A Jim Crow Law Loved By NC Sheriffs And The Demanding Moms

The North Carolina pistol purchase permit is an archaic law that has its roots in segregation. As I've written many a time about its history, the law was designed to keep blacks, populists, and union leaders disarmed and at the mercy of the KKK and racist Democrats. It is still supported by the North Carolina Sheriffs Association and the gun prohibitionists.

The permit came to fore again as the NCSA tried to hijack a bill concerning church security to increase the price for a pistol purchase permit and, oh yes, include the "good moral conduct" requirement in our concealed handgun permits. The time for permit to go is long gone by. Why we even have a law on the books that was implicitly meant to discriminate against one race is beyond me.

Grass Roots North Carolina agrees and is saying it is time again to contact your legislators to demand this archaic, racist, and ineffectual law be eliminated. I agree.

A RACIST LAW NEEDS TO END

The latest round of shenanigans by the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association and our state legislature leave no doubt that the only proper course of action is to put North Carolina's racist Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permitting in the trash bin. Enacted during the Jim Crow era as a way to prevent African Americans from purchasing handguns, North Carolina's pistol purchase permit system has long been sold as a "public safety measure," when it is anything but. Not only did it give sheriffs wide latitude to deny someone the right to purchase a handgun, but it also creates a dangerous safety loophole that allow criminals to circumvent point-of-sale background checks. The right to keep and bear arms can never be subject to the whims of elected officials, and Grass Roots North Carolina has worked tirelessly to ensure that the permitting process (like the concealed handgun permitting process) remains "shall issue" (meaning that a sheriff can not arbitrarily deny a permit.) The well-funded anti-freedom movement has worked hard to perpetuate this racism under the auspices of "public safety," and it's now clear that the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association pays the same lip service to the second amendment as does the proliferation of Bloomberg-funded anti-gun astroturf groups. Here's the irony: the pistol purchase permits create a massive loophole for criminals to purchase firearms through legitimate channels of commerce. A pistol purchase permit is good for 5 years, and there is absolutely no mechanism in place through which a permit can be revoked if the bearer becomes, for instance, a convicted felon. The permit allows the purchaser to completely circumvent the NICS FBI background check normally done at the point of sale. A racist law that makes us less safe ... one has to wonder why some politicians and the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association keep supporting this terrible legislation. Is it the profit motive for the sheriffs? Is it the mere desire for control? Do these groups want criminals to get guns? Isn't it time that our politicians and the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association speak up and tell us the truth? Support "Rights Watch International" Learn more about Rights Watch International You shop. Amazon Gives. (What is Amazon Smile?)

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!

POINT: Send an email to the Republican members of the NC Senate letting them know exactly how you feel about the Pistol Purchase Permit. PLEASE CONTRIBUTE TO GRNC: Help us fight gun control while we promote Second Amendment principles. Please CLICK HERE to contribute. Bear in mind that GRNC is an all-volunteer organization, so you can be sure your donations are put to the best possible use. Any amount helps, and any amount is appreciated. CONTACT INFO John.Alexander@ncleg.net; Ted.Alexander@ncleg.net; Deanna.Ballard@ncleg.net; Phil.Berger@ncleg.net; Dan.Bishop@ncleg.net; Danny.Britt@ncleg.net; Harry.Brown@ncleg.net; Jim.Burgin@ncleg.net; Warren.Daniel@ncleg.net; Jim.Davis@ncleg.net; Chuck.Edwards@ncleg.net; Carl.Ford@ncleg.net; Eddie.Gallimore@ncleg.net; Rick.Gunn@ncleg.net; Kathy.Harrington@ncleg.net; Ralph.Hise@ncleg.net; Rick.Horner@ncleg.net; Brent.Jackson@ncleg.net; Todd.Johnson@ncleg.net; Joyce.Krawiec@ncleg.net; Tom.McInnis@ncleg.net; Paul.Newton@ncleg.net; Jim.Perry@ncleg.net; Bill.Rabon@ncleg.net; Norman.Sanderson@ncleg.net; Vickie.Sawyer@ncleg.net; Bob.Steinburg@ncleg.net; Jerry.Tillman@ncleg.net; Andy.Wells@ncleg.net

