North Dakota House Passes Constitutional Carry 83-9

ammoland ^ | 2 March, 2017 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

North Dakota has passed a “permitless” or Constitutional carry bill in the House. The bill had very strong support, passing 83-9, with two representatives not voting. From nd.gov:

11th Order – Final Passage House Measures – HB1169 – Energy and Natural Resources – Do Pass – Votes Required 48: PASSED – Yea 83 Nay 9 N/V 2 Exc 0

For a Constitutional carry bill, the legislation is fairly complicated. It removes various restrictions in ten pages of text. It applies only to North Dakota residents. Residency may be shown by displaying a North Dakota picture ID that was issued at least a year previously.  The bill includes a “duty to inform” provision that requires people carrying concealed weapons to inform police that they are armed, during police interactions.

North Dakota is a “shall issue” concealed carry permit state, with over 8% of the adult population having concealed carry permits. The permit fee, at $25, is one of the lowest in the nation.

North Dakota is one of 25 political trifectas in the United States, where the Republican party has control of both houses of the legislature and the governorship.  In North Dakota, Republicans have 38 seats in the Senate, Democrats have 9.  In the House, Republicans have 81 seats, Democrats have 13.

The sponsor of the bill, Representative Rick Becker, believes it will pass in some form.  From bismarktribune.com:

Becker said he’d be surprised if HB1169 didn’t pass in some form.

The Constitutional carry bill, HB 1169, will have to pass the Senate and either be signed by Governor Dick Burgum, or have the legislature override a veto, for the bill to become law.  It has been reported that similar bills have been killed From kvrr.com:

[marktwain]

North Dakota is in competition with Alabama and Kentucky to be the next to join the "permitless" or Constitutional carry club.

[Fai Mao]

Is there any evidence to support my idea that these law make leftist either leave or not move to a state?

[marktwain]

There are lots of people who *say* they will not visit a gun friendly state.

Not so sure there is hard evidence of it.

I like the idea of hoplophobes staying away, though.

[redfreedom]

I’m assuming ND, as well as other Constitutional Carry states, will still issue concealed carry permits for residents traveling outside of the state.

[BeadCounter]

The ND House actually has that many Representatives? 800,000 folks, I guess that’s possible.

[marktwain]

New Hampshire has 300 representatives for a 1.33 million population.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

There is still some ambiguity in my mind about the “duty to inform”. Some of the issues:

1) Gun carriers must have an “opportunity” to inform, which is not possible in all interactions. Is there a time limit to inform?

2) If the LEO first asks them if they are armed, before they can volunteer that information, have they legally failed in their duty to inform? Sounds obvious, but may not be in practice. For example, if at the start of the interaction, the officer conducts a pat down search, and finds the gun first, speaking not in direct answer to a question might vaguely be considered resisting arrest.

3) If the LEO tells someone to “shut up”, do they still have a duty to inform?

4) Is the duty to inform an individual responsibility or required of every person in a group, even those not being addressed? Is there a proximity to an LEO outside of which there is no longer a duty to inform.

5) Is there a preferred, but not exclusive phrasing to inform a LEO that you are armed? What about using one of the *extensive* list of slang words for a gun?

http://urbanthesaurus.org/synonyms/gun

6) Likewise, the foreign language words for gun?

http://www.indifferentlanguages.com/words/gun

[marktwain]

I do not like the “duty to inform”.

I do not believe it accomplishes anything positive.

It sets people up for prosecution.

But it is in the proposed bill.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

I don’t care much for it myself, but my concerns are what I wrote. Duty to inform as such has no parameters, and that is asking for all kinds of trouble.