The house will come to order. Members will take their seats. Visitors will retire from the chamber, the sergeant-at-arms has close the doors. Members and visitors will please silence all electronic devices, the prayer will be offered by representative Chris Whitmire, Members and the gallery will please stand and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. Well folks before I lead in prayer, I'd like to share a couple of verses that all of us should keep in mind as we do our business. For expertise, Proverbs 2:6 tells us the Lord gives us wisdom from his mouth, comes knowledge and understanding. For steadfast 2nd Samuel 10:12 tells us to be strong, to let us show ourselves courageous for the sake of our people and the cities of our and Micah 6:8 reminds us how to temper our actions by telling us, oh man what is good and what does the Lord require of you, but to be to love kindness and to walk calmly with you God. Let us pray. Dear heavenly father, please forgive us of our sins, thank you for how many blessings you have given us. Lord I ask you to grant each of us the wisdom, courage and humility, as we seek to serve the people of our state and our nation please grant us patient and insight as we work for the betterment of our people, may we demonstrate our love for you in how we conduct ourselves for the respect and appreciation with each other. Dear Lord please lead, guide, direct us as we endeavor to make our world a better place. In Christ name I pray, amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Representative Lewis is recognized. Mr. Speaker, the Journal for June 15th has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it stand approved as written. Representative Lewis moves that the Journal for June 15 be approved as written. Those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Those opposed will say No. The Ayes have it, the journal is approved as written. Ratification of Bills and Resolutions, the Clerk will read. The Enrolling Clerk reports the following bills duly ratified for presentation to the governor : Senate Bill 301, an Act at to exempt the Department of Transportation from the required approval of the Council of State when purchasing contaminated property as recommended by the Department of Transportation. Senate Bill 596, an Act to clarify existing law regarding reinforcement of foreign country judgements. Upon motion of the member from Nash, Representative Collins Mr. Chair is happy extend the courtesies of the gallery to his wife Dinney, his daughter Rachael, grand children Catherine, Isaac, and Micah. Would you all please stand and let us greet you? Chapter bills will be noted. Report to standing committees, the clerk will read. [xx] education universities committee report Senate Bill 478 institution for certain advanced federal programs favorable house committee substitute unfavorable senate committee substitute further requirements certification attached. House committee substitute calendar tomorrow, Senate unfavourable to the senate committee substitute. Representatives Ilis, Shepard and Torbet transportation committee report senate bill 43 CJL for battering[sp?] provisions favorable. Tomorrow? Calendar for tomorrow. Senate Bill 621 legislation removable is email and be favorable. Calendar for tomorrow. Senate Bill 284 infrastructure assassinate extent sunset and we refer to finance. We refer to finance. Referral to finance. Representatives MgNeil and Rose Pensions and Retirement committee report. Senate Bill 455 [xx] I ran [xx] Act favorable house committee substitute unfavourable senate committee substitute. House committee substitute calendar for tomorrow, Senate Committee Substitute unfavourable calendar. Representative Brawley, Stein, Hastings, Martin, [xx] Szoka, finance committee report, House Bill 679
UNC Self-Liquidating Projects favorable. Calendar for tomorrow. Senate Bill 140 Lake Santula[sp?] occupancy tax authorization favorable. Calendar for tomorrow. House Bill 168 Exempt Builders' Inventory favorable committee substitute on favourable regional bill. Regional bill unfavourable calender, committee substitute calender for tomorrow. Messages from the Senate, Clerk will read. House Bill 217, Clayton Deannexation/Annexation. I'm sorry what was the number of that bill? House bill 217.217, calender pursued at rule 36B. House bill 263 city elections charity and [xx] Calendar pursue to rule 36 D Senate bill 50, Wilson County Occupancy Tax Modification. Finance. An announcement? Any amendment on the gun bill coming up a little later should be ended the clock by 2:30 today on order of the speaker. Is our doctor of the day Ben Mastridge here today or our nurse from Creedmoor? Thank you for being with us Mr. Mastridge. By motion of Representative Susan Fisher, Brian Turner and John Ager of Buncombe County, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the Gallery to Dr. Alice Hart, her husband William Hart Jr. Their grandson Will Hart. Dr. Alice Hart is retired North Carolina public school administrator, if they can stand so we can greet you. Upon motion of Representatives Ray and Hunter[sp?] of Northampton and Bertie County, the counties. The chair is happy to extend the courtesies to the students and mentors from the [xx] Education Group from Northampton, Halifax and Bertie counties if you will stand we would like to greet you please. OK and we have two honorary pages today seated in the back, Andrew [xx] of Mt. Olive of Representative John Bell[sp?] sponsoring, and Will Hurt[sp?] of Burke[sp?] County sponsored by Representative Fisher if you all would stand we'd like to greet you. OK. Calendar, House Bill 495, the Clerk will read. Representatives Collins, Hurley and Floyd, House Bill 495, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF STATE GOVERNMENT BY MODERNIZING THE STATE'S SYSTEM OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Representative Collins is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move that we not concur with the Senate version of House Bill 495, let me explain briefly. You're recognized to explain. This bill comes over with several changes, none of which I really object to, but there is still one issue with this bill that we need to conference. I think it's just a matter of taking out a couple of words and it can probably be done in about five minutes in a conference committee. So I would say that we need to vote green not to concur. Representative Charles Graham, do you seek recognition? No. further discussion debate if not the question before the House is a motion by Representative Collins that we've not concurred in the senate committee substitute for House Bill 495 all those in favor will vote aye those opposed will vote no the Clerk will open the vote. Alright. Clerk will lock the machine and record the votes the ayes are 113 the no's are zero. The motion is passed and the senate will be so notified and Representative Collins if you have a list of proposed conferees[sp?] for the clerk. If you'll take a look at your third reading roll call conferees[sp?] for the clerk. I if you want to pull it out Representative Hager. I was talking to Represented
Queen I was here, and I would like to vote not to concur. You'll be recognized to record his voted in aye. Representative Queen. I was taking to Representative Hager and forgot the [xx] You'll be recorded for voting. Representative Lewis. Well Representative Queen yield for question? Representative Queen do you yield for question? He yields. Certainly. What you all talking about? Representative Speciale? I'd like to request that we vote H2-47 separately. Alright we'll do that separately. And representative Luebke? Same thing. Anything, and I was paying attention and not talking to a soul. Thank you. We'll take House Bill 47 first, the clerk will read. Representatives Pius, Goodman house bill 247 a bill to be entitled an act to authorize Hope county to Levi additional one half six thousand unused tax general assembly of North Carolina enact. Representative Pius you seek recognition? Yes. You're recognized. I just wanted thank you members for voting on, Monday night and we ask for vote please, green button, thank you. Further discussion or debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 247 on it's third reading, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote the "ayes" are 95 then no's are 21 the bill has passed its Third Reading and will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. We'll now group the next four, the Clerk will read House Bill 386, House Bill 411, House Bill 412 and Senate Bill 218. Representative Szoka, House Bill 386, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT REMOVING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON SATELLITE ANNEXATIONS FOR THE TOWNS OF HOPE MILLS AND SPRING LAKE. Representatives Lewis and Salmon, HB 411, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO REMOVE CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF ANGIER, AT THE REQUEST OF THE TOWN. Representatives Lewis and Salmon, House Bill 412, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO ANNEX CERTAIN DESCRIBED PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF DUNN. Senator J. Davis, Senate Bill 218, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT REMOVING CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON SATELLITE ANNEXATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF FRANKLIN AND THE [xx] and to remove certain described property from the corporate limits of the town of [xx] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion or debate, if not the question for the house is a passage on third reading of house Bill 386, House Bill 411, House Bill 412 and Senate Bill 218, those I favor those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the court will open then vote Representative Queen, do you want to vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote., The aye are 114 the no's are one, the bills that passed House bill 386 House Bill 411, House Bill 412 will be sent to the senate, senate bill 218 will be enrolled. Senate bill 256 the Clerk will read read. Senators McKissick and Woodward, Senate Bill 256, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT AMENDING THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF DURHAM TO ALLOW THE CITY TO ANNEX ADJACENT STREETS OR STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS TO PREVENT CONFUSION ON THE PART OF EMERGENCY WORKERS WHEN ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE emergency services within the city limits General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Representative Lukey is recognized. Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the house, the clerk just read the entire bill is to allow the city to enact adjacent streets on both sides of the streets Excuse me a second, could we have order and listen to the gentleman Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house this is exactly what it says in the title. The entire bill is in the long title of the bill, it allows not in the territory of Durham now but the city unanimous request from the city council they would
like to build an X on both sides of the street during a voluntary annexation. The way it is right now if there's a 911 call that comes in depending which side the street it's on [xx] call the city fire department or the volunteer fire department, the police of the sheriff. This two confusion could be risky, it's a simple request in our sport Representative Torbett is recognized The gentleman yield for a question He yields I yields Thank you representative you stay I believe that the city had sent you a letter or they have voted on it, is that what I hear? Yes, we attended the meeting of the council in which they requested this unanimously. Follow up Mr. Speaker? Does he yield? I yield. The annexation, would that take in proper that's currently now county property into the city? It is a voluntary annexation, and the Charter of the City of Durham has only allowed the city to go to the edge of the street not to cross the street in terms of police and fire protection. Follow up Mr. Speaker. Does he yield? I yield. He yields. But that property is county property currently? Currently yes it's a voluntary [xx]. Did you have any kind of acknowledgement from the county commissioners about what their feelings were towards that? No we have documentation through the chair, do you yield for a follow-up question? I do. He yields. We have some type of documentation that the county has signed up on that We do not we have the city making it's request and the county being aware of it and not expressing any opposition. OK, thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Blackwell is recognized. I'd like to ask if Representative Lukey would yield for another question. He yields. I will. I am just curious Representative Lukey as I read this it would extend the cross and include the right of way area on the opposite side of the actual paved area. So presumably if there're residents on the other side of the street, are they going to start getting a tax bill from the city for the portion of their property within the right of way, how does that work? Thank you Representative Blackwell. It is only for the street, it does not include any housing on the other side of the, just the other side of the street. Follow up. Do you yield Representative Luebke? I yield. He yields. I'm not talking about the houses, I'm talking about the portion of their land that is within the right of way, is that not subject to property or taxation? This is the street itself. The pavement. A pavement. But the bill Mr. Speaker. You're recognized for whatever you would like. Debate or a question Representative Blackwell? It says the city council may include in the description the area to be annexed any [xx] streets or streets right away. I read that to mean something other than just pavement but the legal right way which might extend another 5, 10, 15, 20 feet onto someone's property. No Sir, that's not what the city is requesting. That's not what they requested? Further discussions or debate? Representative Hager. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to see if Representative Luebke would yield for question. Does he yield? I yield. Representative Luebke, would you be amiable to displacing this bill until we get a letter from the county? Representative Hager, I really don't think that is necessary, and I would ask members to just support the bill. Thank you. Further discussion or further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 256 on its Second Roll Call Reading. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote the ayes are 87 the nos are 30 the bill has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Senate bill 460, before we read that an announcement conferee for house bill 495 which was just recently voted not to concur Representative Collins, Hurley, Larry Bell and Dabson Senate Bill 462, the Clerk will read. Senator Hartsell, SB 462 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO CLARIFY THAT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY MAY ESTABLISH, OWN, AND OPERATE A NONPROFIT CORPORATION WITH TAX EXEMPT STATUS. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. further discussion, for the debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 462 on its Third Reading. Those in favor will vote
Aye, those opposed will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 97 having voted in the affirmative and 19 to the negative, Senate Bill 462 passes its Third Reading and will be sent to the Senate. Senate Bill 423 the clerk will read. Senators Barringer, Harrington and Tucker, Senate Bill 423 aborted by internal act to align state law with the federal law by providing support of [xx] development abuse and foster care through the implementation of reasonable improvement parents standards for decisions made by the first parent or a designated official for child care institution revising the law pertaining to abuse, neglect and dependency regarding juvenile displacement under the juvenile court to provide liability assurance for foster parents to reduce various of detaining driving licence for foster children and by clarifying the foster parents do not violate financial responsibility requirement by allowing foster children with their own insurance cover to operate a vehicle owned by the foster parent and to require the the department of Health and Human services to study and medicate [xx] for children with serious emotional disturbance. General assembly North Carolinian enact For what purpose does the lady from [xx] Representative Stevens rise. To speak on the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, members of the house I can go to great detail on this bill but I will tell you we passed it version of it basically unanimously, I would tell you that regardless of what Representative Stun said about this being the session of creating new felonies this should be the bill that we are the most proud of, This is the bill that's going to do so much for foster children. What it does is once a child has entered the foster care system under the current regime nobody has the authority to give that foster child permission to do anything. What this bill says it those Forster parents can use a reasonable and prudent parsenting standard to allow those children to live a normal life to do extra curricular activities to become a page the North Carolina House. One story that was shared with us is allow then to go to Disney World with the rest of the family, allow then to get a drivers licence allow them to get a job, allow them to be prepared to transition into real life and prior to this bill, they've never had that authority this is going to be one of the most instrumental pieces of legislation we do, along with a few others that are going to go along with this, to help foster children who got into the system through no fault of their own remain to become independent, free living adults. And with that said Mr. Speaker, I need to send forth an amendment. The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. Representative Stevens moves to amend the bill on page 1, lines 27- 29 by re-writing the lines to read The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The purposes of this amendment are first to take the reasonable and prudent parent standard that we created in this bill and make it mirror more closely federal legislation, our federal law. We you have some concerns in another section of the bill about perharps opening a tremendous amount of liability and basically what the liability now does is says if you had immunity as a county or state before you maintain your immunity, the next section says, just changes some wording instead of saying as a result of the reasonable parenting standard it says acting in accordance with that reasonable parenting standard. The next part of the amendment has it to conform with eliminative immunity statutes and just does some cleaning up of the language. The next part of amendment does the same thing and the last part makes some technical changes so it was really sort of cleaning the language so it would move better and answering the concern the Attorney Generals office had with their most recent version I'd ask for your support in the amendment. Further discussion further debate on the amendment. If not amendment if not is the question for the house for the passage of the amendment one of offered by Representative Stevens, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock, the machine will record the vote.