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: "Repeal NC's Racist Jim Crow Pistol Purchase Permit NOW!"   Dear Senators: I write this letter to you today to demand that you work to repeal North Carolina's racist, Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permitting system. The pistol purchase permit system provides criminals with a dangerous loophole: since there is no mechanism for a Sheriff to revoke a pistol purchase permit, someone could be convicted of a felony and still circumvent the NICS background check with a pistol purchase permit in hand. Furthermore, we have seen how deeply-pocketed special interests like Michael Bloomberg's anti-gun organizations and the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association will try to further their elitist agenda with the same capriciousness that Jim Crow-era sheriffs used the pistol purchase permitting process to deny African Americans the right to keep and bear arms. North Carolina is no place for dangerous, racist legislation like this, and the people of this state deserve nothing less than a full repeal of this Jim Crow law. I will be monitoring your actions on this issue closely through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina. Respectfully,

Yes, Thank You Moms Demand Action In NC

Mike Bloomberg, billionaire, former mayor of New York City, erstwhile potential Democrat candidate for President, and funder of all things gun control put out this tweet yesterday evening.

Thank you to every @MomsDemand volunteer here in North Carolina for your leadership. State by state, we’re making progress to pass laws that will save lives, and you all deserve a lot of credit for that. pic.twitter.com/Ni0GmtFK4r

— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) December 19, 2018

Yes, thank you for your continued support of a Jim Crow era law, the pistol purchase permit system, that was intended to keep African-Americans, union members, and Republicans disarmed.

Yes, thank you for your support of red flag laws that turn Due Process on its head and that will get innocent people killed.

Yes, thank you for making our schools less safe by your continued opposition to any policy that would let trained teachers and administrators carry firearms to protect the students under their care.

Yes, thank you for supporting efforts to introduce even more government interference into private affairs by demanding universal background check.

Yes, thank you for all you do to make North Carolina a less safe place for ordinary, law abiding Tar Heels and more safe for criminals who, by definition, ignore the law.

 There is plenty more for which we can thank the North Carolina contingent of Moms Demand Action but saving lives isn't one of them.

Quote Of The Day

“Guns don’t have much legitimate purpose in cities outside of the hands of trained law enforcement,” Cook said. “I think many cities would want to reinstitute a blanket ban or licensing requirements on carrying in public.”

Philip Cook is the ITT/Terry Sanford Professor Emeritus of Public Policy Studies at Duke University. He is a well-known researcher in "gun violence" (sic) with a significant anti-gun bias. The quote above comes from Duke's student newspaper, The Chronicle, in which Cook was interviewed about past and proposed firearms-related legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly.

He advocated much tighter restrictions on concealed carry as well as doing away with state preemption so that cities like Durham where Duke is located could enact their own gun controls. As to enacting a ban on carrying in public, at least for open carrying, it would be an unconstitutional act. The North Carolina Supreme Court decided that in 1922 in the case of State v. Keener where the court ruled that open carrying was a constitutional right.

Another gem in this article deals with a total mischaracterization of why North Carolina has the pistol purchase permit wherein one must apply for a permit from their local sheriff to buy a handgun.

“That is relatively unusual, especially among Southern states,” said Cook, who researches gun control and crime prevention...

“The wisdom of the time [in 1919] was that rifles and shotguns are used for hunting and target shooting and other sports uses. Handguns are used against people,” Cook said. “And I think that remains true today.”

No, the wisdom of the time had nothing to do with handguns being used against people. The wisdom of the time was that blacks, union organizers, populists, and even Republicans had to be kept relatively disarmed. This was so that these people could not present a challenge to segregationist Democrats and their Klan allies. I have researched it extensively and have had many posts over the years on this subject. You can find some of them here, here, and here. I would note again that the co-sponsor of the 1919 bill was State Sen. Earle A. Humphrey (D-Goldsboro) who was the brother-in-law of ardent segregationist and Democrat party boss Furnifold Simmons.

