so if my legalese to english translator is working, this bill pretty much says that a place of business is no longer allowed to prohibit firearms that are locked up in the car - is that right? So if we go somewhere that doesn't allow firearms, then we can lock them up in the car without any repercussions from the business, and if something happens, we can sue them for civil damages. is that also right?
If that is, then why do they keep putting "takes effect dec. 1st of '11"? This bill would be far more effective if it became effective immediately, just like the castle doctrine law
Two things:
1. What's with (c)(2)?
2. Can we get schools added in there, please?
Honestly, schools has to be a separate bill or this one will not make it I think.
Mr Brown,
I wish to thank you for your introduction/co-sponsorship of the H63. the Firearm in Locked Motor Vehicle/Parking Lot bill. This bill is one of the first few of many that I hope to see put forward here in the great state of North Carolina that will increase the personal freedoms of state residents this legislative session. I look forward to hearing more about this and other bills as they progress and encourage that you and your colleagues continue to dismantle many of the freedom restricting laws that have been enacted over the many prior decades where the Democrats were in control of the House and Senate.
Additionally I would like to encourage you to support and vote for H52.The Castle Doctrine.
Thank you for your time and your hard work,
[Mekender]
Probably true. And then universities and k-12 would probably need to be separate as well.
No, this would apply to employers not to places where you visit as a customer.
Probably true. And then universities and k-12 would probably need to be separate as well.
Short and sweet, I like him more now...There is a better Castle Doctrine bill coming I support. Larry
medender, I believe you are incorrect. It looks as if this bill applies to all business. Part (b) of the bill states that no business, commercial enterprise, or employer can say you can't leave a locked gun in your car. Using your logic, a business can be one which you are not employed, therefore if you work for company A, when you go to store B (since you are not an employee) they could say you could not leave your firearm in your car on their property.
Oklahoma has a similar law. The civil suit can be filed against the business if you are forced to park off their property to leave your weapon in your car, someone breaks in and steals your gun and uses it in a crime.
The only employee/employer relation in this bill is that if you are terminated because of leaving a firearm in your locked car, then you can request (and take to court if need be) to be restored to your previous position, rate of pay, seniority, and for reasonable attorney fees.
Hope this passes for you guys.
(4) Where transport or storage of a firearm is prohibited by State or federal law or regulation.
so if my legalese to english translator is working, this bill pretty much says that a place of business is no longer allowed to prohibit firearms that are locked up in the car - is that right? So if we go somewhere that doesn't allow firearms, then we can lock them up in the car without any repercussions from the business, and if something happens, we can sue them for civil damages. is that also right?
If that is, then why do they keep putting "takes effect dec. 1st of '11"? This bill would be far more effective if it became effective immediately, just like the castle doctrine law
Even the castle doctrine law will (if passed) go into effect Dec. 1, 2011 - nearly every law in NC goes into effect after the end of the session in which it is passed (unless stated to go into effect later).
Even the castle doctrine law will (if passed) go into effect Dec. 1, 2011 - nearly every law in NC goes into effect after the end of the session in which it is passed (unless stated to go into effect later).
I think I remember hearing somewhere that k-12 schools were gun free zones under some federal ordinance or something. Can anyone confirm for deny with citation that this is or is not the case?
We can always encourage them to make it effective sooner.
Supposedly Sen. Daniels is going to bring this up when the CD is heard in Jud II. He is co-chair. I emailed him about it and he seemed to feel it was a reasonable request. We'll see. But this talk of a better CD has me intrigued. Possibly "stand your ground"?
Section (c)(4) says:
Since possession on campuses is prohibited by state law, this would apply and carrying/possessing on campuses would be illegal.