The bill also includes a more relevant repeal, which would allow people who attend church to carry guns to church even if their church also has a school attached. Currently churchgoers with schools are mandated to be disarmed during services (but not those whose church lacks a school), even though church services are typically on Sunday when no school is in session. Public schools, meanwhile, enjoy armed police guards as a rule.
Under the present circumstances, when Christian communities seem to be under attack, you might think that allowing churchgoers to protect each other was a reasonable policy. We'll see what the legislature says.
The override requires a 3/5ths vote, which means that 72 representatives must vote in favor of it [see update]. There are 71 Republicans, the rest Democrats. It'll be interesting to see if party has become so powerful that even such a close vote can't be won, in a state that is mostly rural and that mostly is strongly in support of self-defense.
UPDATE: The governor's veto was successfully overridden this morning.
Apparently the 3/5ths requirement in NC is 'of votes cast,' allowing Democrats to support the bill by simply not showing up for the vote. That saves face, I suppose, which can be an important thing. It also prevents primary opponents from being able to charge them with having voted for a gun access bill supported by Republicans in increasingly partisan times.
UPDATE: From the Jackson County Sheriff's Office:
EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, any person seeking to purchase or transfer a handgun in North Carolina is no longer required to apply to the sheriff for a pistol purchase permit. All pistol purchase permitting laws in North Carolina have been eliminated by the enactment of Senate Bill 41, Guarantee 2nd Amend Freedom and Protections.Background checks will by done by the dealer when purchasing a handgun.
More important to my way of thinking was the church carry; you could already have dodged the difficult sheriff by getting a concealed carry permit, which would also serve as a pistol permit but which was 'shall issue' rather than 'may issue' from the perspective of the sheriff. Letting parishioners protect each other is a big deal.
3 comments:
But we don't want guns to even be in church so this ban must have been preventing criminals and those bent on revenge for bizarre reasons, because well, it's against the law.
You know, like drugs.
I think anywhere the government forbids one to carry a firearm, the government itself should provide armed security at no cost to the establishment (church, school, etc.).
I am leaning toward the opinion that any establishment (whether business or public building) that does not allowed weapons makes itself responsible for the physical security of everyone on their property and should therefore provide armed security.
@ Tom - and think what the implications of that would be for nuclear-free zones, like towns in Vermont used to engage in theatrical adoption of.
Post a Comment