Let's Call It What It Really Is - Institutionalized Racism

I just received an email from the Brady Campaign railing about North Carolina HB 588 and how it rolls back "four decades" of "lifesaving background checks". I'll let you read it first and then I will comment on it.

The corporate gun industry is bringing its fight to weaken lifesaving background checks to North Carolina! Right now, they’re pushing H.B. 588, a dangerous bill that would dramatically undermine the current background check system, through the state legislature.

This bill would roll back at least four decades of a lifesaving policy requiring a background check and a "permit to purchase" for every handgun sale. If this bill passes, dangerous people will easily be able to acquire handguns at gun shows, online or from private individuals without any background check whatsoever.

These permits are proven to lower suicide rates. And when Missouri eliminated a similar law in 2007, the state saw a 25 percent increase in the gun murder rate!

H.B. 588 would also require universities, community colleges, and some houses of worship to allow hidden loaded handguns on campus -- even against their wishes.

The House Judiciary Committee is expected to consider H.B. 588 at any time. It’s critical that we STOP this bill before it goes any further -- and before it has the chance to put North Carolina lives at risk.

Call committee members today and urge them to oppose H.B. 588 and stand up for lifesaving gun laws!

Thank you,

Kris Brown Chief Strategy Officer

First let's be clear - HB 588 does not eliminate the pistol purchase permit as much as I'd like to see it do that. It merely changes how the mental health reporting requirement is implemented. Nothing more and nothing less in that section of the bill.

What the Brady Campaign calls "four decades of a lifesaving policy requiring a background check and a 'permit to purchase' for every handgun sales" is actually 98 years of institutionalized racism. They won't say it but it is what it is.

The pistol purchase permit system was adopted by the General Assembly in 1919 for the implied purpose of denying blacks - and especially those who were veterans that had just come back from France in World War I - the ability to have a handgun for self-defense. There had been significant racial unrest in various North Carolina cities post-war with a major riot in Winston-Salem in late 1918. The "Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina" was adopted soon after in March 1919. The primary sponsor of the bill was State Sen. Earle A. Humphrey (D-Goldsboro). Sen. Humphrey's brother-in-law, US Sen. Furnifold Simmons, was the architect of the NC Democrat's segregationist political agenda. I think you can connect the dots here.

As to the claim about the increase in murders in Missouri, it all has to do with how you cherry pick your data. Dr. John Lott exposed it here and here.

The bill would allow a person with a valid carry permit to carry on school property that is also used for worship services AFTER school hours. My thinking is that was included as many church communities have instituted security teams consisting of trained congregation members.

And yes, HB 588 would allow campus carry at both community colleges and public universities in North Carolina. And, yes, it is against the wishes of university administrators because, let's face it, they are anti anything that takes power out of their hands including a monopoly on the power of violence. That said, I also don't know of any public university campus in North Carolina that is fenced and has controlled entry. While they all have their police forces they also are all open to criminals and potential terrorists.

HB 588 does clarify that merely possessing or carrying a firearm, openly or legally concealed, is not grounds for charging a person with going in terror of the public. Many citizens who were legally open carrying and minding their own business have been charged with "going in terror of the public". These cases also are usually thrown out of court because walking down a public sidewalk in a non-threatening manner while open carrying is not a crime in North Carolina.

Instead of calling legislators to ask them to stop HB 588, I suggest calling them to demand an end to 98 years of institutionalized racism and an end to keeping our sons and daughters as defenseless targets in officially gun free zones.

Why We Fight To Get Rid Of Pistol Purchase Permits

It looks like things are starting to settle down in Charlotte after the recent violence. You may have noticed some of the stories that referenced local citizens rushing out to buy firearms. Of course my readeers know that you should have the means to armed self-defence before the SHTF.

According to a spokesperson for Hyatt Gun Shop most of the purchases were for 12-gauge shotguns and buckshot. What was never mentioned in these stories is the purchase of a handgun in North Carolina requires either a pistol purchase permit or a NC Concealed Handgun Permit. Absent one of those two documents, you were legally restricted to purchasing a long gun. This is true even if it was a private sale.

