Help w/Firearms proposals in NC Assembly

Thank you for contacting me in regard to the various firearm proposals considered during the recently adjourned 2001 legislative session.

I believe strongly in an individual's right to own and carry a firearm - it is a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I consistently receive the support of the major gun owners' organizations in North Carolina, while we have not always agreed on every issue.

The terrorist attacks on our nation Sept. 11 have given many of us second thoughts about our safety and security. Still, when it comes to gun safety and firearm regulation, it is critical to maintain a thoughtful balance between public safety and individual rights. With the assistance of gun owners' organizations, North Carolina has worked to craft this delicate balance; every proposal must be considered with the overall goal of maintaining it.

As you may know, during this legislative session the Senate overwhelmingly approved a proposal, supported by gun owners, to protect gun manufacturers and dealers from local governments' lawsuits by clarifying that only the state may bring civil actions. When Senate Bill 680 was passed by the Senate and sent to the House it had two main parts:

1. It restricted the right of government agencies and local governments to sue firearms manufacturers, reserving that right to the North Carolina Attorney General. The exception was suits for breach of contract or breach of warranty stemming from defects in purchased firearms and ammunition.

2. It also regulated gun shows and the sale of firearms at gun shows, thus closing the so-called gun show loophole. It did this by requiring that all sales of firearms at gun shows be made by or through a federally licensed firearms dealer. (An unlicensed person could display a firearm for sale at the show, with the sale completed through a licensed dealer.) Also, the gun show organizer would obtain a permit from the sheriff to hold the gun show. The permit for the organizer would require the same checks on the organizer's background as a person who obtained a permit from the sheriff to purchase a handgun.

Contrary to some information that has been circulated, the bill did not require the buyer to register with the FBI for the transaction to occur. It merely treats gun shows just as any other gun shop that sells weapons to individuals in our state. There are no requirements on the purchaser beyond what is already in existing law. This provision is not an infringement on gun owners' rights. It simply ensures that gun shows are a place where law-abiding citizens can continue to exercise those rights, not a place where criminals can buy weapons to jeopardize the safety of others.

The bill the Senate has received back from the House retains the lawsuit restriction (item 1 above), deletes the gun show provisions (item 2 above) in their entirety, and adds two new items:

1. It reduces the concealed handgun renewal fee for those age 70 and older from $75 to $5.

2. It permits reciprocity recognition of out-of-state concealed handgun permits in North Carolina if the requirements for granting the permit in the other state are substantially equal to North Carolina's requirements and the other state recognizes North Carolina concealed carry permits.

I concur fully with the concept of limitations on litigation against gun manufacturers and have felt this way for some time. The opportunity to live in America affords us a great many rights. Indeed, our founding fathers recognized these rights when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Implicit in these rights, however, are certain responsibilities that require individuals to be held accountable for their actions. On the issue of gun manufacturing, I feel that it is simply improper to place upon legitimate manufacturing businesses the responsibility of their products if improperly or illegally used.

I also concur with the concept of reciprocity if the reciprocal state has substantially the same requirements for carrying concealed handguns as does our state. I have supported that position for some time now and believe that it is a fair way to address the issue.

As the bill left the Senate, I also supported the position to close the gun-show loophole and still believe that it is appropriate for gun show organizers to obtain permits from the local Sheriff's office prior to holding the show. I remain open to discussion on this item as to the manner in which it is implemented. Indeed, we should minimize the bureaucratic process for our lawful business operators but at the same time maintain the public's safety.

I hope this helps clarify the different versions of this bill and my position on the various pieces. I have received many letters concerning the gun show loophole provision and would be interested in your feelings on that issue after reviewing the facts in this letter. Again, I remain open for debate on this issue. Please let me know how you feel in light of the facts shared here.

Another gun-related measure that was proposed this session would eliminate certain background checks for handgun purchases. These checks do not infringe on anyone's right to own and carry a firearm. Like the proposed gun show regulations, I believe these checks simply ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands, and I am concerned that eliminating these checks could affect the careful balance our current law holds between individual rights and public safety.

Because the state's tremendous budget problems and complex redistricting process prolonged this legislative session, lawmakers did not come to agreement on any of these firearm proposals. These bills may come up for consideration again during the 2002 Short Session, which convenes in May.

While I maintain my strong belief in an individual's right to bear arms, I am also convinced that in the wake of the terrorist attacks we must be especially careful to maintain our state's balance between the rights of the individual and the safety of the public. At this time, with emotions running high across our country, it is even more critical to give every firearm proposal a thorough and careful review. I will certainly keep your concerns in mind if this matter is considered during the Short Session.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional information or if I can be of any assistance to you.

