Get Connected
Related Entities
Open Letter to Speaker Tim Moore
- Details
- Written by Charles
- Category: Paul's Blog
- Hits: 488
By F. Paul Valone
May 9, 2017
North Carolina House of Representatives
16 West Jones Street, Room 2304
Raleigh, NC 27601-1096
Dear Speaker Moore:
To quote a song by the Grateful Dead, “what a long, strange trip it’s been.” Has it really been fifteen years since you first returned GRNC’s candidate survey with a near-perfect score of 99%, earning our highest four-star evaluation? I thank you for your help and support over those years, especially when, as Rules Chair, you successfully moved to table twelve anti-gun amendments to House Bill 937.
And over those years (indeed, since 1994), I recall how GRNC and its political action committee, GRNC-PVF, have done their part by supporting hundreds of pro-gun conservatives with rallies, voter guides, election alert mailings, automated telephone calls and radio advertising, even quite literally sending millions of email alerts to gun-owning voters.
So I have to admit that this year, I am perplexed. As Republican-controlled legislatures around the country continue to progressively roll back decades of creeping restrictions on our Second Amendment rights, North Carolina seems to be at a stalemate.
I had hoped that North Carolina would be at least the thirteenth state to enact permit-less concealed carry (a/k/a/ “constitutional carry”). But alas, while our bills languished in committee, New Hampshire eclipsed us for that honor.
I had hoped we would enact true campus carry in order to deter violent sociopaths from our educational institutions. But just days ago, Georgia bypassed us on that as well, as Governor Nathan Deal signed campus carry legislation into law.
Why are we stalled this year as other Republican majorities continue to codify gun rights? It isn’t as though any of the previous laws GRNC advocated have backfired. Far from it, each law passed, whether Castle Doctrine, parks carry, restaurant carry or other measures, has performed exactly as intended, saving scores of lives with few or no negative ramifications. Indeed, naysayers’ dire predictions have invariably proven wrong.
And it isn’t as though we are asking for anything which hasn’t been successfully tested and implemented elsewhere. For example, I have yet to see any reports of problems in any of the fourteen states which already have constitutional carry.
So please tell me, Mr. Speaker, why promises made to gun voters to move the legislation (which they so desperately need) remain unfulfilled. Ugly rumors conjecture that North Carolina Republicans, secure in their super-majorities after redistricting and interested in sitting back to enjoy the spoils of power, now feel they are no longer responsible to the voters who sent them to Raleigh to defend our rights. I pray those rumors are wrong.
Please help me dispel those ugly rumors, Mr. Speaker. Please engineer passage of the contents of House Bills 438, 588 and 746 promptly and send them to the Senate in time that they may be passed this year, thereby giving us time to over-ride a potential gubernatorial veto prior to the upcoming election year.
I look forward to telling others of your continued support for gun rights, and stand ready to assist you in any way possible.
Respectfully yours,
Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
Nobody is talking about denying mental health data to sheriffs
- Details
- Written by Paul Valone
- Category: Paul's Blog
- Hits: 6078
F. Paul Valone
President, Grass Roots North Carolina
April 25, 2013
"North Carolina lawmakers are considering barring sheriffs from requesting the mental health records of applicants for concealed handgun permits," warned a recent Observer article.
As author of House Bill 310, the proposed "Concealed Handgun Modernization Act" being described, however, I assure you that statement is both selective and misleading. In 1995, I helped draft our concealed handgun law. Like other states, our "shall issue" system means applicants who meet statewide, uniform requirements -- training, FBI background checks and no current mental instability or substance abuse -- cannot be arbitrarily denied.
Imposing non-standard requirements, however, some sheriffs improperly deny permits. Extra requirements include character affidavits, additional background checks (and fees) from clerks of court, contacting employers, denying applicants for traffic infractions, even demanding "mug shots."
Using forms not authorized by the Administrative Office of the Courts, one sheriff requires applicants' personal physicians to certify they have "no concerns regarding issuing of concealed weapons permit [sic]." Beyond liability concerns for physicians issuing blanket releases, doctors with non-specific "concerns" about concealed handgun permits could presumably refuse to sign, rendering applicants ineligible.
Indeed, in The New England Journal of Medicine, UNC doctor Adam Goldstein notes: “There’s no evidence that physicians can accurately assess patients’ ability to use weapons competently and safely.”1
Ironically, the Observer listed eight invalid denials reversed upon appeal to District Court Chief Judge Lisa Bell, including a woman who feared her ex-husband yet was denied over mental health treatment as a child. Similarly, I've fielded complaints over denials for decades-old antidepressant use and Vietnam-era post-traumatic stress disorder.
Fortunately for Mecklenburg applicants, Judge Bell agrees to review permit denials since, despite a statutory avenue for one appeal, even the Observer admits "there was no system within District Court for reviewing appeals."
Forcing applicants to pay lawyers $500 or more for appeals means untold numbers of invalid denials continue to stand for low-income applicants in crime-ridden neighborhoods, domestic violence victims, the physically disabled, and those who don't understand their right to appeal.
HB 310 would bring our system, created before the computerized "National Instant Background Check System" (NICS), into the modern era by standardizing application requirements. Rather than sheriffs arbitrarily checking local facilities -- potentially delaying permits and imposing extra fees on applicants with limited incomes -- mental health information would come from NICS.
Pursuant to the "NICS Improvement Act of 2007," states report involuntary commitments and adjudications of incompetence to NICS. Thanks to conforming legislation passed in 2008, North Carolina facilities report to clerks of superior court, who relay to NICS, meaning the same facilities to which sheriffs might (or might not) make inquiries are already reporting. While some complain other states do a poor job of reporting to NICS, that's irrelevant to this discussion: Information sheriffs receive from elsewhere won't change.
Although we are willing to address stakeholders' concerns, we remain adamant that sheriffs lack qualifications to decide whom should be denied self-protection over ancient, irrelevant and often transient mental health issues.
References:
- "N.C. Docs Weigh in on Concealed Weapons Permitting," The Charlotte Observer, April 23, 2013: http://www.northcarolinahealthnews.org/2013/04/23/n-c-docs-weigh-in-on-concealed-weapons-permitting/
Why support Campus Carry?
- Details
- Written by Web Volunteer
- Category: GRNC General
- Hits: 5618
Click the photo to see it full size
WUNC - Controlling Gun Violence
- Details
- Written by Web Volunteer
- Category: GRNC in the Media
- Hits: 6025
See the entire article at the WUNC web site by clicking the text above.
WBT's Keith Larson Speaks with GRNC President Paul Valone on Restaurant Homicide
- Details
- Written by Web Volunteer
- Category: GRNC in the Media
- Hits: 6297
WBT's Keith Larson Speaks with GRNC President Paul Valone on Restaurant Homicide
Links to gun-related research
- Details
- Written by Web Volunteer
- Category: Resources
- Hits: 13935
This section is under construction. Please check back for additional listings.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime & Gun Control Laws, 3rd Edition, By John R. Lott, Jr. Special note: In the interest of getting information to the public, Dr. Lott has authorized a limited time price of only $3.48 for the Kindle edition of the book.