While the Alan Gura's win in Bateman overturned the previous restrictions on possession of a firearm outside the home during a state of emergency as well as the restriction on firearm sales, we are still stuck with the Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit.

Grass Roots North Carolina has been fighting the battle to get the permit system repealed for a number of years. They sent out the following alert yesterday afternoon requesting people contact both Gov. Pat McCrory (R-NC) and his Democratic opponent Attorney Gen. Roy Cooper (D-NC) urging them to support repeal of this system.

DELAYS IMPERIL CITIZENS

As Charlotte burned, the Jim Crow-era bureaucracy denied gun purchases to the terrorized . . . Aficionados of Natural rights know that free citizens should not be forced to obtain permission slips from the bureaucracy before exercising their protected rights. In fact, it has always been GRNC’s position that archaic and shameful laws designed to deny citizens their rights, like the Jim Crow-era Pistol Purchase Permit (PPP), must be eradicated. With all of GRNC’s moral arguments and its unceasing effort to eliminate the PPP system, never before has the need to discard this old-fashioned and embarrassing legality been so obvious—and so critical. A Right Delayed is a Life put in Peril As you may be aware, several counties around the state, including Mecklenburg County, have been using bureaucratic loopholes and high-demand for guns as an excuse to severely delay the issuance of PPPs and Concealed Handgun Permits (CHP).  Indeed, it is true that, “a right delayed is a right denied.” However, in the context of a city ravaged by violent rioters, it should also be said that, a right delayed is a life put in peril. As a small but deviant portion of Charlotte’s populace, reinforced by out-of-state agitators, attempted to raze Charlotte, law-abiding and rightfully terrified citizens lined up to purchase much-needed handguns to protect their families, only to be told, “no.” These citizens were told that they would be barred from purchasing defensive handguns until the weeks-long, and now often delayed, PPP and/or CHP process could be completed. The Sheriff and other law enforcement officials are paid to protect and serve the citizens, and thank goodness for the officers on the street. However, it is ironic that the law enforcement bureaucracy has been weighted to keep these same citizens from protecting themselves, particularly when the need is so immediate, and the situation so dire. In the context of riots, where citizens are at more risk than ever and law-enforcement is overwhelmed, laws delaying the citizen’s access to defensive weapons serve only to empower the thugs, thugs who seek to hurt these citizens and their livelihoods. This must end! Below, see how you can easily contact NC’s two contenders for governor. Remind them that you have not forgotten about this critical issue. Let them know that, even outside of the legislative season, this is an issue that is worthy of great attention, and gun owners will continue to monitor their actions on this; and actions after November will speak louder than words spoken before November. Remind them that, ultimately, the requirement for PPPs and CHPs (government “permission slips”) must be eliminated as a step toward genuine rights-recognition for law-abiding citizens in North Carolina.

IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED!
PHONE GOVERNOR McCRORY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL COOPER: Use the phone numbers provided below, and tell them: I am calling to inform [The Governor / Mr. Cooper] that, at the same time deadly riots raged in Charlotte, frightened citizens were denied their right to obtain defensive handguns. This happened due to our state’s outdated Jim Crow-era Pistol Purchase Permit system and the weeks-long process to obtain a concealed handgun permit (CHP). This denial of civil rights has the potential to cost innocent lives, and it is entirely unacceptable. We must end these archaic and dangerous PPP and CHP systems, which only serve to put citizen’s lives in peril. I insist that this be addressed in the upcoming legislative session, and that [The Governor / Mr. Cooper] prioritize the repeal of these shameful and dangerous systems. Governor Pat McCrory:              (919) 814-2000 Attorney General Roy Cooper: (919) 716-6400 (Candidate for Governor) EMAIL GOVERNOR McCRORY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL COOPER: Use the links to their web forms provided below, and the text provided under ‘Deliver this Message’ to send a message. Governor McRory’s Contact Web Form: https://governor.nc.gov/contact/email-governor Attorney General Cooper’s Contact Web Form: http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/d1ba7632-eced-41be-945f-8c2015756efe/ContactNCDOJ.aspx
DELIVER THIS MESSAGE
Suggested Subject: "Riots: PPP/CHP Permit Delays Imperil Innocents"   Dear [Governor McCrory]   /   [Attorney General Cooper]: I am writing to inform you that as deadly riots raged in Charlotte, frightened citizens were denied their right to obtain defensive handguns. This denial of rights, which clearly put untold numbers of law-abiding citizens in peril, was due to our state’s outdated Jim Crow-era Pistol Purchase Permit (PPP) system, and the weeks-long process required to obtain a concealed handgun permit (CHP). In this context of civil unrest, it seems fitting to remind our state’s gubernatorial candidates that voters have not forgotten about this critical issue. Even outside of the legislative season, this is an issue that is worthy of great attention. The peaceful and law-abiding, who clearly have reason to fear for their safety, will continue to monitor your actions on this issue. You must work to put an end to these archaic and dangerous PPP and CHP systems, as it is your duty to protect the rights of North Carolina citizens, and not least among these is their right to protect themselves. As we saw last week, these PPP and CHP systems only serve to empower the unlawful and put innocent lives in peril. I insist that the repeal of these embarrassing throw-backs be a priority of yours in the upcoming legislative session. And please be aware: actions after November will speak much louder than words spoken before November. I will be watching your actions on this topic through alerts from Grass Roots North Carolina. Respectfully,

Someone Was Listening

The argument against North Carolina's pistol purchase permit system has been that it was a racist era law meant to keep blacks from owning handguns, that it is ignored by criminals, and that the FBI run NICS system is more up-to-date and less subjective than the state's sheriffs.

It appears someone was listening. Joel Burgess of the Asheville Citizen-Times did a story on Monday that examined the rates of approval for pistol purchase permits and concealed handgun permits in five western (North Carolina) counties. The context for the story were the executive actions and gun control proposals released in January by President Obama. What was most surprising about the story was that Burgess acknowledged some of the objections to the pistol purchase permit system.

But Obama's order will have little effect in North Carolina when it comes to handguns. The weapon already faces more scrutiny in this state because of a Jim Crow-era law once aimed at blocking African-American gun ownership. But sheriffs now say the law is a critical stopgap allowing them to use local knowledge to prevent tragedies.

With regard to the subjectivity, he reported this:

The law is not uniformly followed, sheriff's acknowledge, nor is it enforced at the same rate, according to 2013-2015 data collected by the Citizen-Times through a public records request. Henderson County Sheriff Charles McDonald, whose department had the highest permit denial rate, said he will defend private gun ownership, but that he will also sometimes say no based on things not revealed in a background check.

"Maybe you’re the guy in the neighborhood who is constantly getting drunk and beating up his wife, and maybe you haven’t been convicted in court. But we know."

Henderson County Sheriff McDonald's example makes for a good story but you have to wonder if that is the really the reason behind the number of denials in Henderson County. Given the peculiar demographics of Henderson County - a significant Hispanic population and an extremely large number of retirees - does either ethnicity or advanced age play a greater role in permit denial than alcoholism or domestic abuse.

That might make an interesting follow-on story by the Citizen-Times.

And They Call Themselves Friends Of Gun Owners...

As Matt Caulder of the NC Capitol Connection reports, HB 562 just barely squeaked through the House Rules Committee.

A vote in the House Rules Committee came down to a tie Wednesday morning after nearly two hours of debate and comment on an omnibus gun rights bill set to advance freedoms for legal firearm owners while cracking down on criminal possession of firearms.

The 13-13 tie was broken by Committee Chairman David Lewis (R-Harnett) in favor of the bill, which will now head to the House floor for debate.

A vote is expected on the bill Thursday on the House floor.