117 having voted in the affirmative and none of the negative, the amendment is adopted, we're now back on the Bill further discussion, further debate, if not, the question for the House is the passage of Senate Bill 423 on it's second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Representative Sheppard does the gentleman wish to record and representative Conrad? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 118 having voted in the Affirmative and 0 in the Negative, Senate Bill 423 passes its Second Reading, and will without objection be read a third time. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 423 on its Third Reading. Those in favor will say Aye. Aye. Those opposed No. The Ayes have it, Senate Bill 423 passes its Third Reading. The Bill is ordered engrossed and returned to the Senate. Senate Bill 578, the Clerk will read. Senators Barringer, Hise and Tucker, Senate Bill 578, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO TRANSITION ABUSE AND NEGLECT INVESTIGATIONS IN CHILD CARE FACILITIES TO THE DIVISION OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND EARLY EDUCATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Buncombe, Representative Ager rise? I need to be recorded as voting yes on SB462 was not Representative Queen's fault this time. Gentleman will recorded as voting aye on the House Bill 462. Senate Bill 462 shall be so recorded. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman rise? Send forth an amendment. The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Clerk will read, just a moment, the clerk will read the amendment. Representative Pittman moves to amend the bill on page 5, line 35, by deleting subjection and submitting sub-section? The gentleman has the floor to briefly debate to the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. A lot of times we say things are simple and they really are, this is pretty simple. I just happened to be reading the bill and saw a misspelling it says subjection it ought to say sub-section and so I content of the bill drafting to change that, and I also saw a bunch of split infinitives which drive me crazy since I'm an English major. Figured I couldn't do anything about it because we have those all through our bills, may be when I'm done being a representative I'll see if I can get a job being proofreader up here, but for now we'll just fix this misspelling, thankyou. Representative Pittman, we had earlier suspended the rules of grammar I think, so we're OK. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of Amendment 1 offered by Representative Pittman. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. Representative Luebke, does the gentleman wish to record on this monumental amendment? The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 117 having voted in the Affirmative and 1 in the Negative the chair electing to vote nay in this instance, the amendment is adopted. For what purpose does the lady from Surrey, Representative Stephens rise? To speak on very difficult bill The lady has the floor to debate the bill Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, while it looks like a complicated lengthy bill, I can sort of this up is a simple manner. The court of appeal not long ago ruled on a case of child abuse and indicated that the department of TCCE whichever initial that is that licensed daycare facilities have an obligation to conduct an investigation whenever there is an abuse in childcare facility, so the purpose of this bill is to streamline investigation. If they've got the obligation to do it we could we're removing them in the first 5 or 6 pages. We're removing reference of department of social services during those investigations and then creating another section where that happens at a day care situation this is who will review it. It will still go law enforcement it will still go to into the same procedure but the department of social services will be freed up from those investigations to spend more time on the other child abuse investigations, so that's how it does is transfer abuse investigations in a childcare facility to the department of DCCE. Further discussion farther debate, if
not the question before the house is the passage senate bill 517 on it's second reading those in favor will vote Aye those opposed will vote no the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock machine recorded vote. 118 having voted in the affirmative and none the negative senate bill 578 passes as the 2nd reading and with that objection, you go the 3rd time. General assembly of North Carolina enact Further discussion, further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 578 on its third reading, all in the favor say aye aye. Those opposed no, the ayes have it. Senate Bill 578 passes its third reading. The amendment is ordered in raw actually that's correct the Bill will have to returned to the senate for concurrence. Senate Bill 682, the clerk will read. Senators [xx] and Clark, Senate Bill 682 [xx] to the entire on absolutely use of contingent based contract for audit or assessment purposes General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg Representative Brawley rise? To briefly explain the bill Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to explain the bill Thank you Mr. Speaker. Senate bill 682 is an identical companion bill to house 542, this is in reference to a bill that originally passed in 2013, limiting the use of contingency audits and tax audits where people are paid by the more things they can come up with. The bill originally change the state and the municipalities to using auditors who our pay day fee, or an hourly rate, but not a contention rate so they are not insented to find questionable things to bill and force people to defend in court there was a two year sun set on the bill for local governments that if there were a problem it could be readdressed this passed the senate 50 to nothing its been in two committees while I was a member and there has been no opposition I ask you to vote green today and let's move in along all we are doing is eliminating the sun set thank you. Further discussion further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of senate bill 682 on its second reading those in favour will vote aye those oppose will vote no the Clerk will open the vote. Is Representative Brockman[sp] on the floor? Representative Brockman[sp] will the gentleman like record the clerk will walk the machine and record the vote. 117 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, senate bill 682 passes its second reading and will, without objection be read a third time. General Assembly of North Carolina enact. Further discussion further debate, if not the question for the house is passage of senate bill 682 on its third reading, those in favour will say aye, those opposed no. The ayes have it, senate bill 682 passes its third reading. Bill is ordered Senate or the governor who are provesters the German Not be recordingloading yes some second reading Absolutely. The German bill recording high invented aisle[sp?] of second reading Senate Bill 682 The House will begin[sp?] in just a moment. House Bill 562, the Clerk will read. Representatives Schaffer, Burr, Cleveland and Faircloth, HB 562, A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO AMEND VARIOUS FIREARM LAWS. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenberg, Representative Schaffer rise? To debate the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Before us today is House Bill 562, it's a bill entitled Amend Firearm Laws. On April 2nd, I along with my fellow bill sponsors representative for Cleveland and Faircloth filed this bill alongside House Bill 563 in an effort to advance our responsible fire arms legislation that balances both our second amendment rights with the need for public safety when it comes to firearms. House Bill 563 now appears as section 11 of the current bill, and as I walk you through the bill, there're quite few sections, I do trust that you will see how we have achieved that balance by furthering second amendment protection, for our law abiding citizens in the
state while significantly strengthening background checks for individuals seeking to obtain firearms both hand guns and long guns alike. So, with that let me take you through section by section into the bill. Section one, first of all, it expands the concealed hand gun permit rights of certain officials and employees, in addition to the individuals that are already permitted to do so such as judges, clerks of courts et cetera, this section permits DA's with the concealed hand gun permit to carry concealed hand gun in a courtroom, as certain DPS employees and administrative law judges with concealed handgun permits to the list of exemptions allowing them to carry concealed handguns in some places that the average person could not. I'm again just building on the list of those unique exemptions for individuals, those certain officials. It also allows a person to carry a pocket knife in a closed position into the State Capitol building. This really is a clarifying provision of what is already contained in the law, but is not quite clear. Finally, it authorizes legislators and legislative employees with valid concealed handgun permits to carry concealed in state legislative buildings and grounds. Section 2, is again a clarifying provision of something that was passed two years ago. It clarifies the individuals with concealed handgun permits who are carrying a concealed handgun on educational property, in compliance with the law of course, may move a handgun from concealment on their person to a closed compartment or vice versa even if it is momentarily not concealed. Section 3, provides an affirmative defense to possession of a handgun on educational property if that person was to have the hand gun in a locked vehicle, in the first place, a valid concealed hand gun permit etc and they remove the hand gun from the vehicle only in response to a threatening situation which deadly force was justified as defense from others, l importantly that threat must be eminent. Moving on to section four this authorizes the, it doesn't require, but it authorizes the Commissioner of Agriculture to prohibit the carrying of fire arms on State Fair ground, during the State Fair importantly of a state present a very unique set of circumstances that we have looked at over the last year and find that we would like to give the Commissioner of Agriculture who ever that is at the time the ability to prohibit fire arms there during that two week period of time if he or she sees fit. And again law enforcement officers would be exempted and individuals with concealed hand gun permits would still be allowed to have a hand gun in a locked vehicle. The section also, what it does is that it directs the Department of in consultation with DPS and the North Carolina Sheriff's Association to study a method that would allow individuals with concealed hand gun permits a method for storing those hand guns at the entrance to the state fair to really consider those as issues of safety that they may, or may not have going to and from their packed cars. Section five concerns shooting range protection, what it effectively does is that it gives all shooting ranges the same protections regardless of when they were established. It does so by expanding Shooting Range Protection Act to provide that all shooting ranges are only subject to noise ordinances that were in effect at the time that that shooting range was established. So again it just puts all the shooting ranges on the same playing field instead of only a certain numbers, those that were established before a certain date. Section six is a very important clarifying provision, it modifies our firearms right restoration statutes to ensure recognition of that restoration of by federal law This is brought to our attention by recent case law that calls that statute into question. We want to make sure that, when we're going through the process of an individual having their firearm rights restored that, that is in fact recognized by federal law, so we want to make that clarification. Section seven, eliminates some of the misdemeanors from the list of misdemeanor convictions, that prohibit a person from obtaining a concealed handgun permit. What it does is that it makes most misdemeanour convictions only count against a person for three years. on what it does is that it leaves stalking convictions with a five year bar. I do want to draw special attention to the fact that domestic violence convictions and convictions for assault on a law enforcement officer e. T. C a few other individuals are listed there would remain a permanent bar for an individual who would like to obtain a concealed hand gun permit. Section eight permits the use of suppressors on short barrel rifles for hunting this provide safety and more stability for the individuals as they are hunting. Section nine it make the offence of carrying a concealed hand gun on private posted property and in fraction punishable by fine about to $500. Section 10 appeals the [xx] permit purchase permit requirement effective October 1st 2021 appending the appeal however the bill would make the following changes to the statutes governing the pistol purchase permit system that we have. Beginning October 1st, 2018 it would allow a Nix check, that's
a national criminal background check when purchasing a pistol from a federally licensed firearm dealer in lieu of a pistol purchase permit, or a concealed carry permit. And also specifies that the sheriff may only consider an applicants conduct or criminal history for the past five years when determining good moral character under the statutes. It also provides for a better appeals process when determining if a permit has been denied and the individual feels their rights have been denied then there's a better appeal process also it requires DPS in consultation with the Sheriff's Association to develop a permanent application form, and it will require all sheriffs to use that form to promote some uniformity of application across the state. Finally it would require a personal entity presented with a mental health release form to prompt they provide court orders concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant. Section 11, which as I mentioned in my introduction was originally House Bill 563, is what we call the NICS Fix Section. Upfront the NICS fix is supposed to be completed by 2019, that's a full two years, before that pistol permanent repeal would be in effect. There's also a provision for a mid course report to the General Assembly. A few points that I want to make on this is that we had the opportunity over the last two years since we passed House Bill 197 in 2013, we had the opportunity to consult with our representatives from NICS DPS that's [xx] as well as AOC on what information we needed to plug the gaps in our next reporting I missed. As I mentioned as many of you already know, we're currently using NICS background checks in the the State of North Carolina for our long guns. So, we need to plug in any missing data that is there and as taken a long two years in figuring out what data is there, what data is not there, and how we need to fix that. That section goes through other things that need to be uploaded how to do so in the specifics, so it does subscribing information to be collected and reported to Nix for those background checks or requires certain information to be transmitted Nix by the clerk later than 48 hours after receiving notice. For the time being it would require pistol permanent applications as well as contrail hand gun permanent applications, to be provided electronically it prohibits the sheriff from requesting additional information for concealed handgun permit applications unless specifically authorized by statute. It also requires arresting law enforcement agency to fingerprint persons charged with certain misdemeanors and forward those fingerprints to NICS. Finally it directs AOC to use court technology funds to comply with the reporting requirements that we're in section 11. Again as I mentioned the [xx] repeal will occur in 2021, that's the sunset of the system but that is predicated on that 2018, reporting back to the General Assembly to see how the next fixes are going, and then the next fix would be completed by 2019. What that does is that it gives the General Assembly ample opportunity, a full two or three years to see how the next fixes is working there's time to come back and fix anything that needs to be fixed legislatively, and really just make sure that the system is working properly. Moving on to section 12 expand state wide uniformity of firearm regulation to specifically prohibit local government from adopting regulations that relate to taxation, manufacture or transportation of firearms it also allows individuals who bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against their local government if they violate that section. Section 13 requires certain the officials that are authorized by federal law to complete certifications that are required by federal law for certain transfer of weapons to complete those certifications within 15 days of request. Section 14 requires a sheriff to make the request for any records concerning mental health of an applicant for a concealed handgun permit within 15 days of receipt of the permit application. Section 15 dispels on what we did in House Bill 937 two years ago and then House Bill 650 two years prior to that, it allows a person to bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the local government for violation of the statute that prohibits a variety of different types of application of when concealed carry can and cannot be prohibited by the local government. So we really would like to see the uniformity occur that we required in House Bill 937 that is unfortunately not occurring. Section 16 requires any written questionnaire or form that a health care provider asks a patient to complete that contains questions regarding firearm ownership etc. clearly and conspicuously contain or have attached to it, I notice that a patient is not required to answer those questions. I want to be very clear that there is no prohibition on oral communications between the doctor and patient on those points there is no provision on written communications it is simply that the health care provider must provide that disclaimer or that the patient is not required to answer those questions. Finally section 17 this was requested by our Sheriffs it would authorize a law for permanent residents of the United States to obtain a North Carolina concealed hand gun permit, this was again brought to our
attention by recent case file that has taught us that our current statute is not in conformity with federal law. That is the bill is not quite to held by all 17 sections of it. The House Bill 562, it truly is the bill that does make great efforts balancing these two issues, strengthening our second amendment protections as well as really strengthening our background checks because I said House Bill 563 that was as appointed and it now appears in House Bill 562. And so we're trying to really balance, balance these very important things with each other. As you will have on your desk now, just earlier today the North Carolina Police Benevolent Association come out in strong support of House Bill 562. I hope, I would like to draw your attention to that and then hope that you will read that. They do represent the largest association of law enforcement officers, I know that we've been hearing a lot about sheriffs who don't support. There are sheriffs who support it, there are law enforcement officials who support it and we do have the support of both our law enforcement community as well as our Second Amendment community, and we do put this bill forward and ask for your strong support. With that Mr. Speaker, I will turn it over to those who may have questions. For what purpose does the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis rise? Sent forth an amendment. The gentleman from Harnett is recognized to send forth Amendment ESA90V1, the Clerk will read. Representative Lewis moves to amend the bill on page 6, line 42 through page 7, lines 24 by deleting those lines. The gentleman from Harnett has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I'll be very brief. Current law requires that if there is the purchase/transfer of a handgun from a private individual to another private individual, that the handgun permit process that is issued by the Sheriff be followed. What this amendment would do, would say that, If there was going to be a transfer of a handgun from one private individual to another that the Sheriff's Permit would still be required. It's a very narrowly tailored amendment, I'd be glad to go into great depth, but again this preserves that the Sheriff's Permit would still be required for the transfer of a handgun from one private individual to another. I'd appreciate your support and look forward to a good debate on this bill. Members the chair sees several lights, I would ask if any members that wish to debate the amendment? Does the lady from Mecklenburg wish, for what purposes does the lady from Mecklenburg Representative Schaffer rise? To debate the amendment The lady has the floor to debate the amendment Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you, Representative Louis for bringing this amendment forward. I simply wanted to say I would urge your support on this amendment many folks have raised the concern that we're leaving this area open, I think that this may concern so I would urge your support on the amendment, thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Harnes Representative Louis rise? May I ask the lady from Mecklenburg a question? Does the lady from Mecklenburg yield to the gentleman from Harnes? I yield She yields Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you representative Schaffer just to be clear, this amendment would preserve background checks for private transactions for hand guns. Is that right? That is correct. Thank you mam, thank you Speaker. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. Do either the members have a lights with[sp?] Does the gentleman wish to debate the amendment? The gentleman from Randolph? For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill rise? To ask the amendment sponsor a question. Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Randolph? I yield Mr. Speaker. He yields. So, your amendment says it deletes lines 42 on page 6, through page 7 of line 24, and then replaces them with just Section C. Are you deleting Sections 10 A, 10B and 10C with your amendment? Representative McNeill, the way that this is tailored by staff is to make sure that private transactions are still covered by the Sheriff's background checks. It does not address the broader the broader question for instance, that I think your amendment will get to. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Onslow, Representative Cleveland rise? For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Several years back now, a friend of mine that I worked with had a pistol that he was wanting to sell and my son wanted to buy,