Marc Basnight
1ST DISTRICT * STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING * RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27601-2808 *TEL (919) 733-6854 FAX (919) 733-8740
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE
SENATOR MARC BASNIGHT
RALEIGH 27601-2808

1ST DISTRICT * STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING * RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA
27601-2808 *TEL (919) 733-6854 FAX (919) 733-8740

From the GRNC site:

Mary Carpenter
April 20,2001

North Carolina General Assembly
To Whom It May Concern,

To my understanding you are debating the passage of laws requiring trigger locks and mandatory storage of guns. I am a second generation resident of the State of California, a mother and a grieving grandmother. I wish to express to you how trigger locks and mandatory storage laws in the State of California affected my family. I hope my testimony may save someone in your state from sharing the pain we must now endure for the remainder of our lives. No law you can pass will keep the irresponsible from shooting accidents or a felon from stealing a gun. I am enclosing a portion of a letter I wrote to my own state legislators concerning the constant progression of laws restricting our guns in my state.

Depending on whether or not you truly care, you may or may not recognize my name. I am the paternal grandmother of the two children who were brutally murdered inside their rural Merced California home on August 23, 2000 by a stranger with a pitchfork.

Instead of suing gun manufacturers, I am of the opinion it is our lawmakers who need to be sued. It was you who created the laws that kept my grandchildren from being able to defend themselves with any weapon greater than their bare hands. All of my son's children had been trained in the use of firearms but were unable to get to their Dad's weapon because of California State Law.

You, who have CCW permits or armed body guards, or both expect me to face a society gone mad because of drug altered brains and lax laws on the perpetrators of crime? You had no room in your prisons for the killer of my grandchildren though his wife had reported to the police in Mojave California in June of 1997 that he had forced her and their infant son into his car (kidnapping) while living in southern California? At that time she also reported how she had managed to escape from him in Mojave after he held a gun to her head (assault with a deadly weapon) threatening to kill her and their one-month-old child?

Though more recently she had given to the Dos Palos California Police Dept. the tape from her message minder threatening to kill her present husband? Though he had assaulted a police officer while resisting arrest for drug charges? Though he had violated his parole by not appearing at his hearing and they had a warrant out for his arrest? Though they knew where he lived, and also his mother and grandmother, yet failed to pick him up? Will you then find room for my son in your prisons should his fourteen year old daughter have access to his gun while she is babysitting her siblings?

There is a growing list, in my area alone, of people (mostly women) who might still be alive had they not been in a state where the use of a gun was prohibited.

Juli Sund, Carole Sund, Selvina Pelosso, Joie Armstrong, Ashley and John William Carpenter to name a few. Lawmakers talk big about a woman's right to choose yet don't allow me the very basic right to choose to defend myself? If teachers were allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school you would see the school shootings disappear. The same is true with the citizen on the street. The reason is, these killers are cowards. You can tell by their choice of victims. They operate best where they know there are no guns.

Look at your child tonight and imagine him or her with their eyes jabbed out, their skulls splintered, their brains pierced, and their spines broken with the heavy tines of a spading fork. In defending her sisters to the death with the only weapon you allowed her, Ashley had 138 puncture wounds. Twenty-nine of them were on the right side of her face, five on the back of her head, and thirty-seven to her chest and lower neck. (Obviously he was trying to behead her.) She was nine years old. While committing no crime greater than sleeping in his parents bed, in his own house, John William, 7 years old, was stabbed 46 times, with most of them in the chest, neck, and head. Depending on the condition of your heart, you may or may not feel a small measure of the pain my family and I must endure for the remainder of our lives.

Now, imagine all the gun laws you can dream up and honestly admit whether or not they would have stopped such a mad dog as this. This man was a total stranger to the family, and other than a trace of marijuana, was not on drugs at the time. However, by the testimony of his wife and girlfriend, he was a drug user who became frightening whenever he used them. All your imagined gun laws will do is insure someone's children will die again. Take a drive downtown and see for yourself all the drug addled brains.

You may declare gun free zones, but you cannot declare killer free zones. This tragedy has made me realize I am not even safe in my locked home, my barn, or my backyard. I dare you to request the autopsy reports of John William & Ashley Danielle Carpenter done on August 28,2000 from Sheriff Tom Sawyer of the Merced County Sheriffs Dept. Also ask him for the police interview with the killer's wife and girlfriend telling about his drug use and devil worship. Ask Detective Parsley about his fetish for horror movies produced by a John Carpenter, (no relation to us), and one he especially liked, that we have learned depicts a killing done with a pitchfork.

His last employment was as a telemarketer in Merced. If you have an honest bone in your body you will see this country is in desperate need of a change of heart not the gun laws that have been in place for over two hundred years. All the gun laws you can imagine cannot change the heart of a killer and you know it. Until man's heart is changed, we will be like sheep led to the slaughter without our weapons of defense.

May you stand before God and man as my two precious grandchildren's killer if you pass any more gun legislation that will make me a felon should I own a handgun or any other gun for that matter.

Sincerely,

Mary Carpenter

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.