Saturday, March 28, 2015

"Made in N.C.": Senators introduce a raft of gun legislation & Bill Would Overrule Gun Rules like Chapel Hill’s


The hilariously named Homeland Security Patriot Act, sponsored by Sen. Jeff Tarte and Sen. Ronald Rabin is actually not funny at all. It would establish a “homeland security unrestricted concealed handgun permit” to allow anyone with a concealed carry permit unrestricted access to anywhere in the state, “including property on which a notice is posted prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun.” In true vigilante style, county sheriffs would issue the patriot a badge with their permit. A person would have to have both with them plus a valid ID at all times while carrying a concealed weapon, you know, for security.

More @ Indy Week

Comment:  "Good to see Jane Porter is not making any attempt at being unbiased." :)


A bill filed in the North Carolina Senate Tuesday would give teeth to a state law that, barring some exemptions, requires counties and municipalities not to pass firearms laws more stringent than state law.

The bill, S394, filed by Sen. Jeff Tarte (R-Mecklenburg), will strengthen the state Preemption Affirmation Act to allow elected and appointed public officials to be personally fined if they are found to be in knowing and willful violation of the law.

According to the bill, the intent of the legislation is to “deter and prevent the violation of this section and the violation of rights protected under the Constitution and laws of this State related to firearms, ammunition, or components thereof, by the abuse of official authority that occurs when enactments are passed in violation of State law or under color of local or State authority.”


  1. I guess the irony is lost here. If we support the authority of the states to require smaller government entities (e.g. counties and municipalities) to conform to state-level legal standards, what does that do to our "10th Amendment" argument against the federal government imposing its will on the states?

    1. Funny, as I was thinking the exact same thing when I posted this.

  2. Forester, while I understand your concern, I think the founders thought that at the state level more of the state citizens would be likely to engage their reps and have a say. For example I have on occassion had meetings with my state rep, becasue the number of citizens he represents is small enough to allow for this, where as my national rep won't give me the time of day. Not sure if my stance makes since but I do believe we could have an interesting discussion at least about the topic.