and so we got together and went to a local gun dealer, and he did the background check the next check, and that was sufficient. My son already had a pistol permit, but we went ahead and did the next check just to be dotting all Is and crossing all Ts and I don't think that the sheriff would have found anything in the permit process that would negate at what was found on the next check, so to me the next check should've been all we needed, I don't see the reason why the sheriff should have had anything to with it. It was a legitimate sale, no problem with my son's record that would have kept him from being able to buy it, I don't see why the sheriff had to be involved, so I think require the next check is efficient is all that we need and I would not support anything that continues to give the sheriff any say in the matter or that kind of power on what our citizens can do or not in exercising their [xx] rights, so I urge you to vote no on this amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston Representative Bob Gardner rise? To debate the amendment and to ask the amendment sponsor a question. Does the gentleman wish to propound the question first? Yes sir. Does the gentleman from [xx] yield to the gentleman from Gaston? Representative Luis thank you for bringing this up but I have a question about this, do you have any idea or does anybody have any idea how many private transactions are conducted between individuals in the State every year or every week for that matter where no permit is asked for or given or anything else, people just buy and sell between themselves. Do you have any idea about that? Representative, I thank you for the question, and I don't. Can I debate the amendment now? The gentleman from Gaston has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What bothers me about this amendment is the fact that we are inserting the government in between two private parties conducting a transaction between themselves that is perfectly legal and we're inserting the government in between that, and I have a real problem with doing that because there is no way to monitor or anything else how many people are buying and selling guns? We know it happens everyday all over the state, all over the country, all the world for that matter, and we're doing this but to me it really is an exercise in futility and I don't think in the long run it will make any difference. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Lucas rise? To speak briefly on the amendment. Gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Representative Lewis for bringing this amendment forth. If we can instill one more God to ensure that our citizens are safe when it comes to firearms I think it's good, and I think for that reason alone this is a good amendment to support it. For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill rise? For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford Representative Blust rise? To see if Representative Schaffer will yield for a question. Does the lady from Mecklenburg yield to the gentleman from Guilford? Representative Schaffer, does the lady yield to the gentleman from Guilford? Yes. She yields. Representative Schaffer, what's the current law, or what would be the law under your bill for this type sales private-private? What kind of check, if any would they get? Under the bill what an individual could do is that they could go to a gun dealer and have the gun dealer run the NICS check for them. That's what however what this would do is that it would require that pistol permit for that private transfer. So under the bill as it is there still would be the opportunity to have a background check gun if an individual went to a gun dealer and asked them to run the next check for them on behalf of their transfer. Follow up Mr. Speaker? Does the lady yield to a second question? That would, it would be voluntary but it wouldn't be required? That is correct. Mr. Speaker one final question. Does the lady yield to a final question? I do. She yields This would be more directed to Representative Louis but under
if the amendment passes what's the penalty if someone was selling gun to another person and did not do a background check what would they be subjected to? I do not have that specific information I do know that we have staff available we could find that information out for you if you would like. Thank you Mr. Speaker may I direct the question to Representative Louis. Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Guilford. I yield. He yields my question would be what happens to the seller and the buyer under that transaction if it's required if your amendment passes, the bill passes it's required and then they don't do it. Representative Blast I thank you for the question and I in no way mean to give you a vague answer, there is a current provision in our law that requires the sheriff to do the background check for an individual private seller to an individual private buyer now. There is certainly some penalty if that does not occur. This merely preserves for private individual to private individual the pistol purchase permit, the background check if you will and all of the procedures and penalties that currently go along with it. For what does the gentleman from Wake Representative [xx] rise? To speak on the bill, for the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I'm in favor of this, and the reason I am right now the current law if you sell a pistol, not a firearm, a pistol which is a form of firearm, that you're required to get a Pistol Permit from the individual that's buying. Now, I don't know what the penalty is if you don't, but I could imagine what would happen if that pistol is then used in the commission of a crime or that person sells it to somebody else and they murder somebody and they find that gun, they're going to come back to the original seller that was logged in when they bought that pistol, and you're going to have a lot of explaining to do. So someone will have to be out their mind to sell a handgun without a Pistol Permit. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Hall rise? To support the bill sponsor on this, and the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. With all due respect to some of my colleagues over there, I think Representative Lewis' Amendment will make an enormous difference. I'd like to remind some of the members of a few of the things that the Pistol Purchase Permits can do that NICS currently can't do. One is Misdemeanor Domestic Battery Records that they wouldn't get through NICS. A couple of other ones are fugitive records, probation absconders because those people haven't been convicted yet. People who are declared incompetent, involuntary commitments in the system beyond four years, misdemeanor drug addicts, and adjudications of mentally incompetent or mentally ill people also wouldn't be picked up with NICS, so I think this amendment could make an extremely big difference. For what purpose does the gentleman from Buncombe, Representative Turner rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to thank Representative Lewis for his thoughtful amendment as well as Representative Schaffer for her ruling of this to hear it and be supportive of it. Representative Pittman talks about a gun sale between his on and friend of theirs in a gun shop, and I think that's great, but not all sales happen between parties that know each other, and not all of them happen in a gun shop. Now I'm an average supporter of the second amendment, a gun owner myself, in fact I picked up a nice little 22 pistol two weeks ago in the parking lot of [xx] I got online, I got connected with somebody through a group set up a meeting, showed him my permit, gave him some money, took home a gun. The only way that he knew that I was eligible to purchase that firearm was the permit that I had now I like to think of this when we look at these private sales, from the perspective of the sellers. If I'm selling a hand gun privately to someone I don't know, and I'm not in a gun shop because maybe I don't live in an area when one is around or maybe I'm conducting my sale at a time when the gun shops are closed, I want to have the confidence that the person I'm selling that gun to is legally eligible to own that gun. I don't want to be responsible for selling the gun to the guy who's got a
wrap sheet as long as my arm, and my arms are pretty long. I want to make sure I'm doing everything I can to protect myself and to protect my community from putting guns in the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I think this is a good amendment, I ask you to support it, and I once again want t thank representative Luis, representative Schaefer, for their support of it as well purpose does the gentleman from Catawba Representative Adams rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the authority to debate the amendment. I stand in opposition to the my experience was permits purchased back to 1970 in Cabala's county I was old enough to buy my first hand gun, and walked service station downtown Concord, and I was told that could walk across the street the sheriff's office and get a pistol, a permit purchase before I could acquire the hand gun that I wanted. And I did that. The sherrif that JB Roberts issued me a permit to purchase, went and bought my firepower which I still have. So, a few months later I'd saved enough money to buy another handgun so I went back over to see sheriff Roberts and ask him for another permit to purchase. They said you only get one. I said one how often? And he said one in your lifetime. So, I went back to the service station and was grumbling about the fact that I could only get one pistol permit, one of the customers came in said, I played football with JB, I'll go get you another permit, and he did. Went across the street, got A permit, brought it back to me, I went and bought another hand gun. OK, that was probably illegal but I hope statute limitations is out. So a couple of months later, he comes back in the service station and he is just furious because he decided he wanted a handgun. He went back to JB to get another permit to purchase and JB gave him the word, only one in your lifetime. He was furious. Is that a possibility today? It genuinely is. What the amendment is about, what we're talking about here is using permits between individual transactions. It just is unenforceable, it's been around forever. It just can't be enforced, and nobody knows about it, and nobody does it I can't imagine how many people have violated this law. Probably a huge fraction of all the pistol transactions that have occurred in the last 50 years had been without a pistol permit. Now, what is being proposed here is making a shift from the Pistol Permit System to the NICS System over the next six years. If the NICS system were available to private transactions, it would be a very simple matter to go to a gun store and say I would like to sell this person a hand gun but I don't know them, would you compete the transaction for me? The store owner could then do a NICS check and confidently transfer the gun to the buyer. I stand in opposition to this amendment and I hope you will join me. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale rise? For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Hastings rise? To see if the Representative Lewis would yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from gaston? Yes, Mr. Speaker. He yields. And of course, this is a friendly question Representative Lewis, you know that. It's been a long time since I followed these gun laws, really since my freshman year when I was a primary sponsor of House Bill 650 in the Castle Doctrine, but I'm trying to square this in my own mind and you're testing me mentally here. This would have to do with transactions, is that correct? Yes Sir. This would not cover a gift or an inheritance, is that correct? Representative Hastings, you may want to direct that to someone a little more knowledgeable than I, but I would point out that ever what the consideration is if it's zero, if it's a gift it's still a transaction if I transfer something to you for instance. Follow up. I yield, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield to a second question? He yields. Well, I don't want to get into contract law and consideration and offer and acceptance and all that, but. So let's remove that and let's just talk about the inheritance situation. This would not cover a situation where a person inherited a firearm? Representative, to be totally candid with you I don't know.
I don't know what the administrator of the estate would require before they would convey a handgun that was left in a will. Mr. Speaker? For what purpose does the gentleman rise? To debate. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I try to respect the members' time, but this is a serious issue so I want to taken just a couple of minute to make sure that I speak orally to the public regarding what I'm thinking, Under the current scenerio it's my understanding that a person can go purchase a rifle or a short gun without a permit from the sheriff, at least when I bought my daughter little Davy cricket rifle, I didn't have to have a permit, they ran a background check there on the spot. So my point is, there're already over arching[sp?] state and federal laws that would make the possession of a fire arm legal or illegal, this would simply be another law. It's already illegal in numerous circumstances to have that firearm, whether a background check is done or not. So, I'm lean toward not supporting the amendment for those reasons, but I just wanted to share those ideas before I cast my vote. For what purpose does the gentleman from Catawba representative Adams rise? To debate the amendment second time. Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment the second time. The discussion at hand is covered under general statute 14-404 and I will read this, it says it's unlawful for any person, firm or corporation in this state to still give away or transfer or to purchase or receive at any place within the state from any other place within or without the state, any pistol unless I, a licensed permit is facilitated under this article by the purchaser or received from the sheriff of the county in which the purchaser or receiver resides or two a valid North Carolina can still carry a hand gun permit to sell under article 50 4B of this chapter by the purchaser or receiver who must be a resident of the state at the time of purchase. Yes indeed this does cover inheritances, any transfer. Now, as I mentioned earlier, can you imagine how difficult this would be to try to track. That is one of the fundamental failures of the pistol permit system. The Nick system would be able to cure this fairly easily in a straight forward manner. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis rise? To ask the amendment sponsor a question. Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Pender? Yes Mr. Speaker. He yields. Representative Blust, in regards to the current wording of this amendment, a lot of the objections that I hear, definitely ring true with me [xx] has the amendment is currently altered I can't support it. My question to you is that, would you be willing to offer an amendment that would actually have this type of transfer by way of private individuals be handled by way of a NICS check? Representative Pittman articulated and shared where before an individual would sell or receive a pistol that they can go to a federally licensed firearm dealer get a NICS check, have that in their possession. So if the instance that Representative Pendleton described, if the firearm were to be actually used in a crime that as the hierarchy goes to law enforcement that you could show that you had the NICS check and therefore, that we move away from a flawed and obsolete Pistol Purchase Permit. Would you be amenable to actually alter this amendment to include the NICS instead of the Pistol Permit purchased through the sheriff's office? Representative, I appreciate the question. I thought a lot about that and I don't know how we would require a private business that be a federally licensed firearm dealers to perform an ex check if they weren't actually making the sale, and so, I felt like the current system which provides the background checks, we at the sheriff's office was the way that we could continue to guarantee that there are would, the background checks would remain in place. To directly answer your question, I prefer to not add that to this amendment, but I certainly be willing to consider it on a additional amendment perhaps on third. For what for what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Brody rise?
To ask Representative Turner a question if you wouldn't mind. Does the Turner of Buncombe or Turner of Iredell? Turner of Buncombe. Does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Union? Absolutely. Yields. Thank you Representative Turner, just a real quick I guess a basic question, you had mentioned in your story that you had a permit. Imagine if you also had a copying machine, could you tell me how many copies that machine may limit, and what if you started copying that permit and handing it out to other folks? I think the Representative brings up an interesting question here, and I think it drives the concern of, Is the Permit Purchase Process perfect? You can say that several times real fast. No, it's not. But is it a good deterrent? Is it an imperfect tool that's working in some respects to prevent people who shouldn't have guns having guns? Absolutely. So I say, why don't we adjust and amend the current process to make it better versus just throwing it out altogether? Because when we start to be in a world where people can just willy nilly buy and sell, trade, give handguns to one another without knowing if that person is under a protection order, if they're a violent criminal, I think that's, I'm getting a little concerned now. So the process isn't perfect, but let's fix it not throw it away. The gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis is recognized to send forth a Perfecting Amendment. The Clerk will read. Actually Representative Lewis, the amendment can be addressed in a sense as a similar typograph[sp/] or it can be initialed, and a Perfecting Amendment will not be necessary. Members will refer to the amendment that's on the dashboard, it's been refreshed. There was just a line wrong, it was a simple grammatical error, just a drafting error. It was not substantive, that has been changed on the amendment before the body. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gilfred representative Rost rise? See if representative Jordan would yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Ash yield to gentleman from Girlford? He doesn't have to. I do, but with curiosity. Representative Jordan, you've said debates on various things that you practice in the area of Trusts and Estates Inheritances and since this applies to inheritance a handgun that might inherited I was wondering if you could explain how that might work suppose A dies and leaves in his will or by intestate gun to B, background check is conducted B doesn't pass, what then happens? Well representative thank you for the question, in my opinion it would be depending on what the will said. The item would go back to the estate and the executor would either have discretion to do something else with the item, or sell it and distribute the funds to remaining heirs, or sell it and give the money to the heir that no longer was eligible to receive a fire arm so they could have the money that was worth. For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins rise? Briefly debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. My good friend and teammate Representative Hall, teammate on the basketball for at least, brought out some of the things that the next instant background checkup does not pick up. Like to point out to that the pistol permit also has some glaring holes in it. The biggest one being the fact that I could go out this afternoon, well, probably not this afternoon because w won't have time, could go out tomorrow to my sheriff and pick up a pistol from him, and then come back next week and my seatmate infuriates me by trying to pass another liquor bill I guess and I commit assault and battery him in front of all you witnesses, beat him half to death and wind up going to jail and serve with time allowed in jail before the trial and after 4 years and 11 months and 3 weeks, and get out of jail, I get out of prison after that 4 years, 11 months and 3 weeks, and then go into the Walmart parking lot in my city as Representative Turner described and guess what? I've got a legitimate Pistol Permit, and could buy a pistol off anybody and he thinks yes, this guy is legitimate, legitimate to have it, he's got his Pistol Permit. Once that thing is issued, it's good for 5 years and nobody knows what that person has done in the last 4 years and 364 days.