He goes on to report that the testimony was evenly split between those in favor of the bill and those opposed. In an email to me, he said there were representatives from Everytown Moms for Illegal Mayors, the Brady affiliate NC Against Gun Violence (sic), the NC Sheriffs Association, and the NC School Boards Association who spoke against the bill In addition, there were some individuals who didn't represent groups but did claim membership in NCAGV.

Matt was kind enough to send me the breakdown of the vote in the committee by member. What should have been an easy win was made more difficult due to some Republicans. I expected "nay" votes from the Democrats. What I didn't expect was for Republicans Leo Daughtry, Ted Davis, and John Fraley to spit on gun owners like they did. Gun owners did yeoman's work in providing the Republicans their super-majority in both houses of the General Assembly. We didn't vote for them to go all wobbly when the Demanding Mommies and the Sheriffs Association said "boo."

The vote breakdown is below:

Committee Leadership
Rep. Lewis (R-Harnett) – aye, tie breaker
Rep. Torbett (R-Gaston) - aye
Rep. Stam (R-Wake) - aye
Rep. Davis (R-New Hanover) - nay
Rep. Daughtry (R-Johnston) - nay

Committee Members
Rep. J. Bell (R-Wayne) - aye
Rep. Blust (R-Guilford) - aye
Rep. Boles (R-Moore) - aye
Rep. Bumgardner (R-Gaston) - aye
Rep. Burr (R-Stanly) - aye
Rep. Carney (D-Mecklenburg) - nay
Rep. Cotham (D-Mecklenburg) - nay
Rep. Floyd (D-Cumberland) - nay
Rep. Fraley (R-Iredell) - nay
Rep. Goodman (D-Hoke) - nay
Rep. L. Hall (D-Durham) - nay
Rep. Hanes (D-Forsyth) - nay
Rep. Hastings (R-Gaston) - aye
Rep. Jackson (D-Wake) - nay
Rep. L. Johnson (R-Cabarrus) - aye
Rep. Reives (D-Chatham) - nay
Rep. Robinson (R-Caldwell) - aye
Rep. Saine (R-Saine) - aye
Rep. Schaffer (R-Mecklenburg) - aye
Rep. Szoka (R-Cumberland) - aye
Rep. Tine (U-Beaufort) - nay
Rep. Wray (D-Halifax) - nay

What makes this worse is that all three Republicans serve in some leadership capacity. Davis and Daughtry are vice-chairs of the Rules Committee and Fraley is the Majority Freshman Leader. If I were one of their constituents, I'd be giving them a piece of my mind. Their contact info is below.

Ted Davis (R-New Hanover)
919-733-5786
ted.davis@ncleg.net

N. Leo Daughtry (R-Johnston)
919-733-5605
leo.daughtry@ncleg.net

John Fraley (R-Iredell)
919-733-5741
john.fraley@ncleg.net

I wish the House Republicans including those above were less concerned with same-sex marriage and waiting periods for abortions and more with facilitating an enumerated Constitution right.

UPDATE:  Checking the NRA's Political Victory Fund site for 2014, I find that Davis, Daughtry, and Fraley were all endorsed by the NRA. Davis and Daughtry were rated A and Fraley, as a non-incumbent, was rated AQ.  Davis and Daughtry were also rated as 4-star by GRNC while Fraley got 3 stars.

HB 562 Is Reported Out Of Rules Committee And I'm Not Happy

The devil is in the details as they say. Yesterday, the NC House's Rules Committee reported out a committee substitute version of HB 563, the Second Amendment Affirmation Act, and I'm not exactly happy. Yes, there are good things in the bill and yes, it goes to the floor of the House. However, the way the Rules Committee has so mangled up the elimination of the pistol purchase permit irks me to no end.

Section 18 of the revised bill states in part:

Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 10 of this act become effective October 1, 2021, and apply to offenses committed on or after that date. Subsection (c) of Section 10 of this act becomes effective October 1, 2018, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date. Subsection (d) of Section 10 of this act becomes effective December 1, 2015, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.

