal use of a weapon, at least that we can find a record of. Three experienced Assistant District Attorneys indicated that they had never had a case where a permit holder had ever even been charged with illegally using a concealed weapon. When asked: "In your experience (a total of 45 years) have you found abuse of concealed carry permits to be a problem?" all said, "No." So these legislators were trying to solve a problem that does not exist. In the process they simply created more problems.
As one speaker explained to them, the problem now is that a person can go to all of the expense and trouble to get a permit and then have to take the weapon out and hide it somewhere while they go about their normal lives because there are so many exceptions as to where the permit does not apply. Remember, the permit holder has had a thorough
background check, been trained in the law and has demonstrated they know how to properly use the weapon. And permit holders don't cause any demonstrable problems. In this state there is no record that they have ever killed or wounded anyone illegally.
Given that, what amazed us while sitting in the committee meeting, was that a number of the legislators who debated this took the exact opposite approach from what a lawyer is trained to do in such issues.
The Second Amendment guarantees Americans the right to bear arms. Thus, it is a fundamental constitutional right. The lawyers are taught that such rights can nonetheless be restricted. But in order to restrict a fundamental constitutional right the well-established law in this country is that the government must show a compelling reason for the restriction it imposes and that the restriction must be narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling reason in the least restrictive manner reasonable.
So we would suggest that Rep. Ross' amendment is unconstitutional. It imposes a restriction without any evidence of record to show that there is a even a legitimate or reasonable reason, much less a "compelling reason," to keep a person with a legal concealed weapon from going into a restaurant and ordering a glass of wine with their meal.
The problem with the "lawyers" who debated for this amendment to the bill is that they looked at the issue backwards. They were concerned about serving alcohol. They should have started with the acceptance of, and we would suggest respect for, the citizens' Second Amendment right to bear arms and then looked at solving the "problem" in the least intrusive manner reasonable. Instead they came at it from the opposite direction. They all should know better. Even a high school student who has learned about "strict scrutiny" knows better.
Hopefully more rational heads will prevail when the bill reaches the House floor.