So I don't think the pistol permitting system is fail safe system for making sure you're selling a handgun to a person who is safe to own it, it's certainly is not. I would much personally, if I'm going to sell a handgun to somebody, I would much rather have an instant background check that bring up to date. It may leave out a few crimes that they could have committed, but if they've committed assault and battery on somebody or if they've shot at somebody or done anything else like that in the last 5 years I'm going to know about it through that NICS system. So I can't support this amendment for that reason. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale rise? To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Yes, I've heard it said, Well it's not a perfect system, the Pistol Permits. It's not even close to perfect. It's not even close to adequate. It's not even close to working. It's a useless system. It's a Jim Crow remnant that we need to get rid of. You just heard someone tell you, if you get your permit two weeks later you get in trouble, you violate the law, you commit a felony, you go to prison for two years, you get out of the prison, you still have your permit. There's nothing the sheriff can do. He can't your permit? No! It cant. I see our former sheriff saying yes it can and I I'm saying no he cant at least according to my sheriff. There's nothing in the law that allows him to go and take that permit from you, even if there was I asked my sheriff, I said well, wait a minute. I said, I've got a concealed carry permit which allows me for five years that if the permit is good to go and buy guns without having to get the gun permit. Then he said you're right, and I know I'm right because I bought them on it. I said that, when I go in there all they do is take the information they don't a next check they don't do anything, he said you're right, I said well I'm I missing do something here? I could go to jail for two years get out and I still got my conseal carrier, he said no he said we got him pretty good around the state revoking those permits. I said, really? I said, when you come to me and you say, hey Mike, we need that permit back, and I say, I lost that thing six months ago. You know what his response was? You're right, nothing we can do about it. I said, but I still have it and then I can go in and I can buy a gun because they're not going to do an ex check, they're not going to do anything, but write down the information on the permit. My point is, for five years this permits are good, it serves no purpose the permit serves no purpose. They check you when you first get it, they run your next check but when you walk away for the next five years that you have that permit if you hold on to it, no matter what you do you can still go in and buy a gun with it. We're hanging on half on a system that is antiquated, that does not work, we're putting our faith in the system. Felons have permits, felons are buying guns, you don't have to take my word on it just go back in the newspaper for Charlet and they wrote an article on it a couple of years ago, about how many active felons at that time, and I'm sure most of you got this in your email, how many active felons they had? Several hundreds of them, that had these permits. The permit system is useless. It was a Jim Crow system, designed to keep certain people from getting guns. Why? Because the sheriff could use the phrase of good moral character and say no, not going to get that permit. Who is this sheriff to determine if I've got good moral character. This, where? This is ridiculous. I'm tired of hearing about the sheriffs, well the sheriffs know more about it than, no they dont! this isn't Mayberry[sp?] they don't know who all the people are, they don't know you, they don't know me. We may know them because we are politically connected but the point here is they don't know the people, they don't have any hidden information on the people that everyone else wouldn't have. When they go into the next, they run the next check, they run whatever couple of checks they think they're going to run and that's the end of it. We need to get rid of this permit system altogether, we need to dump it. Stop putting your faith in something that's a useless system that is not accomplishing what you want it to accomplish. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Hall rise? I speak to the amendment. Gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Collins, what they're talking about is something called the felony loophole and it's something we could fix very easily. One answer to this is
we could change the amount of years, we could change it from five to four, three, two, one. But the better answer I think is to also require our next check, say after one year. One of my colleagues talked about not having a purpose, it has an enormous purpose, we need this initial check for domestic battery for drug addiction for mentally ill, I hope you'll vote with amendment sponsor and with the bill sponsor. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston representative [xx] rise? Mr speaker would it be in order to ask representative Schaffer a question? Does the lady from Makelberg yield her to the gentlman from Gaston? I yield. She yields. Representative Schaffer, I'm sorry to take his time but I want to get this right and whether I'm involved in a commercial transaction, a gift or an inheritance, the prime area commercial transaction, if I go buy a riffle or a shotgun tomorrow, do I have to have a permit from the sheriff? I believe that you do not have to have a permit from the sheriff, you would have to have one however, for a handgun as they are set apart, separately in law. Follow up. Does the lady yield to a second question? She yields final question. Regardless of how a person has a firearm, or a riffle or a shotgun, aren't there overarching federal and state laws already in place that dictate the legal ownership of a firearm, rifle or shotgun? I'm not certain that I understand your question. Could you restate your question? Are there overarching federal laws in place that make the ownership of a firearm legal, or illegal? Yes, that is correct. Follow up. Does the lady yield to an additional question? Yes. She yields. So whether I get a permit or not, if I'm not legally authorized to have possession of a firearm that would be against the law? That would be correct. Thank you Representative Shaffer. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale arise? To speak on the amendment one more time. The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment the second time. I just want to address my colleague's comments about that we can change the permit system and we can shorten the time frame. If we shorten the time frame that's not going to do anything, I can get in trouble six months after I have it and three months later get out of jail and I still got my permit, so no matter how much you shorten it's not going to do it, And you say well, we can run it, the next check after a year. I agree with that. How about we just do away with the permit and run the next check every time you go get a gun? The question for the House is the adoption of amendment one sent forth by Representative Lois, those in favor will vote aye, those who oppose will no, the clerk will open the vote. Representative Hager wish to record on this vote? The clerk will lock the machine will record the vote. 87 having voted in the affirmative and 29 in the negative the amendment is adopted. The gentleman from Catawba representative Adams is recognized to send forth amendment 8SA 73B6. Clerk will read. Representative Adams moves to amend the bill on page 8 lines 32 through 33 by inserting the following between those lines. The gentleman from Catawba has the floor to debate the amendment. As you've heard already there are a number of problems with the pistol purchase permit. This has been around since 1959, one of the things you would expect practice being enforced for so long as it would evolve and prove over time, but that has not been the case with those who purchase permits. Right now a pistol purchase permit originates from a laser printer, and it's filled out by the sheriff and issued to the individual. It's only one step away from all the pistol permits you want, now it would be a laser scanner, and that's just the reality we deal with. I hate to debate this on the floor because this has not been a problem in the past. What I'm offering here is a partial solution. What I am proposing
is that we go from, and let me give you one moment background. Couple of weeks ago I went to my local gun shop and said I'd like to look at some pistol permits, I want to see what they look like, and he told me said well I don't have too many because about 80% of my handgun transactions are now done with concealed carry licences, but we looked through some stuff and we found one Catawba County one from Alexander County. They were entirely different, the one from Catawba County was a nice looking formal permit with a seal, embossed seal on it. The one from Alexander County had a stamps seal on it, very different looking permit, and it occurred to me I did not know this, we've been messing around with guns for 50 years, but I did not realize this, that there're 100 counties, there're 100 sheriffs, there's a variety of software packages that sheriff offices will use, there's potentially 100 different permits in North Carolina, and how can a gun shop in Wilmington recognize the validity of a pistol permit issued in Catawba County? it's not possible, it just isn't possible. And how can you tell if something has been counterfeited that is so simple to replicate, as one of these pistol permits, so I'm offering what I hope will lead us in right direction, lead us out of the woods, so to speak. What I'm suggesting is we create a standard form permit issued by the state, created by the State Bureau of Investigation, of a uniform size and material, that will contain a watermark and be designated and designed to minimize the ability to counterfeit, or replicate the permit, and it would contain the languages prescribed by law today. The standard permit created by this section, would be used statewide by the sheriffs of all counties and would issued by a sheriff, would also contain ember seal unique to the office of the issuing sheriff. section 10f permit issued pursued as article 52A of chapter 14 ofthe general statute prior to the effective date of the subsection E of the section shall remain valid, the permits that are in force that have been issued will remain valid until exploration. Each person possessing a valid permit issued prior to the effective by the subsection of this section may exchange the permit, for not they permit from the sheriff that it should the original permit with no further application required further elaborate it's not in the amendment, but I would update this to there will be a sunset on the old permits so that would have to be turned in for new standard issued permit. Depertment of Public Safety shall make reasonable efforts to notify federally licensed firearm dealer in the state of the new permit appearance, and requirements implemented by sub-section in any of this section. So what we're doing here is we're creating a standardized permit that would be recognized in any gun shop anywhere in the state. It would just simply have a different sheriff seal on each of the permits that could be serialized, it would make it much easier for sheriffs to retrieve the permits in the event that they find that one of the people that applied for it was issued a permit was committed a crime I hope you'll support the amendment thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill rise? To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Representative Adams and I have talked about this particular situation for sometime now. I have a brother that is a federal firearms dealer and runs a gun shop in Ashbrow[sp?], and I've talked to him about this, and he says that it is sometimes was difficult when someone comes in with a permit from another county to determine whether it's a legitimate permit or not. It's difficult for me to say whether I'm for his amendment or not, because I have a similar amendment that is part of a larger amendment that I'm going to run later which basically does the same thing as his except I think where his says the SBI, mine says the Department of Public Safety. I know that there is so many amendments here now, that probably it's going to take till tomorrow to figure out how many of them overlap. I want to oppose his amendment because I have amendment to do basically the same thing, I guess if his passes and mine passes,
we'll just have to workout the difference in the language, at some point later, but they are going to overlap. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Sheper[sp?] rise? To debate the amendment the lady has the forward to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, I want to ask the comments of Representative Adams and Representative McNeil, but I'd like to ask the members to support the amendment. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Floyd rise? To see if Representative Dollar yield for a question. which member? Representative Dollar. Representative Dollar does the gentleman yield to the gentleman from Gamberland? I yield. He yields. Representative Dollar does this require this the nope? It's a determination of the appropriation to the committee that it does not require physical note on this amendment. T Hank you. Further discussion for the debate on the amendment? If not the question before the house is adoption of amendment two offered by representative Adams those in favor will vote aye those opposed will vote no the Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 112 having voted in the Affirmative and 3 in the Negative, the amendment is adopted. The gentleman from Onslow, Representative Cleveland is recognized to send forth Amendment ASA81B3, the Clerk will read. Representative Cleveland moves to amend a bill on page 5, lines 43-44 by rewriting that line to read. The gentleman from Onslow has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we could move this amendment along with a little bit of speed, it is a technical amendment. It was some changes and clarification, some changes to statute and clarification of some language requested by the administrative office of the court, I'd hope you support vote the amendment. Further discussion further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of amendment three offered by Representative Cleveland those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative and 9 in the negative the amendment is adopted. The lady from Iredell Representative Turner is recognized to send forth amendment ASA58 clerk will read. Representative Turner moves to amend the bill on page five lines 32 through 48 by rewriting those lines to read Lady from Dare has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Section seven of this bill would make a change to the current law prohibiting in conceal carry permits after committing certain misdemeanor offences from a lifetime ban to a three or a five year ban there are some violations that are severe enough to warrant keeping the current ban in place this violations have direct consequences for domestic violence victims and their families including assault and battling inflicting serious injury assault on a female stacking child abuse and violation of a domestic violence protective border. All these mestominos mentioned are forms of domestic violence that perpetrators as used are charged with in North Carolina because there is no statutory domestic violence offence. Domestic violence is usually chronic and forces victims to live in fear of abuse or death for themselves and their families. In order to be charged with a stalking offence in North Carolina. Perpetrators must have demonstrated a course of conduct that harasses someone to the point of being fearful for their life. The statute clearly states that the General Assembly encourages effective intervention by the criminal justice system before stalking escalates into behaviour that has serious or lethal consequences. A five year prohibition on concealed carry for perpetrators is simply not enough to provide safety and security for the victim and their family. They need more security in these situations. Your support of this amendment would help to protect your most vulnerable constituents and their families.
This allows for domestic violence perpetrators to be denied access to a concealed deadly weapon, and denied the chance to take the lives of people who need the State's protection. I ask for your support. We have removed from the original language of this amendment the simple assault language which will revert back to the three or five year period whichever was appropriate, and also communicating threats so I hope that will allay some of the concerns we have. Thank you for your support. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Shaffer rise? to debate the amendment. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative Turner for bringing this amendment and we have had a lot of conversations over the last two weeks about this particular provision and still going through it, and I know you're not going to be happy with this, but I'm actually going to oppose the amendment. I believe that what we have in the language of the bill already takes care of the issues that are being raised no and I would draw your attention to page 5, line 49 if it's still in accordance with Federal law frankly it does not change the misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, I want to underscore these are misdemeanor offenses, any of the felony offenses that relate to talking of domestic violence or anything, they're not affected, this is just for misdemeanors, but we haven't touched the misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence and we have allowed that to stand as a permanent bar and believe that it does give that protection. So I have given this a lot of thought as Representative Turner has as well and I would ask for members to oppose the amendment. Members, the chair is going to temporarily displace this amendment. Representative McNeilll is recognized to sent forward the amendment ASA 85 the clerk will read Representative McNeill moves to amendment bill on page six line 42 through page seven line 24 by the deleting those lines. The general command office is recognized to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and house members, my bill does something very very simple and this house bill basically repeals the sheriff permit system in North Carolina in six year okay. Now and currently in the bill there are three things that the Sheriff Association and offered this to the bill sponsors that they incorporated into the bill okay. Those three things are still preserved in my amendment, so let me talk about them just briefly. Number one my amendment rewrites sections 10A and B and C of House Bill 562 which have the effective of leaving the sheriff pistol permit system intact as it currently isn't our statute, and leaves in the language that some language it is already in the bill which I'd explain to you and I add one new section, so follow me as I go through it, alright. Current law allows sheriffs to make decisions on granting their permit based on an assessment of good moral character, nothing in current law limits the look back period for this assessment. This amendment would limit the sheriff's ability to evaluate the good moral character would limit it to a five-year period. Also to ensure consistency across counties there would be a uniform permit process created to be used by all sheriffs state-wide developed in coordination between the Department of Public Safety and the Sheriffs Association in addition the application would be available to all applicants electronically. The only things that this could be asked for now would be a standard permit application. The $5 fee our government issued the ID to prove identity assigned release for the mental health records. The amendment also states that the sheriffs would require no further document or evidence. It improves the timeliness of issuing permits the amendment requires those who possess mental health records to respond properly to your request for information made by the sheriff for the purposes of completing the premier review, and this amendment would also require standard permit they would be issued by all 100 sheriffs which will have a race seal on it thus reducing the chance of forgery of their permit. This last section was part
of my amendment which is also similar to the amendment that Representative Adams offered just a few minutes ago I think this amendment strikes a balance between those wanting to get rid of the Pistol Permit System and those who want to keep it and improve it. This amendment will improve the process, making it consistent across the State, it fixes some of the top concerns raised by critics of the current permit process. I want to stress that this amendment keeps the Sheriff's Pistol Permit Law in place, and makes improvements that I mentioned, and Mr. Speaker, I stand ready if there's any questions. For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover, Representative Davis rise? Speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I've talked with my local sheriff about this amendment, and he favors keeping the existing sheriff background check in place. I agree with that. I think it is something that we need to continue you having I think it's very important that we support this amendment and I would ask you to please vote green. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman form Catawba, Representative Adams arise? To run off my cellphone. Excuse me to debate the amendment. The gentleman has the forward to debate the amendment. Actually ask a question of the Bill sponsors Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Okay The gentleman has the forward to debate the amendment. I want to change the question to the Bill sponsors. Does the gentleman wish to ask the lady from Representative Shake a question. The lady from Mecklenburg yield to the gentleman from [xx] I yield She yields Just want a clarification for the body. First part of this amendments repeals the repeal of the pistol permit system. That's already occur in my understanding, by the amendment offered by Representative Lois, earlier. I'm I correct? Representative Adams I believe that it is correct, I was just confirming with my fellow bill sponsors on the nature of what Representative Lois's former amendment does now in view of this or vice versa what Representative McNeill amendment would do in view of that. I do believe that there maybe a conflict in fact because he's not amending the current language in the current bill. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. If the pistol permit system has been by the earlier amendment? It has not? Okay, in that case I stand in opposition to this amendment, but I like the language you came up with. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Pendleton rise? To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I rise in favor of this amendment, and my reason for it is most of my shows up prior to 1995 when concealed weapons permit came in, then you had to go down the sheriff's department and get them, and my reason for it is that I believe if it will help keep some people from committing a crime, and I'm going to use an example Tom gets expired from his business one Tuesday afternoon about 3:00, and he goes hand to a gun dealer that's open say gauge is open to 10:00 any bars are good. But let's just move with the time, but for if they go stand after they get started bars opposed to he goes through the main gate [xx] has this concealed under his coat. He goes in, kills his boss and five other people. If he had to go get assurance permit to buy that, then he would have to go Sheriffs department, so he's got to think is he really going to go down the Sheriffs department or maybe he's going to rise up and not do it. So I believe that it could keep people from doing some mass murder perhaps in gotten their trouble to get a permit and Wake county takes about a week to get a pistol permit. So that gives you a lot of cool so I speak in favor of that. For what purpose does the lady from Gilfred representative Harrison rise? To debate the amendment.
Lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker ladies and gentlemen of the house I want to speak on support of representative McNeils amendment. Pistol permit is very important for preventing gun violence, you've all probably seen this statistic, but when Missouri repealed this pistol permitting, gun related deaths went up by 25% and I understand that when Connecticut reinstated pistol permitting, gang related violence went down by 40%. The proof is there this is a very important program I urge you to support Representative McNeill's amendment thank you. For what purpose doe s the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman rise? I guess first need to inquire chair. The gentleman may state his inquiry. Before I make a comment I was planning to make I need to be clear sir as the pistol purchase permit repeal, then already affected by Representative Louis' amendment? I mean has that already been removed from the bill by his amendment? The house will stand at ease while the Chair reviews it I mean it has been removed from the bill Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker. Just a small representative [xx] let me respond to the gentleman probably in the inquiry and I will back to the member. Representative [xx] just in confirm with staff and I think the questions well founded is we have a number of amendments some of them overlap, the amendment is still an order at this time to proceed the amendment that we house passed that Representative Louis sent forth just modified it as to private I guess one on one sales spell that out and say this amendment should it pass? I guess actually triumphs that in some way and then there may have to be some conforming language adopted of a technical make sure later, but this amendment proposed by representative McNeill would in fact triumph the other amendment. So follow. Gentleman may state his. For that means right now we still have the repeal in the bill? that's correct. Thank you sir, then I'd like to comment on the amendment. Okay just let me see in case it was a parliamentary inquiry the general stand side, for what purpose gentleman from [xx] Representative Ford rise. Inquiry Mr. Chairman. The gentleman may state his inquiry. And this can be to the room[sp?] first, this is a two-day bill then if there is any changes that can't be made, those changes can be made tomorrow or on Saturday. It's just what you just [xx]. It's not a roll call bill which means we could be stuck in third today but based upon the amount of the robust debate we've had just on amendments, the chair would anticipate that there will probably be an objection to third, so there would be certainly some amendments and things that need to be worked out of a technical nature could be done tomorrow, I think that's where the gentleman's going. Yes sir thank you. Yes sir. Okay the gentleman from [xx] representative Pittman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker I would like to oppose any amendment that would remove the repeal language from this bill the pistol purchase permit requirement allows the sheriff the power of control over our citizens that is clearly in violation of the second amendment and the first portion of article one section 30 of our own state constitution. The second amendment clearly says, shall not be infringed. It does't say, shall not be infringed except in some enumerated bunch of circumstances simply says, shall not be infringed and requiring a permit is an infringement and we need to do away with it. Why we free people tolerate that infringement which of one of the most basic rights of American citizens. Why would we want to prop up a system that is not effective as the niche check system which can
be improved as required in this Bill and which is actually the only background check done by some of our sheriff in the first place. Why would we want to continue a clearly unconstitutional system and a Jim Crow Law at that rate which is so inefficient that allows criminals to get guns legally while hampering the efforts of law abiding citizens to exercise a right guaranteed by the second amendment. Why for instance would we want to leave a battered and threatened woman at the mercy of her potential assailant while she waits for a sheriff to decide if she can exercise the right of self defense. The only reason to keep this inefficient, unconstitutional and costly system in place, is for the purpose of allowing too much power to one person in each county to exercise unwanted and unjust control over a basic right of our citizens. I ask you not to do that. Please let's do away with the pistol purchase permit requirement by passing this Bill with the repeal of that requirement in it I'd rather that repeal would be immediate and might take six years to do it as the bill currently says, but I've agreed to comprise as restful as it is and I ask you simply to honour the compromise that is in the bill we all never to have had the requirement forpistol purchase permits and the NICs system through it can be improved is enough and so please let's vote repeal this unjust and unconstitutional requirement thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanely representative rise? Speak on amendment Mr. Chairman. Gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker I rise to oppose the amendment respectively I think that what we have currently in the Bill it's just a matter of us taking the steps we need to as a state to catch up with the times. To catch up with technology. That's what we're talking about here. It's the difference in using a piece of paper to have a permit versus having an instantaneous background check on a computer versus being able to call. For those of you who live near other bordering states. By having that type of background where you are using NICS if there's a, if someone's committed a crime South Carolina, but they live here in North Carolina and they come back across the boarder, the likelihood of catching them, preventing them from receiving a handgun is increase, they they were hopeful to be able to prevent those folks from having guns, it increases that, it is catching North Carolina up with today. Today's world, the technology. The the NIK system has been around since was first established in 1993 by the Brandy Hand Gun law. This is something that was initiated and signed into to law I believe by President Clinton, and by Democratic Congress. This is something they set up and established and it's actually something that we can use here in North Carolina to help make sure that we are doing everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who should not have them, that's what this is doing, it's catching us up with the times, it's making sure that we can move forward and prevent people who committed crime whether it was 5 years ago, or yesterday, that there increases the likelihood that we catch them. So, I would ask you to vote against this amendment leave the repealing in place and allow North Carolina to have an instantaneous background check when someone goes to a dealership to a dealer to purchase a handgun which is identical to what happens now for long guns. I know it was mentioned about someone getting angry and going and being able to purchase a gun immediately. Well, they can already do that. They can already go out and purchase long guns in this State, and I've not heard of situations such as that coming about as a result of someone going out and immediately purchasing a gun like that in North Carolina. So, we can come up with all types of hypothetical horrible scenarios, but at the end of the day this is about making sure that we're not putting a burden on individuals in the State, law abiding individuals in the State to have their right and use their right to protect themselves and their families and to purchase a handgun. So I would ask you oppose this amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager rise? Debate the amendment.
The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe in the role of first role of government is to protect its citizens. I think that we have to be very diligent everyday to protect the almost 10 million people who are the citizens in North Carolina, but the second thing I believe in is what does data tell us? What does the data tell us we're doing? What does it tell us we need to do? What does it tell us we need to do to move forward? So as I looked and started gathering data for this, I think Representative Burr showed me that 32 other states use the NICS system alone, that's all they do. They don't have the Sheriff to issue, the step we have that we have in there. So I got to wondering well, obviously if we're doing an extra step then our gun deaths, per say 100, 000, ought to be significantly lower because we have this extra step in there.come to find out that the 32 states we have about 17 of them have gun deaths worst than ours, about 15 of them have gun deaths better than ours. So it tells me we're right in the middle. So, I'm not sure what this step does, I'm not sure it produces anything other than having to wait, other than to put our folks and another step to do that when I look at the data, when I look at what I know our job is, our number one job here in the legislature is to protect the citizens, and then I look at the data and the data tells me that this step doesn't appear to do anything, I would say let's eliminate this step. So I'd ask you to vote No on the amendment. For what purpose does the lady from Carteret, Representative McElraft rise? To ask a question of the bill sponsor. Does the lady from Mecklenburg yield to the lady from Carteret? I yield. She yields. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you Representative Shaffer. I have a question about, if a person has committed several domestic violence offences. The sheriff charges them, but the woman then comes in and says, I will not testify against my husband, and so the sheriff has to then drop the charges. That happens a lot in our county, and I'm wondering if the NICS System would pick [xx] something like that. Thank you for the question we were sending the cattle wrapped under section 11 of the bill, the nix fix that we are requiring would catch that it is requiring domestic violence arrests. Arrests related to domestic violence to be reported. So, yes, and we have contemplated that, that that is very very important so, yes, it would catch that. Follow up Mr. Speaker. Does the lady to an additional question? She yields. Even with just an arrest but no conviction it would be reported, that's correct, thank you very much. For what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Brody rise? To ask the amendment sponsor answer a question please. Does the gentleman from Randolph yield to the gentleman from Union? He yields. Thank you Representative McNeill. Question it kind of took off from when I asked Representative Turner the same thing, you and your experience have probably dealt with forgeries whether it's a driver's license or some other document. We do experience a lot of forgeries in money, forgeries all over the place, would you agree that if a clever criminal really wants to get a gun, they could take a document, whatever you do put together, and still forge it get away and buy a the gun and of course recopy that forgery on a copy machine and just continue to buy guns. Is that actually possible that we can forge these documents. Well I would say is as long as currency has been around, and when all the expense federal government has put into trying to stop counterfeit currency, that yes anybody in the technology age we live in could counterfeit anything. My amendment, as Representative Adams amendment did, actually inserts language into the law which basically says that the permit that is issued once a person goes through the process, and they go and they pick up their permit, it would be a standard permit on sheriff's letterhead, it would have a raised seal on it. Now could that be counterfeited? It's difficult to counterfeit a raised seal but not impossible, assuming someone could get a raised seal that had similar. So to answer your question in this day, it's possible but I think it will be less likely given the amendment that's part of this, or part of my amendment. Follow up Mr. Speaker? Does the gentleman yield?
I do. Which would you would be less likely to be, which would you feel less likely forged? A document from a sheriff or the ability for somebody to tap into NICS System and adjust certain data. Which could be forged? No, which would be less likely to be forged. Point then, if I may, that we have the ability to forge documents, something we know this, everybody knows this, but the NICS System would you agree that it doesn't have provide a person the ability to go into it and change their particular information to get around a crime, for example, that they might have committed. I would hope that the NICS System does not have a back door to it so that a person could go into it and change their identification or their criminal background or something like that too, but I would have also hoped that IRS wouldn't have been hacked and lost millions of taxpayers records too. So to answer your question again, could a very smart person that is great at hacking get into the NICS System? I will say if they could get into the IRS, they could get into the NICS system. But I know where you're headed with that and so. Representative Fraley is recognized. Mr. Speaker, when I first started looking at this bill, the amendment and the bill, I was basing my opinion on maintaining the Sheriff's Permits based on a long long dialogue with my local sheriff and law enforcement people in the area. this convince me that this are the people on the line everyday and if their believe was this was the best way to make the community safer and law enforcement data and safer then I was going to stick with them on support Representative McNeil's amendment. A few weeks ago when this also came to the forefront I have understand receiving right of calls and right of emails as many of you did in a few of my now there are colleagues and I started calling some of this people back or answering the phone when they called and and they started jumping up and down and I said excuse me would you please give me 90 second to explain what why I think the permit should remain with the sheriff, the vast vast majority of those people immediately said that's what we want to. Therefore I maintain my position and I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you. Representative Faircloth is recognized. To debate the amendment. You're recognized. I All of us in here realize the tradition of the sheriff and the government of North Carolina, in fact the government of our nation. It's an old hold office been a long time a lot of the sheriff that are still in office have seen a lot of things happen of all the sheriffs we had over the years and honorable characters. I had the responsibility of doing the first certification of sheriffs department back in the 70s when we begin to have the state sort of get its arm around law enforcement in order to standardize issues, and looking back to the history of any office, be it governor, president, sheriff, magistrate, whatever, there are a few scoundrels there, but most of the sheriffs that I've dealt with over the years are honorable folks who just want to do good job in their community. And I've been little bit bothered by some of the rhetoric that has been throw at our sheriffs in general recently. If you know a bad guy then go after the bad guy, but don't pick a class of people as we're so prone to do and attack them. Our sheriffs for the great percentage of cases are very dependable. Have they had a system that was a perfect system?
Absolutely not. things we're talking about now should have been done years ago, we should have standardized things years ago. We didn't do it, so we've allowed ourselves to get into this malaise that we have now trying to find all these answers that we're arguing hours about, and we still have not found the answer, but we did find one thing. Let's have a federal program that we all send our information, our personal information about us to Washington or wherever it goes in NICS. So they'll know everybody that has bought a gun in North Carolina, and the federal government will be controlling that. That makes me feel comfortable. I do not oppose this bill. We need to have the bill passed even if it has a few burrs on it I didn't mean that representative [xx] I didn't mean it that way it even has some wrinkles when I say it that way, that's more like me so I'm going to support the bill, but I'm also going to support this amendment. He is a gentleman chief deputy McNeil who knows the sheriff's operation, he's been around long time, he knows how these things work, he knows that it's not a perfect system, but he also knows that if we work together, we can evolve from where we are now, with all the problems it has to what we all want it to be in the future without making some mistakes along the way that we may very well regret. And some of the suggestions I've seen and some of these proposals we would regret them when the time comes. I do urge you to support his amendment, and let us work our way to what we want things to be 5 or 6 years down the road, and do them in a right way, thank you. Representative Adams is recognized to the amendment. You're recognized. Second time. My opposition to this amendment is this fact. We're talking about sun setting the archaic system we have in 6 years. In the meantime what I intend to do is improve the Pistol Permit System as much as we possibly can. During our conversations, the question was posed, if we can make the Pistol the permit system is good as the knick[sp?] system, why would we stick with it? That's a great question. And my answer is, my answer was, the amendment I proposed earlier, and the language in this amendment that standardizes the application for the permit is also a good move in the right direction. So we are this, do we sunset the law? Continue to use the permit system until the sunset point, or do we leave? the law implies and then review it again at some point in the future and figure out which system is better for North Carolinians. What I'm saying to you is that I think that if we, allow the law to sunset, and we work together to improve the permit system solve the basic problems we have with it, allow the NIK system to evolve as it naturally is, if we do that, the sheriffs will provide the information to the NIK system which by the way does not track everybody in the United State it create files on criminals and there are news sorting procedure new algorithms being developed by the federal government everyday to improve that system by the way the NIK system by the way the NIK system is used to evaluate our top secret license is in federal government it's a good system and it's an evolving system it will ultimately provide the best remedy that we are talking about here, but there is another point. None ever since some information on this, but this about allocation of resources was mentioned to me that the average cost of a permit to issue a permit by Sheriff department was $37.50, so we made some inquiries and our first inquiry was to Forsyth County they were very quick, very quick to provide us with some good information they issued like 26, 728 permits the cost of $50.74 each. Clay they were very quick that exactly the information we were seeking and I absolutely ablob them for the efficiency of delivering the information that we wanted.
