NC House GOP makes gun rights stand

Posted March 5, 2013

— On a party-line vote, the House Rules Committee on Tuesday approved a resolution opposing any push for more gun control at the federal level.

House Resolution 63, sponsored by freshman Rep. Michael Speciale, R-Craven, says (as amended) "The House of Representatives expresses support of the constitutional right of the people of this State to keep and bear arms and opposes any infringement by the federal government of the right of the people of this State to keep and bear arms."

"We right now have an out-of-control federal government," Speciale told the committee.  "We here in the North Carolina General Assembly are the last bastion of hope between citizens and an ever-encroaching federal government."

The resolution says "Infringements such as registering guns, banning certain kinds of weapons and accessories, requiring extreme background checks, and restricting concealed carry permits" have not been been proven to protect public safety.

It also blames Democratic President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden for being the driving force behind the push for further infringements.

Asked whether any gun control legislation has yet been introduced, Speciale said he wasn't sure but said his bill covers "some of the things (gun control advocates) were talking about."

"Every time there's an incident, they want to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, and it's a right," Speciale told the committee. "We just don't want any more infringement on our rights that have already been infringed upon."

Handgun generic, firearm Resolution against federal gun laws called 'pointless'

Resolutions don't carry the force of law, staff explained; they simply express the opinion of the House. 

"It's something designed to send to our congressional delegation, letting them know, 'You need to be there to protect us. You need to protect our rights,'" Speciale said. 

Democrats took issue with the resolution, calling it "pointless" and "political." 

"I don't understand why we have to have this resolution, if it's not specifically aimed at one proposal we would support or not support in Congress," said Rep. Becky Carney, D-Mecklenburg.  

"Do resolutions have to be factual, or can you just make stuff up?" Rep. Marcus Brandon, D-Guilford, asked Rules Committee Chairman Tim Moore. 

"There's absolutely no fact in that bill," Brandon said later. "It's an opinion,and everybody's entitled to their opinion. But to force it down on the House?"

The measure passed 12-7, with all Republicans voting for it and all Democrats voting against it. Its next stop is the House floor.


This blog post is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • junkmail5 Mar 6, 2013

    which laws are those? -Grand Union

    The ones that make it illegal to lie on your form 4473. Over 30,000 folks were guilty of that (denying they were a felon, when NICS would come back that they were).

    nearly 0 of them were prosecuted for it.

    That's up to 30,000 people, in just 1 year, who would've been put in jail instead of turned back out to go find another route to illegally obtaining a gun.

    another reason to mandate secure storage- Grand Union

    The supreme court already spoke to this in the Heller decision-

    "the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional"

    If your suggested law means I have to tell the guy breaking into my house "Hey, hang on for a few minutes while I go unlock my gun to defend myself" then that law is unconstitutional.

  • Grand Union Mar 6, 2013

    "How about just enforcing the laws on the books against the CRIMINALS?"

    which laws are those?

    " Law abiding folks do NOT need any restrictions - NONE. Let the have machine guns and submarines and satellites and drones. Only the CRIMINALS need to be restricted as they are the only"

    LOL perhaps you want to be on the airliner which happens to be shot at with a stinger missile by a person who wasn't a criminal until the second he pulls the trigger?

    " And the laws already prevent them from having ANY weapon at any time anywhere!"

    Thats the whole point, existing laws prevent very little, merely punish people when its already too late.

  • Grand Union Mar 6, 2013

    "Did it stop 30,000. or just delay them ?"

    likely just dely them as there are so many ways to get a gun that avoids a background check

    " How many where citizens who shouldn't have been denied ?"

    please show that any were and that there is no appeals process....

    " They won't stop in the middle of a theft of firearms to get a background check."

    another reason to mandate secure storage......stealing one from a nightstand is a little easier than from a bolted down 500lb safe.

    " I've known people who have been denied due to paperwork errors."

    permanently denied or just delayed?

  • goldenosprey Mar 6, 2013

    Where are the jobs, Mr. Tillis?

    We seem to have more than enough guns.

    Where are the jobs?

  • Plenty Coups Mar 6, 2013

    dasheller-"Obama, and all those who support him are of the above ilk!"

    Thanks for your opinion. Anytime you want to have a specific discussion on the issues rather than a vague rant about Obama supporters not following the Constitution, I'll be happy to oblige you.

  • Plenty Coups Mar 6, 2013

    "Did it stop 30,000. or just delay them ?"

    It certainly made it harder and undoubtably prevented guns from getting into the hands of individuals who shouldn't have them. A great example is mandatory checking for underage alcohol IDs. Sure some people manage to get access to alcohol but statistics show, beyond any doubt, that it has saved lives.

  • 1911A1 Mar 5, 2013

    Did it stop 30,000. or just delay them ? How many where citizens who shouldn't have been denied ? They won't stop in the middle of a theft of firearms to get a background check. I've known people who have been denied due to paperwork errors.

  • miseem Mar 5, 2013

    Hey Einstein, if our DC reps could get anything to stick for impeachment, they would have. In the mean time, how about all those JOBS the GA is creating in NC.

  • AlbertEinstein Mar 5, 2013

    As a state body, we need more legislation in place to counter act the very much out of line executive orders AND recommend to our Washington representation to begin impeachment.

  • dasheller Mar 5, 2013

    "After taking the oath of office, if one refuses to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, are you an enemy of the same?" -Roadrider18

    I would say YES! I would also say that there are too many people in this Country that have no idea/no care of;

    The Constitution
    The Declaration of Independence
    The Bill of Rights

    The problem arises when too many "un-learned" voters cast a ballot because of ignorance, arrogance or ideology. Democrats/Republicans alike.

    "We The People" are becoming nothing less than "The Ruled."
    By sycophant ideological, self-righteous Local/State/Federal
    Politicians who could care less about the governing documents
    of this Country.

    Obama, and all those who support him are of the above ilk!