North Carolina almost killed a Jim Crow-era gun control law. The legislature passed it. It was Governor Roy Cooper who vetoed the bill.
Granted, that’s not shocking coming from a Democrat, but it still happened.
Now, it seems that some in the legislature have forgotten their largely Republican colleagues passed a pro-gun bill and are hoping to go in another direction. That’s right. They’re hoping to pass anti-Second Amendment legislation.
Following recent shootings and other gun-related incidents at North Carolina schools, Democrats said Thursday they will file petitions next week to try to bring two bills up for votes that Republicans have not acted on during the legislative session.
“We don’t have all the answers yet. But, we can’t afford just more platitudes. Thoughts and prayers don’t change what’s already happened,” said Rep. Julie von Haefen (D-Wake County).
You don’t have the answers, but you’re going to push forward with legislation anyway? That just doesn’t make a lot of sense. I mean, if you don’t have answers, how would you know what legislation to pass in the first place?
Of course, this is the result of the Do Something mentality. It doesn’t matter what they do just so long as they’re seen doing something.
Rep. von Haefen was joined by other Democratic state representatives and groups calling for various reforms to gun laws.
The first would establish extreme risk protection orders, also knows as a red flag law, where a judge could temporarily order someone’s guns be taken if they’re deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.
Rep. Marcia Morey (D-Durham), a former judge, said she remembered cases where people would say they were worried violence would occur but there was nothing in state law to prevent it.
“What we’re asking for is a balance. As guns proliferate, we have to have commonsense gun safety laws. And, if we don’t more people will be murdered. More people will commit suicide by firearms,” said Rep. Morey.
Oh, people said they were worried violence would occur? Just how often did it?
After all, red flag laws essentially strip people of their Second Amendment rights on the word of someone who may well be prejudiced to think the worst of them. The law, however, doesn’t differentiate between a spouse who is concerned and a spouse who is vengeful. All it takes is someone claiming that they’re afraid and POOF! There go someone’s gun rights.
And what we haven’t really seen is any evidence that violent crime rates or mass shootings are impacted by such a measure.
The second bill would require a permit for the purchase of a long gun, defined as a shotgun or rifle that’s not considered an antique firearm.
Sweet dancing Elvis on a rocket-powered toboggan, are you kidding me?
In other words, they want to make it so you’ll have to get government permission to buy any firearm at all. It’s bad enough you have to do it with a handgun in the state, but at least someone who isn’t prohibited can get a long gun without having the sheriff deny him out of spite or whatever else. Now, they want to take that from them too.
Honestly, if you can’t see the issue here, you’re probably too dense to remember to breathe without a reminder.
If there’s an upside, it’s that none of these bills will pass. I just don’t see the legislature that passed a repeal of a pistol permit requirement then signing onto a permitting requirement to purchase a long gun. Honestly, that makes no sense.
The red flag law has a better chance, sure, but even then I’m skeptical of it passing.
Of course, that’s probably irrelevant. My guess is that this is an attempt to set the stage for campaign season by trying to blast Republicans for not passing laws that Democrats claim will make people safer.
Please let it backfire.