Now Randolph county county said that they could do a permit for $12.06 and Wake County responded by saying they did a permit for $5.29, so we've got a 10-1 disparity here. If you split the difference well, I'll just say this, $50 seems reasonable to me if you talk about the handling of the money, the staff that do it, the printing of the applications, the printing of the permits. Now this does not take into account the time that a person applying for the permit has to take off from work to go and make the application, and the time that person has to take off from work to go and pick up the permit. It doesn't take into account that, but if you do the math according to this report, I think you've got a copy of it, Pistol Purchases Permit Ratifications. This is a report from August 2014 and it reviews 98 Counties and where the Sheriff's offices submitted 694, 806 permits for review well, whether it's 3, 750 or 50 dollars to produce a permit with a five dollar return, you're talking about millions and millions of dollars and I would remind you that over 95% of the people that are going to the Sheriff's office to get this permit to purchase a pistol are law abiding citizens and of the few that are rejected, according to Sheriff's I've talked to, most of them are mistaken or confused identity. We're putting a lot of money into an activity that produces very little results, now we move to the next system, it's a federal system and that background check is done instantly and at no cost to the study so think about the allocation of resources and the millions of dollars that are being appropriated for this type of activity, and the result that it produces when we could very simply, now I will say this, I am in favor of keeping the sheriffs connected into this process [xx] Representative Adams, you have about 10 seconds to wind up. OK, I think you get my point. Thank you. Representative Meyer is recognised to debate the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask Representative Pittman a question. Will Representative Pittman yield for a question? Yes Sir. He yields. Representative Pittman, you based your opposition to this amendment in your stance on the Second Amendment. You quoted half of the Second Amendment, would you be willing to quote the entire Second Amendment for us? Well regulated militia being necessary. [xx] OK. A well regulated militia being necessary to the defence of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be amended or I mean excuse me I'm French[sp?]. Mr Speaker may I ask a second question? Do you yield Representative Pittman? Yes Sir. He yields. Representative Pittman can you give us your own definition or a definition of the first phrase in that amendment, a well regulated militia and tell us how it applies to your beliefs about this amendment. Mr Speaker point of order. Representative Louis is recognized to a point of order. The gentleman's questions does not seem to be relevant to the bill. Representative Mark could you make your point without dialogues will Representative Pittman just as easily? Yes Mr Speaker I was ready to answer. Alright. You're recognized to debate the bill, debate the amendment. I think that one problem with this bill altogether in this amendment in particular is the difficulty of the legal ground of the second amendment. The phrase of well regulated militia is one of the most unclear legal phrases in our constitution, we've already passed several bills this session that are likely to face constitutional challenges and I believe this is another one, and this amendment brings that issue up. But let me speak to another piece of this amendment, the role of sheriffs. If you go all the back to the wild wild West, most wild west towns had a law in place that when you came into town you had to turn your guns over to the sheriff. In fact, the most famous gunfight in history, the gunfight at the O. K. Corral begun when a group of cowboys rode into town and Wyatt Earp expected them to turn over their guns and they refused to do so. Those of this body who want to take away the role of the sheriff in controlling handguns, are in favor of liberalizing gun laws beyond
what they were in the wild of wild west I think the sheriffs have the right and the ability to continue to help us have protected communities as per the amendment Representative Pittman is recognized to debate the amendment for a second time. Thank you Mr speaker actually Representative Meres question leaves me to going to say to start with because I wonder who remembers what happened April 18th 75 come out 1775 remember the midnight Paul was here? He was [xx] patriots the British were coming and they weren't coming to tea they were coming to confiscate the weapons of the militia who were the able bodied young man and old men and in between of the citizenry who were prepared to defend their freedom that's what the militia is they were coming to confiscate their weapons and I thank God today that they were who had their weapons and that for what purpose does Representative Mayer rise? Mr speaker to I'd ask of the gentleman's comments are relevant to the amendment absolutely no the point is not well taken and Representative (xx) will wind it up so the less has a saying I thank God they didn't have to go to some gold house and get their weapons they had them at home they didn't have to wait for some chef to give them a determined to get the weapons to defend the freedom if the hell we might be the British colony today because what the bill is come and do is to impose tirane on our founding fathers and because they didn't have to wait for some government officials to give them permission to have the weapons they we able to defend their freedom and we won our freedom as a nation and I believe that they post a purchase permit system begin to impose that kind of government tyranny on our citizens and we do not need to tolerate them, we've tolerated for too long, we need to get rid of that system, and so I still oppose this amendment because it would seek to perpetuate an unjust system that is contrary not only to the constitution but to the very meaning of the freedom of our nation and how we were able to obtain it. And so I ask you to vote down this amendment. Thank you. I tend to recognize representative Schaffer to sponsor the bill and representative McNeill to sponsor the amendment and then to ask representative McNeill to make a motion on this amendment if necessary. Representative Schaffer you're recognized. Thank you Mr speaker I want to oppose this amendment and I just want to touch on a few quick points a lot of folks have talked about the second amendment and the right to defend oneself and the right to have access to fire arms for that purpose, and those all waterble[sp?] arguments, but I want to talk about something else that I referenced in and in my introduction and that was about strengthening background checks. That has gotten simmering here and thankfully representative Barb[sp?] brought that up in his comments on this amendment but the entire purpose of section 11 is to significantly strengthen the next background check system. Which I want to remind everyone, that is the current system that we are using for long guns. But even though we are currently using that system, there are things that could be better about it. We want to take the next several years to significantly change it to make it better and to make it a stronger background check for the long gun purchases but also for the hand gun purchase. folk have raise a concern about what are we going to do about private transfers. That concern has been addressed by Representative Lewis's amendment that we passed earlier this afternoon. So I would ask for members to strongly consider opposing this amendment. Representative Faircloth brought up a great point about, there maybe a few scoundrels and so we should not be crucifying an entire class of people based on a few scoundrels. Now, I don't disagree with that point but I would like to make the point that there are no in a computerized system that provides an instance background check that we are going to work over the next four to six years and significantly strengthening an making sure that all of these all these important pieces of data are properly uploaded to that system I would ask for the members to oppose this amendment help us modernize and join this two other States that are moving to the Nicks Background Checks System while still living that in place for those private transfers as Representative Luis's amendment has already done. Thank you and please vote no. Representative MacNeal[sp?] is recognized. Tjhank you and I'll be brief also. I just want to answer a couple of points been brought up in reference to what
representative said somebody commits a crime in South Carolina and they run a NICS check on it, the sheriff runs a NIC check, they'll get that same information. It doesn't matter. Representative Hager's comment about 34 other states using it, we do not know what those 34 states information they send in. We know that North Carolina does not send in enough information. We don't have that information on those other states, and Representative Adams, my amendment actually has an electronic process in it so the person can fill out the application electronically. But anyway to basically wind this up and I know you've all heard about this probably by now you want to, but that this amendment is about a basic thing. This amendment is about keeping the sheriff's permit system intact. NICS as the own bill sponsor says, it does not have enough information in it, that's why they have so much language in here reforming necks, the difference is this. They want to repel, if they fix necks, I say we fix necks, and then we talk about repel. I would rather, I can't understand why all my colleagues all over sudden are so much in favor of the federal government, as opposed to the sheriff, but anyway, I'd rather. I can go down and talk to my sheriff, and I can vote against him if he is not doing the right thing., but anyway the sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer, I think you should retain the pistol permit system, and I'd appreciate you agreeing vote, and if necessary, I'll call the question but I don't see any other likes. Further discussion or debate if not the question before the house is McNeil amendment those in favour will vote aye those oppose will vote no the Clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. The Ayes are 77, the Nos are 38, the amendment is passed. Members, we are going now to return to Representative Tuner's amendment. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland representative Floyd rise? Can I recognize author Representative Turner inquiry of the Chair? The gentleman is recognized and may state his inquiry. Mr. Speaker we're making good times on these amendments, just wanted to know how many we have remaining and is there any processed way that we can sort of speed up the process up? We're doing a good job on that. the gentleman sarcasm is duly noted. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg Representative Cunninghum[sp?] rise? I'm sorry not yet thank you. For what purpose does, actually we're back in Representative Turner's amendment I believe. Representative Turner had debated the amendment, and explained it and had yielded the floor, so we're back on the Turner amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative [xx] rise? Mr. Speaker to do, introduce some amendment. OK we're presently on Representative Turner's amendment that we displaced earlier. I thought you called on I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Well the gentleman's light was on. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg Representative [xx] rise? To debate the Turner amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I rise in support of this amendment for a couple of key reasons under North Carolina statute the definition of domestic violence is not codified in one single place, it's codified in many places. As a result, there are things that would be considered domestic violence that we are changing the law on if this amendment does not pass. If this amendment does not pass and you are convicted of stalking, you may now get a concealed carry permit in three years. Under current law that is not permissible. I do not see any reason, or any meritorious reason why we would allow someone convicted of stalking and all the data that shows the repeatedness of that offense to go out get a concealed carry gun. Under current North Carolina they can't do it if we
do not vote to this amendment we are going to allow them to do something they have never been allowed to do in this state mistominor child abuse would be taken away as one of the things that prohibits you from getting a concealed carry permit, and you maybe I'm on the wrong side here, but I feel like if you beat up a child you should have concealed carry permit. You shouldn't just have to wait 30 years I know we talked about pistol permit I know that's important. To me there's no singular more important amendment than the turner amendment. This protects the women and the children with laws that are already in place. If we don't pass this amendment three years after your wife, three after your daughter is stopped her perpetrator can get a gun can still carry licence and we know the data says they are repeat offenders. This is the number one amendment I stronger advice us and request us to vote yes. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg Rep. Kenny Ham[sp?] rise? Thank you to speak to the amendment. Lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Rep. Turners amendment. A couple of months ago a young lady living in Mecklenburg County was stopped, she moved here from Pennsylvania, and her maid followed her he stocked her for several years. He came to her house at about four O'clock in the morning banging, banging on the door she called the police the police came and they took him about three miles away from her house. Well about seven O'clock he returned to her house and he came found in the house and started beating her house while the children were getting ready to go to school. The article was sprinted it in the paper I guess I should have finished the story. He beat her and draw her into the kitchen he didn't kill her with a gun he pull the gas run out and blew the house up. She was a nurse she worked in Northern Health Care centre in Mathews. The article that was printed in the paper said that the Shoillet Mecklenburg police department had access to databases and the third they did not ask this so I cal the SBI and I talked to the domestic violence court region and women commission and I talked to representative Turner about what it happened to this young lady and it is not unusual that this happens, but they couldn't trace back that there was a long history on this young man in Philadelphia for domestic violence because when you come to Mecklenburg county or at the state of North Carolina you should file your protective custody, your protective order and lots of women don't know that or whoever the victim may be don't know they should found it and when the police arrive you need to have evidence hanging so they don't have go looking for it but that's why I rise in support of the amendment because NIKS don't catch everything. It catches some things, but that local sheriff may know there has been three calls for domestic violence at that house that sheriff might know that the individual has [xx] disorder, that the Nick system don't know, and that individual may not have a criminal record because there is not one established. So, those are some of the reasons that I think, I'm not saying the Sheriff is a prophet, you all know I'm not a big fun, but I'm with him on this one, I am with them on this, and I think it's the right thing to do. If we want to move to Nick's, let's move to Nick's, but let's fix what we have instead of saying it's not good at all because I think it has worked somewhere. Thank you. For what purpose what does the lady from Iredell representative Turner rise? Thank you Mr speaker, just urge you to support this amendment we're trying to save lives, save families perhaps I don't express the concern I have with domestic violence well because it became part of me as as a service clerk. It was very long when I
was in Iredell county clerks office when I saw a lady who came in, she had sun glasses on, and her arms, she had no sleeveless blouse, but her arms were just so bruised and I said, What! How can I help you? Because she looked like she could hardly stand up. And she was there to dismiss the action she had taken against the person who committed domestic violence [xx], because she said it was my fault, I invited him over. And I said, you didn't invite him to do this to you, and he had actually ran over her with a car. So there are many forms as domestic violence. But this provision, this amendment that I'm running is not already in the bill. It does protect people, it does protect women who need, not just women, we've had male members also, but I do urge your support for this amendment, thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston representative Hastings rise. Well I apologize Mr speaker, but I need to clarify something before I can vote, and I wanted to see if Representative Jeter would yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Mecklenburg yield to the gentleman from Gaston? I'll be honoured. He yields. Representative Jeter. I think I heard you, I apologize if I didn't hear you correctly. Did you say misdemeanor abuse when you were speaking earlier? You heard it when I said it. You heard it same time I heard it. I don't know, yes at one point I said misdemeanor abused. To which reference you are talking to I honest I don't know the answer to that. For what purpose does the gentleman continue to rise? To see if Representative Turner would Does the lady from Iredell yield to the gentleman from Gaston? I'd be happy to. She yields. Representative Turner, just before I get ready to push this button will you tell me again you mentioned stalking, or one of the members mentioned stalking and also abuse, will you clarify those two crimes for me exactly what you're meaning to do in this amendment please? If you are convicted of these offences, that will be a lifetime ban. Further discussion further debate? For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg Representative Schaffer Ross? To debate the amendment a second time. Lady has the floor to debate the motion a second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you again to Representative Turner for bringing forth this amendment. As I said before amendment having been displaced. I rise and very careful and deliberate opposition to the amendment. It is not to say that these domestic violence issues and and some of the other issues that have been mentioned are not worthy of definite consideration and protection. My concern here is that I do believe that these issues are accounted for already in the current language of the bill, and I believe that what is happening in this amendment is that there's problem that is believed to be there that is not actually there in the resolution to that problem is over compensating effectively for a problem that's not actually there. I think it takes a wider swipe of what we're trying to do if there're further specific narrowing, more restrictive language that we need to come up with that maybe the case, however this amendment I do not believe that this amendment is the way to do it, and I would respectfully ask members to oppose the amendment. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins rise? Ask the amendment sponsor a question. Does the lady from Iredell yield to the gentleman from Nash? I yield. She yields. Representative Turner I thought I was I thought I understood what this noise was all about till the end of the very last thing you said kind of gave me a shiver. You're saying that now all of these misdemeanors, I'll be honest I had no idea what all these GS are, but all of these misdemeanors that are listed here people could be banned from purchasing a handgun for life for misdemeanors offenses. Conceived reference for me yes. Does the gentleman wish to Speak briefly on the amendment Gentleman recognized to debate the amendment Yes, not knowing what all of these multitude of offences are here, but knowing that they're all misdemeanors is briefing [xx] great poles before taking this privilege away from our citizens for a lifetime for misdemeanor offences. Obviously this is not serious abuse for battery if they've gotten away with a misdemeanor. Felony is already dealt with in this bill. We're talking about misdemeanor offences, and taking away a person's constitutional right for a lifetime. Now, a lot of the argument we've heard here is pretty irrelevant. I mean, we've heard about people killing
other people by gas lines and running over them with cars and all that kind of stuff which has got nothing to do with pistol permits or concealed carried permits or anything else, but I'm very loathed to take somebody's constitution rights for a lifetime base on a misdemeanor offense, so I think I'm going to have to vote against this amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman, Representative Stam rise? To clarify the definition of misdemeanor the gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. A misdemeanor by definition is something for which you can get up to two years in prison it's not necessarily trivial crime, those would be infractions or Class 3 misdemeanors. For example, for what can you impeach the President of the United States? High crime times and misdemeanors. For what purpose that the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Hastings rise? I apologize Mr. Speaker. I need to see if Representative Turner would yield for one other question. Does the lady from Iredell yield to the gentleman from Gaston? I do. She yields. I apologize but either I'm going to satisfy this in my own mind or I just won't vote because I'm not quite prepared and I need to be prepared before I vote on this serious issue. Representative Stam was alluding to what I think would be A1 misdemeanors. And I've read the list of A1 misdemeanors. Are any of these misdemeanors you're addressing A1 misdemeanor or do you know? Staff say they are. Follow up Does the lady yield to an additional question? I do. She yields. It sound like we certainly do need to turn this session into a session where we create more felonies Stam, Representative Turner, these A1 misdemeanors, some of these you can actually serve time for these, right? That is correct. Thank you Representative Turner. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? To briefly the debate the amendment. The gentleman has the forward to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I rise in support to the amendment, but just to highlight point that Representative Hastings questions brought out, and Representative Stams point. As a reminder in this arena, misdemeanor occurs in North Carolina as one of the is the only state on the country actually. 49 other states to misdemeanor as punishment by 1 year or less. We define misdemeanor as 2 years or less. That is, we are the only state in the country that has a much misdemeanor. A lot of thing we classify as misdemeanors, most states classify as felonies, that's the first point. The second point is, lots of times, particularly particularly in this arena as Representative Turner has really pointed out I think. There are really felony issues that have been done. That is the act is really a felony, but it is played down to a misdemeanor sometimes because the woman is so battered she refuses to testify, and it's the best the prosecutor can get. Sometimes because witnesses are not available, where incidents happen. There are whole hosts of reasons, but at a minimum, we're talking about very serious misdemeanors, and just by way of final example if you look at the stocking section and definition which is in A1 misdemeanor, that is as multiple acts, multiple acts so over a period of time. With the person's monitors, follows, observers, surveils, threatens and communicates threats to a person with the intent to torment terrorize or terrify the person. I really don't want that person having a gun or at the capacity to carry concealed in only three years. There may be other Things to do, and maybe some gradation that one day is needed, but this isn't the gradation that's needed, I really support representative Tuner's amendment. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, question before the house is the passage of amendment four, sent forth by representative Tuner. Those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the Clerk will open the vote. Representative Queen does the gentleman wish to record on this vote? Representative Shepard the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote 87 having voted in the affirmative and 26 in the negative the amendment is adopted the gentleman from Johnson Representative Daughtry is recognized to send forth Amendment ASA 87, the proper read. Representative Daughtry moves to amend the bill on page 2 line 36 through page three line five by the deleting those lines. The gentleman from Gaston has the floor to debate the amendment.
Thank you Mr. Speaker this is a sample decision for you we have in this bill if this bill passes if this amendment fails and the bill passes it gives members in the general assembly the right to carry a concealed weapon here in this body and committee meetings and on the premise and also it gives the right of the staff top carry a concealed weapon. I have thought about this a long time and there are places where we don't need guns there are places where we decide things by debate, we decide things good ideas by trying to get convince you do that this is the way to go and that's why we are here, and it seems to me that having guns in by anyone in the general assembly is something that I don't support. I've been here a long time and I've seen emotional issues where people get upset, and there are two sides and they are not satiate they are not able to reconcile there differences. That happens all the time you see it happen in this session but having guns around doesn't help anybody and I never felt in my tenure here that I was in danger by the public, by the staff, or by the members. So I believe that allowing guns, concealed weapons in the general assembly should not be permitted and that's why There some members simply does and would appreciate your support. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Carney Ross? To speak on the amendment. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr speaker and thank you Representative Daughtry for bringing this amendment forward, I was a serve on the roads committee and I was astounded when I was reading through this bill and saw this part in there, upon many people, staff people some members and nobody has given me a reason as to why this part in this bill is needed. Representative Daughtry said he's been here a long time and he's never felt afraid in this building, well I can assure you I've been here a long time too, I've never been afraid in this building, but if we leave this in there I'm going to feel more afraid than ever, it is not a safety issue for house members, senators and staff members in this building to carry weapons, we have our capital police here if there's a problem there are going to be there, I am beginning to think this bill in some aspects is sendinging mass packs and send them the message because they're assignment is conflicting thoughts about the whole bill and I know I'm on the amendment, there are so many issues that are not truly clarified by every bar on every side so I'm beginning to think this bill is more about shoot now and ask later. This is one piece in this bill we do not need, please I ask you let's keep civility in our chambers within our building, let's not have school children coming here from fourth grades they come and learn about North Carolina history and habits set by their teachers that now when you are there, they passed a law that states they can all on that floor carry a gun and teachers tell their children, their students what laws we pass there. I mean you might think that sounds ridiculous but you draw it down to a fourth grader level. Are we really smarter than a fourth grader? I cannot imagine why anyone in here feels they have to pack a gun and to come in here to session, to walk into this building to walk into your office. It and I'm going on and on because of the absurdity of this fraction of this bill. No one has given me a reason. I'm sure somebody is going to stand up tell me why it's needed about the rights, second amendment rights. We'll I may have rights too that may not agree with all of what you think that this is an absurd section in this bill. I ask you all to please
vote yes to take it out For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash Representative Collins rise? To debate the amendment The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment Well, let me just state I'm the author of this part of the bill, this was a separate bill. In fact this we are looking at was about 4 or 5 bills that got mashed together. I would have preferred to remain separate but that's not what happened, they got mashed into the gun bill and my thoughts on these were nothing like either of the representatives before me have stated. I certainly didn't try to put these in here because I feel like I need to shoot it out with anybody else in this house and I cant imagine us getting into a shooting match in the house. That was the furthest thing from my mind but I do know that we do have a lot of things here that do threaten our security. Mercy Meitna[sp?] and I were sitting same general location three seats back the first set when we were here when a member of the public busted through that gall door there yelling and screaming and got right beside Mike's seat before they were apprehended. I don't think that person had a weapon on him I don't know, there were five people actually that came through the door well I just saw them, I just saw the one that got beside us It might just get pretty big. We know last session we had people breaking into the speakers office, fortunately when there was no one there and at least one of those people had several weapons on him. We have a lot of people that come here and say a lot of and inflammatory things about some others and try to get people rowed up, and I think it's just a matter of time until we have an incident here. We know that people who do go off and do crazy things, and I don't think the average person who thinks we're passing bad policy or anything is going to go on a shooting rampage, but some crazy people do and they tend to go to places where they feel safe, because there's is either nobody or very limited number of people who have weapons there. So part of it is for protection, part of it is also this, I would like like to see this building continue to be the building of the people as long as it possibly can be. I remember when I was a kid and went to the US Capital in Washington with my parents and then later as a teenager and I remember you could wonder around there and they kept most of the doors to the bottom floor were open, and you could just walk in any door you wanted to. I was a kid, I was just a guy. You'd walk down one hall and there'd be a fresco on the ceiling walk in another hall and there'd be statues lining the halls and it was just amazing, it was incredible. Last time I went you had to go in a tent and get patted down and everything and go through metal detectors here. This is probably one of the few buildings right around us where you can still go in. I know a lot of the buildings I've tried to go in they're locked. You go up to the governor's you have to go through the metal detectors there. I'd like to deffer that as long as possible in this building. I really rue the day when one day we have you have metal detectors at the doors and everybody has to go through one at a time and it takes 30 minutes for a school class to get in and so fourth. I'd like to see that postponed just as long as possible. [xx] you can't do anything about somebody whose willing to commit suicide, you really can't, but for anybody else if they're coming in thinking they can shoot up the place because there's only a half a dozen or so general assembly police here and I kind of knew where they hang out and I can get in a corner of a building where they are not and wreck havoc and get out it's a whole different story if you don't know whether the person in that office might draw back at you or whether somebody in the next office might be able to come in and defend those people or whatever. It puts, there it is deterrent effect to not knowing whose armed in a place. On the other hand I don't want people going crazy either. I talked to Chief waive, the chief and the general service police asked him what he thought about this bill, when I got ready to introduce it earlier in the session, and he said he will not take an official position all in neither support and oppose it the only thing that concerned him is knowing, who is caring. In other wards, he wants to know who the legitimate people and the bad people are. If someone pulls down a weapon, he wants to know who they are. He says he knows, he says this all the time. Off duty law enforcement people come here, he can tell the caring conceal, although his staff hasn't been made aware of it or whatever, so I did put a provision in this bill where before any of us could make use of this exception, we would have to go over and register with the general assembly police and say yes, I know the data line, I plan on taking revenge of this exception. And we are getting on this exception already to judges in court room, just not like, something outlined that we have never done before. But I see it more like a deter and something that will help us keep this building to be the people's building for as long as possible. I also have been criticized on this bill by some gun rise advocates, because they say well you are you creating a special, class, you making legislature special and blah blah blah well we did that for the judges in the court room, and I included the legislative staff here because they have has to be in the building the more than I do, and frankly somebody who comes in here with some crazy ideas probably wouldn't know one from the other.
I have walked through the crowd that used to come here on Monday nights before. Walk through a couple of years ago with two fellow legislatures and as I was passing through we heard a person say, they're the staff people. So, they don't know who the staff people are and who the legislatures are. So I felt like it was only right to include staff people, if we're going to be able to defend ourselves and staff people are to be able to have the same privilege again this is only for those of us who are the staff members or legislators who have conceal carry permits, I'm not saying everybody comes armed to the general assembly, I would hope you would defeat this amendment and pass this part of the bill strictly because I would like to see us have whatever protection we can have here and I also would like to see the deterring effect so that this zaniness will be postponed as long as, eventually will have an incident here in this building I have no doubts about his, but I would like to postpone that day as long as possible. Eventually we are going to have metal detectors, the way our society is saying, one day will wrap up metal detectors. Mr. Speaker. But I would like to post upon that this long, it is the war wasn't as painful For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenberg representative Conner rise? To rise a gentleman a question. Will the general from Nashville to the gentleman from Mecklelnburg he yells, let him a profound a question. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you representative Collins. I want to be clear you will stay in my absence is what your intent is, you want to keep as long as we can keep the metal detectors out, keep those detern out to the people's house and yet you are saying you want members to carry console weapons to become out or protect us if someone crashes in, The gentleman has a floor to lead, I would say yes, I would feel much better protected if 30 people in this whole complex are carrying weapon and the person coming out of the building doesn't know who they are and I don't know who they are either, absolutely, I certainly would. And these are people that have concealed carried permits. These are not off the streets that have bought a gun and just popped in and don't know how to use it. so again get someone to do this clearly I would ask that oppose this amendment, thank you For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Martin rise? To debate the amendment The gentlemen has the floor to debate the amendment Thank you Mr. Speaker members I'm glad to hear form the gentleman from Nash with the reasoning behind this portion was because I was unable to disown it myself I wanted to echo that comment from the gentlemen from Johnson about what this place means and this is one of those places where I don't think we need to have guns, there is many great things about Out our democratic system or any democratic system one of course is it allows the people to have their voice expressed to the elected officials the people rule themselves, well the other good thing about a democratic system is, it allows the people to resolve their differences peacefully there are places on this earth where almost everyone does have a gun and the people do not resolve their differences peacefully and ladies and gentlemen you do not want to live in those places and you do not want to raise your children in those places at all, so the justification I had from the gentleman from Nash for this portion of the bill is for the security of those who are in the legislative complex and I think that justification represents a serious misunderstanding about what sort of security could be brought by concealed K permit holders. Dozens are I think as I read this provision, hundreds we are in a legislate of complex. It is one thing to go in the range and put some rounds down range and pretty consistent get a nice shot group sit up on the target time after time after time. I've even managed to do that more often than not. It's a very, very different matter under the type of stressful circumstances in the hypothetical's or actual examples that the gentleman from Nash gave. Your heart rate is up adrenaline is flowing and that has a significant effect on your ability to put rounds on target. In fact I'll go so far as to say your ability to put rounds on target in a nice quiet sunny day out on the range where nobody but you grill sergeant is on that chair if you've even got, really has been a little bearing on your ability to do it under a stressful situation. Representative Martin, the Chair sincerely Apologize to the gentlemen, pages we thank you for your service you are dismissed for the day. The gentlemen from wick has the floor may continue his debate. Was my reader a bad act Mr. Speaker that you had to send the pages away.
Thank you Mr. Speaker. So it's a mistake to think that arming dozen or even hundreds folks, whose only training has been for the most part through the concealed K process as how are going to make us safer, and the examples that the gentleman from Nash gave, for example, where someone bust into our chambers and came down the isle I was having 120 of us all armed going to make us safer. I would suggest you get down to your local gym and take a Jujitsu class to come join me in an army combative classes, it's going to be much more relevant, it's going to protect us better, it's going to make the place a lot more safer without endangering your fellow members. If I may on the other hand 120 us have adrenaline up at post rate firing up around 170, even if you were able to discern on to that stressful situation who the actual intended target is, it will have a significant effect on your aim. You judgement will be impaired, and your aim will be impaired, and you're in the end a greater danger to your fellow legislator, and your fellow members of the legislative community. So both because of the symbolic value of what this place represents to our democracy that the gentleman from Johnston expressed, as a place where we come to peacefully resolve our differences but even more importantly for the negative practical effect that this provision has on the safety of members, and staff, and visitors the legislative complex. I'll be supporting this amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Catawba Representative Adams arise. To debate the amendment gentlemen has the floor to debate the amendment. Once in a while people make prognostications about results, and very few times they write a book about it. Dr. John Logat was an economist with University Of Chicago in the mid 90's, and he had an opportunity to pick up a grant to do research and he scrolled through all the possible things that the research owner and one of them was the effect of conceal carry on crime, and he began his research not knowing anything about guns, and he concluded with his research that conceal carry would have a dramatic impact on crime. And he wrote a book about it in 1997. Interestingly he is now updated the book and showed where all his virtually all of his predictions came true. Florida was the first state that enjoyed the reduction in crime, that can still carry predictably causes. Conceal carry is about deterrence. That's what it's about. It's not about everybody packing guns and TV speak. It's about the very possibility, that a law abiding person, might be carrying a weapon when a criminal is about to act, and it deters that activity. Now according to Dr Law, less than 2% of the people who have concealed carry licences will ever carry. So it's not like everybody in the chamber is going to be carrying a gun or is going to be required to carry a gun or anything like that. It's simply about the fact that if somebody has mischief in their mind and they think that one of us or two of us or five of us may be armed, that will deter behaviour. It works, it has worked for almost 20 years and I urge you to defeat this amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd arise? To debate the amendment, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I arise in support of the amendment. I arrived in here at approximately the same time Representative Carney[sp?] arrived here, and I arrived under the pretense that we had a safe environment in which to work in. This is a Concealed Weapon Permit that I received in 2008. I have yet to through the course for the weapon training itself to carry a concealed weapon because I was under the impression that I was working in a safe environment, and if you look at the the bill itself. Just want to let you know that I receive one of this every Thursday and that's the envelope that my paycheck for the service that I render
here and the General Assembly on every Thursday but law and behold I get electronic drier for that. But if you bear in mind the way the amendment read, the amendment state that you only have to go and submit that to the police, our local police once, once that's all you have to do and you can carry it on the grounds of the General Assembly. Now when you look at that, since that time we have reduced the number of law enforcement officer that we have in the General Assembly. Now, for me I don't know that minute on the other side because certain committees answer their own and they don't so I don't get a chance and I ask for them and I don't know them that well. But when what we're asking this small police department they could become Robocops. Half chips[sp?] is to identify whether or not you have a facial recognition that the Robocop can identify with or the other half of the chip identify whether or not you have a handgun permit. We are asking them to do that in a modifer[sp?] of a second. Now bear in mind now I have a cell phone that I wear on the side, so that person may perceive that I am a threat because I'm making a call saying that, There's a life threatening situation here, and it may be mine because he might perceive that I'm picking, or I'm using a concealed gun, or getting ready to use so my wife will be coming to my funeral because he may not know that I have a concealed weapon from there, nor does he have time to determine whether or not I have one or not, his job is to provide and make sure that the grounds are safe. As an example, let's look at this there is six to seven thousand youth that utilize this facility every day, there's 7000 a year, there's 7000 visitors from instate and outstate that come here. We have four course, if you look around everyday there activities in this course here, we see that it's full, our sheriff association doesn't support this particular bill. The question that remains and someone said it earlier do we want this general assembly to become Dulles[sp?] City Kansas? Do we want this general General Assembly to become that. I cannot see no purpose, now, when we look at the total picture of those individuals that will be carrying handguns, we're talking about a total of 664 individual that received something through this envelope. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose is the lady from Surry Representative Stevens arise? See if Representative Floyd would yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Cumberland yield to lady from Surry? Yes. Thank you. Representative Floyd I'm at the point where I would really welcome your normal motion. I wish I could, and you're right. My question. The gentleman has the floor to continue his debate. My question is that there is 664 person that can receive a gun permit not including the 170 men and women at both house chamber. So that to me would in closing a wild wild west if all of us our alias including the custodians, and our interns will receive a concealed weapon permit I'm in support of the amendment. Members the Chair will direct your attention to rule 10th of the rule book rule 10B which lists the amount of time that a member may speak of every matter the first time to 15 minutes, and a limit of 10 minutes for the second speech. Rule 10E gives permission I believe of the house to change the rule for this discussion this debate only to allow five minutes per speaker. Is there objection to changing the time to five minutes per speaker? No. If there's objection if a member would rise Representative Hall does the member object to changing the time in which a member will speak on the main question from 15 minutes to five minutes for the first time and five minutes for the second time. Yes Mr speaker just a question of defining what this
applies to does this apply only to this amendment or for the rest of this bill tonight or Representative Hurl this would apply only to the amendments on this bill that are going to be considered in today's session. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Is there objection? seeing none it is ordered. For what purpose does the gentleman from Catabar Representative Ceaser[sp?] arise? To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has floor to debate the amendment. Ladies and gentlemen in the house I have been here for 17 years and I would like to address some statements that were made here today. Now, we have a very talented and trained staff of sergeant at arms members and I was here the day that the couple came through the back doors I didn't see any of our members get up to assist them but they certainly took them back out of this room quickly. Matter of fact I stood up and went to a page that was up here at the front desk and told them, it will settle in a minute we are well protected. I believe that then and I believe that now and don't ever think that the General Assembly of police don't know who we are and who the staff people are in this building because they are constantly and diligently looking after our safety. I do not have the qualms about the security in this building, something could happen but it hasn't happened yet and we're blessed by that purpose. But you need to remember that the Sergeant t Arms keep us safe, they deal with us and endure us everyday and so does the General Assembly Police, and they are due that respect, and I think we should remember. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Spesholi[sp?] arise? To speak on the amendment and the gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Yeah, we have had a lot of raid hearing [xx] about all this, the gentlemen that was in [xx] I understand why he would be nervous being around guns, but there are some of us here that are highly qualified with guns, 20 years in the marines and went to the police training I'm used to having guns around, just because we put ourselves in a position where we can't carry does not necessarily mean we are all, sometimes I do carry, sometimes I don't and I guess the idea is for the criminal to try and guess which days I'm not carrying. the whole point here, this building that belongs to the people. It is their building, it's one of the few left in the country that does not health metal detectors at the doors and we want to keep it that way. I enjoy watching those kids coming in the building and I enjoy watching the parents and the teachers come in a lot of you don't realize this but a lot of times they will, because of my location, they will walk those kids through my office so they can see the inside of an office and back around the building. We want to keep that going, we want to keep that flow going, but just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. Now when I walk out of this building most days I'm protected, I'm able to protect myself but why when I walk into this building I should have to give up my right to protect myself and those around me? I don't understand that, what we're doing is not something strange or unusual, we did this for district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, magistrates, judges many of your County Commissioners sit in their meetings with concealed weapons, some of you probably didn't know that, it's not unusual. We're in a position where people might get upset about things that we do and decisions we make. But to make it appear as if we are going to have a shoot out [xx] in this room when we're in heavy debate is just a red herring, you know that is not going to happen. So same excuse that was given by those who opposed in 1995 who opposed the Concealed Carry regulations or there is going to be shootouts in [xx] The first show we're going to have 350, 000 people getting Concealed Carry. Do you know it took over 10 years to get 250, 000 people to apply for Concealed Carry in North Carolina? So let's not over exaggerate, let's understand what it is we are doing it. Again there may be nobody in this room that actually carries into this Chamber. On the other hand, as a free nation, as a free people we should have the right to protect ourselves no matter where we're at, and so I ask you to think about that. We've gotten to a position for some reason
in this country where we know what we want and we don't care what everybody else wants. For those of you who don't like guns, my suggestion is don't carry them, don't get one. Just don't deny me that right to protect myself and hopefully protect you if somebody does pass in that door and this again everybody is not on trained and many of you honestly if some thing happens we will be the first one saying I hope somebody is got a gun, I hope somebody has got a gun he has got a gun and hopefully there will be someone in here who can stop the carnage if you do little googling on school shootings you will see that many schools shootings have been stopped. School shooters have been stopped in their trucks how? By principles who went to their car and glabed the gun that supposed to have they are in the first place by vice principles by teachers who went to their car and got the gun out of their car that they were not supposed to have in the first place. Mr. Speaker. We can leave our guns in the car in the parking rot under the building OK don't make us have to run all the way down stairs to our car when For what purpose does the lady from Orange representative Insko rise? To ask the representative question. Does the gentleman from Craven yield to the lady from Orange? I yield. Representative Speciale what I know when you have a gun on you if we pass this bill what I know You are not supposed to know But I know Does the lady wish to ask second question. Second question. Does the gentleman yield to a second question? \ I yield. What I know when can people in here would have a gun and concealed weapon. I supposed to know. Follow up. does the gentleman yield to a third question. I yield. He yields. Do you think I would feel safer? I can't help it how you would feel. honestly. Follow up. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? I do. He yields. Don't you think you should care about how all of us feel about safety in this Chamber, the Peoples' House? I'd like to answer that question The gentleman has the floor to respond. I do care about that's why I want to be able to protect you if something goes wrong. For what purpose does the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis rise? Speak very briefly on the amendment and then to offer a motion Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment Mr. Speaker I believe that both sides have had an adequate opportunity to express their concerns and their ideas on this amendment. Therefore I would like to is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The gentleman from Harnett has moved the previous question. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine will record the vote. 72 having voted in the affirmative, 38 in the negative, the previous question having been adopted, the pass will immediately vote on the amendment. Those in favor of amendment 6 offered by Representative [xx] will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. No, I voted no. The clerk will lock, the machine will record the vote. 69 having voted in the affirmative, 44 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Mr. Speaker, Representative Jenner, just a moment, the gentleman from Lake, representative Pitson is recognized to send forth amendment AS8 86, the Clerk will read. Representative Sturn moves to amend the bill on page 15, lines 22 through page 16, lines two by deleting those lines. For what purpose does the gentleman from Camblin, Representative Floyd arise? Mr. Speaker, H526-ASH-57, further to return please. The amendment will be returned to the gentleman. The gentleman from Lake, Representative Pevilton has the floor to debate the amendment. I rise to make a, offer an amendment, and representative Lambeth and I worked together on this as you know, he is a former Hospital Administrator, one of the biggest hospitals in North Carolina, but this amendment will take out any language, telling a medical provider how they have to practice medicine, and that's a bottom line. Further discussion further debate on the amendment, if not the question for the house, is the adoption of amendment seven offered
by representative Peddleton those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 61 having voted in the affirmative 51 in the negative the amendment is adopted. The gentlemen from Durham Representative Lucas is recognize to send forth the amendment ASA80 the clerk will read. Representative Lucas moves to amend the bill on page 3 line 48 through page 4 lines 3 by deleting those lines the gentleman from Durham has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. In this amendment members of the house relates to section four of the bill, bottom of page three top of page four. Section 4A of the bill is the one which gives our Commissioner of Agriculture the right to decide whether or not firearm should be allowed at the state fair, think as everyone knows commissioner Troup [xx] has made a decision that a gun should not be at the fair bill is written the next commissioner could decide otherwise. This amendment is about section 4(b) of the of the bill. It has to do with the study that is indicated here that the Department of Agriculture should undertake to decide where guns could be stored at the entrance to the fair. This would be guns that those who have concealed carried permits would take out of their glove compartments and bring to the entrance of the fair grounds. I think this amendment would take out that section 4B about this study. The reason I say that and I advocate for this amendment is that the study is not necessary. Think about it. Members of the public already have the right to bring their guns with them in cars, keep them in the parking, inside their cars. All these amendments asking people to do is, should people be able to walk to the entrance of the fair with their gun, and then the Department of Agriculture would have to figure out where the gun should be sort, so we're asking the department to think about what is likely to be more personnel to be entrace of affairs to take the guns to then put them in as what? Safes? We're not really sure and keep them there presumably tagged by employees so we know whose weapon is whose, and then when the person lives the fair they have to go back in the safe and find this weapon and return it to the owner. This is only for the right to go from your car to the entrance of the fair. To me this makes no sense. The commissioner, Commissioner [xx] has made a decision, any commissioner of [xx] can make a decision up or down as to whether weapons should be allowed. If weapons are not allowed as commissioners, clerk has decided the weapons are better left in the car, not walk to the entrance of the fair and make more work for fair personnel, doesn't make sense to me, I don't think it makes sense and I'll urge all of you to support this amendment as a superfluous part of the bill just take it live the powers of the Commission of Agriculture thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Pendleton[sp?] rise? To speak against the amendment. Gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. This was put together with the sheriffs as a way people would be able to this and they're not thinking of their glove boxes and bring them, these are pistols that people have concealed weapons permit on their person so they would go to a check room at one entrance of the fair, the way they talked to me about it, and they would have walkers and you would go in there and put the pistol in the walker, he would take the key, when they gave you the key they take your concealed weapons for a bit and hold it so that when they're guaranteed they'd get the key back, but that's all it would do. People feel very very vulnerable and I do to and I'm a big guy walking back and forth to my car so that's what the sheriffs want to do is study it, nothing may be able to come out of it, but I think it needs to be studied. Thank you. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Amendment
8 offered by Representative Luebke. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine, and record the vote. 41 having voted in the Affirmative and 73 in the Negative, the amendment fails. The gentleman from Buncombe, Representative Ager is recognized to send forth Amendment ASA 77. The Clerk will read. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment [xx] Just a moment, the Clerk needs to read the amendment then I'll recognize the gentleman to debate. The Clerk will read. Representative Ager moves to amend the bill on page 3, lines 34-37 by rewriting those [xx] Now the gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I'll get the hang of it, this amendment would simply make the carrying of firearms at the Mountain State Fair at the Western North Carolina Ag Center that it also would be at the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, representative Schaffer rise? To debate the amendment. Lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you representative Egan[sp?] for bringing in that amendment and also for chatting with me is just before session started about, this amendment, I had had a chance to look at it and I would ask the members to oppose this amendment. The reason that we have this language concerning the commissioner of agriculture, is that the state fair has a very unique set of circumstances, because of those unique sort of circumstances that are not present in other areas around the state, we are making this very unique exception and we would like to keep it simply to the state fair because of those unique set of circumstances, I would ask for the to oppose the amendment, thank you. Does the gentleman from Buncombe desire further debate? I see the gentleman's light is still on. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? Briefly to ask Representative Schaffer a question, if I might? Does the lady from Mecklenberg yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? I do. She yields. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative. In trying to think through this, could you explain what you believe are the unique circumstances so that we could sort of figure that out in comparison to how that is differs from the Western North Carolina Agricultural Center fair where the State fair's conducted there? Sure. What we have learned over this last year of really looking at this issue concerns really the top notch law enforcement operation that they have going on over there, as well as the incredible numbers that come out during that two week period of time. Because of that, it does not make sense for this to be allowed at the State Fair. However, two years ago and other things that we did, was that we wanted to vow to [xx] holders to be able to bring the weapons into situation like this, a State Fair presented this unique set of circumstances, so we wanted to remove that from that particular permission for people. Follow up Does the lady yield to additional question? I yield She yields Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative and that what makes sense as I understand it with regard to the State programs but did you study the security issues of the mountain state fair and what they do or don't do in relation to deciding that it can't apply there. Do we have the same set of study to know that that's an issue or not an issue there? We did not have specific numbers as far as the study that went into that, however, what the experts and those who do have the information have told me was that the Sate Fair that we host here in [xx] is the numbers are significantly different from what is going on around the rest of the states I hope that that answers your question? Thank you. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment, if not, the question before the house is the passage of [xx] offer by Representative Hager, those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no the clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine will record the vote. 46 having voted in the affirmative and 68 in the negative, the amendment fails. Members there are presently before the Chair, looks like 10 amendments that are pending right now. It's the chair's understanding that the minority party has requested to end at 5:30 today because of the scheduled event, the chair is inclined to allow a vote on second reading and members can resubmit these amendments tomorrow the Chair is not, there's not a motion for previous question that is being offered at this time so if I see lights I will take them, but my understanding is
that there was some folks and members running amendments on third reading. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus Representative [xx] rise? Inquiry the chair. Gentleman may state his inquiry. I'm wondering due to the previous amendment, relative to the healthcare providers, if that renders my proposed amendment H562ALH34 Version 6 irrelevant and some I can't run or could that possibly be inserted in anyway? Well I believe the gentleman's amendment, I would have to take some time to review a bit, maybe that the gentleman's amendment would have to be re-drafted one thing about this and I I think the gentleman went to correct the typo earlier, one thing we do once a bill passes if we find out that there's a type of world where we're permitted statute to make those change, I'm not sure here the misses is coming from but anyway, we are permitted to make those changes so if we need to make informing changes we can I will need to check with the clerk to see if that is there is an issue with Mr. Speaker let's not May I respond to that last statement Sir? The gentleman is recognized for further inquiry. Just was just by way of the explanation of the last thing you see it, I call it bill draft in front of about that spelling, auditor of bill and it was their suggestion to do a amendment not mine. No problem. Does the gentleman want to withdraw his amendment at this time and consider just filing it tomorrow? Yes Sir I'd like to see if Just a way that I work to spec, the amendment will be returned to them, are there any other members who would like to withdraw the amendments of this term understanding gentleman and I will tell in an instance just call for disclosure that, the representative Jackson has general withdrawn this amendment? He withdrew with the okay, any other members who wish to withdraw their amendments this time. For what purpose does the lady from Franklin, Representative Richardson rise? To withdraw my amendment, it was covered with Representative Turner's amendment. I believe that 80, let's see which one is there. Is h516, 68, thank you. Carry that way the way the amendment will be returned to the lady, the lady from Frosive floor, representative Stive, for what purpose does the lady rise? Thank you Mr. Speaker I rise to do those very same things to withdraw the amendment because it was taking care of section seven of he bill by representative Tuner, thank you. The amendment will be returned to the lady. For what purpose does the gentleman for Cameron, representative Grasia rise? To draw my amendment Mr. Speaker is a technical amendment that can be authored tomorrow. The amendment will be returned to the gentleman as well. For what purpose does the gentleman from Catawba, Representative Adams rise? To withdraw my amendment till tomorrow. The amendment will be withdrawn and returned to the gentleman. Same purpose from the gentleman from Orange? Yes Mr. Speaker Then will be return, for what purpose does the gentleman from Cambarus, representative Pavemen is jum just still have his right owners gentleman, Mr. Speaker I was going to I guess so require suggestion, brought into our discussion [xx] go about my amendment correct in the spelling of previous bill I wondered if it would be in order if I were to move that we reconsider that amendment so that we can kill it, so you all don't just fix without having an amendment so I can get to the Governor faster. Gentleman could. [xx] will not be helpful to the process? We have to reconsider the final passage of the bill and then reconsider the passage of the amendment maybe at this point, maybe just as where [xx] I would read it loud, I'd suggest the gentleman to make a motion. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg representative Schaffer rise? For a point of order Mr. Speaker. Lady may stand for a point of order. I'm noticing a lot of folks withdrawing amendment to have them re-done tomorrow, can we leave the amendment that are currently being held by the clerk on for tomorrow if they are not ruled out of order? Yes, the answer is yes, that would be more of a [xx] recruit not a point of order but the answer to the lady question is yes, however given that there's been some substance of amendment adopted it might be in order for members to, take another look anyway because page numbers and all that sort of thing have changed. So I would encourage all members to take a look at the amendments they filled because there are going to be technical changes there necessary. Probably the best bet is to withdraw, is for all
members to simply withdraw their amendments and our members to withdraw their amendments. And then to, given us [xx] to make sure that there going to be consistent because one of the things, once we have the second reading on this bill assuming it passes, the chair is going to direct that the amendments be engrossed so that the version of the bill that is before the body tomorrow incorporates all the amendment that have would have been adopted on second reading. Follow up. T The lady is recognized for a follow up. Would you be willing to reveal to us, which of the amendments would be ruled out of order? Of the ones that you have so far. I don't want to spoil the surprise for tomorrow. Follow up? The lady is recognized for a follow up. It might it stuck a little bit of time and travel and is part of my concern. Well the chair reviewed some, the chair will not make a ruling out of the amendment until the way before the proper body, or the proper version of the bill, so in all can I think it will be premature to do that. The Chair will dissolve it, had the chair had the rule on the number of amendments today on the second reading, they were few that were going to be ruled out of order, but it appears we are not going to have to do all the bad at the moment. Then I would like to withdraw my amendment to have it re authored for tomorrow. Like the [xx] Thank you is that the same? For what purpose does the lady from Guilford. It is, sorry, sorry, same request please thank you. Is that the same for representative Kenningham as well? Okay let me ask you a is there anybody who objects to the amendments being returned to him? That's it, there you go. Alright. At this time The Chair will permit if there's any folks who want to debate the bill. We're about to vote on second ring but the chair, there is not previous question. The floor is open for debate on the bill. Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House bill 562 on it's second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed would vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will work the machine and record the vote. 78 having voted in the affirmative and 37 in the negative. House bill 562 passes it's second reading and will without objection. Objection Objection have been heard. We'll remain on the counter for third reading. And the bill is ordered engrossed as to the amendments. For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland, Representative Pierce rise? Announcing Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the for an announcement the house will come to order. Thank you Mr. Speaker to the members of legislative Black cocus we have an off campus meeting 5:30 we are a little late, but please take part in it. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke rise? For what purpose does the Gentleman from Duplin, Representative Dixon rise? Point of privilege. The gentleman is recognized to speak to a point of personal privileged the house will come to order. Mr. Speaker and members of the house join me in expressing happiness at my seatmate's birthday today. What purpose does the gentleman Rutherford Representative Hager rise? For announcement Mr. Speaker. Gentleman is recognized for an announcement. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Republicans will caucus in the morning 10 AM room 544. For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash Representative Collins rise? For an announcement. Gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Public Utilities Committee will meet tomorrow at one O'clock in room 643, we'll be hearing Senate Bill 88. Senate bill 88 it's on poll[sp?] attachment disputes. For what purpose does the lady from Orange Representative Insko rise? For a point of personal privilege. The lady is recognised to speak to a point of personal the house again will come to order. Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house. This will be the last time I will have the opportunity to Wish Representative Glaicher[sp?] a happy birthday. As a state representative I hope you will join me in saying congratulations.
Further notices and announcements. The gentleman from Harnett[sp?] representative Lewis is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker I move to subject of messages from the senate, re-referrals of bills and resolution appointment of conferees that the house do now adjourn to reconvene Wednesday June 17th at 1:30 o'clock P. M. Representative Lewis moves seconded by Representative Cotham that the house adjourns subject to the receipt of messages from the Senate re-referral of bills and resolutions. Appointment of conferees and receipts of committee reports. Let the house adjourn to reconvene Wednesday June 17th at 1:30 P. M. Those in favor say aye? Those oppose no. The ayes have it we stand adjourned.