As I said, the devils in the details. What this means is that the pistol purchase permit system is eliminated in its entirety effective October 1, 2021 as Section 10 (a) and (b) refer to those parts of the General Statutes controlling permits. However, if you purchase a pistol from an FFL after October 1, 2018, a permit won't be needed if they run a NICS check.

The original substitute bill that I saw earlier this week would have set that date at December 1, 2015. What this means is that the Rules Committee and the House Republicans have again kow-towed to the North Carolina Sheriffs Association. If this provision remains in the bill and the bills passes into law, the sheriffs will continue to get their $5 per permit for another three years.

What makes this more egregious is that Bloomberg and his Demanding Mommies in their Felon Orange Tee's will claim this as a victory for gun control. This when most Republican House members don't give a large rodent's behind for them but will bend over backwards to the NCSA.

The changes in Section 10 (d) are actually good and timely. It provides standardization of the forms and process. The "good moral character" provision limits the evaluation of conduct to the last five years. Finally, it allows for appeals that can go up as far as the Court of Appeals. Previously, appeals stopped at District Court.

The arguments put forth by the sheriffs and the NCSA that they know the people in their county and know who is a potential problem are ridiculous. To think that is superior to a NICS check for a new purchase is a joke. The way the sheriffs are clinging to this Jim Crow inspired law is appalling. That some of the bitterest clingers are African-Americans is just even more appalling.

If we can't do away with the law, I say return it to the Clerks of Court where it was originally. Heaven knows they are better record keepers than any sheriff's department in the state and most likely much less biased.

Jim Crow Law Lives Until 2021

According to WRAL Raleigh, HB 562 - the Second Amendment Affirmation Act - was postponed for consideration until Wednesday. The House Rules Committee will vote on a committee substitute at 9am tomorrow. A summary of the committee summary can be found here and the actual text here. It does include the elimination of the pistol purchase permit but not until 2021. Dealers, however, would be allowed to sell handguns without a pistol purchase permit if they ran a NICS check on the person.

Come 2021, North Carolina residents would no longer need a permit when buying handguns under a redrafted omnibus firearms bill that circulated among members of the General Assembly Tuesday night.

The House Rules Committee is scheduled to vet the new version of HB 562 at 9 a.m. Wednesday. According to a summary of the bill provided to committee members, the measure still contains measures related to how doctors ask patients about firearms in their homes, although the language is loser than earlier versions of the bill.

Advocates for and against the measure were at the state Capitol on Tuesday. The lobbying group Moms Demand Action pressured lawmakers to turn back the bill, focusing particularly on the pistol permit provision. Meanwhile, the pro-gun lobbying group Grass Roots North Carolina pressured lawmakers to pass the bill.

The most scrutiny has focused on a provision that would repeal North Carolina's pistol purchase permit system. As originally drafted, the bill would have ended the state's pistol permit system in 2018. The measure up for consideration Wednesday morning would extend the system's life until 2021.

Sen. Furnifold Simmons and early N&O owner Josephus Daniels are probably laughing from the grave over this turn of events. They were the architects of the racist white supremacy policies of the North Carolina Democratic Party. The co-sponsor of the Senate bill that eventually became law was none other than Simmons' nephew Sen. Earle A. Humphrey (D-Goldsboro).  Simmons' dominance of North Carolina politics in that era was so far reaching that it was referred to as the Simmons Machine just like Richard Daley's dominance of Chicago politics was called the Daley Machine.

"An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina" - Part I

The North Carolina House of Representatives passed HB 1318 on March 10, 1919 and ushered in what we now call the pistol purchase permit system. Attempts to overturn this 96-year old law failed in the last session of the North Carolina General Assembly due to opposition from the sheriffs' lobby. The battle is continuing in this session of the General Assembly with gun rights groups and Republicans on one side and gun control groups, the NC Sheriffs Association, and Democrats on the other.

In an earlier post, I detailed some of the racial climate of North Carolina and how that led to the bill's passage. This post will detail how the law has changed over the years since 1919. In subsequent posts, I plan to examine the personalities involved, the political machine behind it, and the bills passage through both houses of the General Assembly. While we are currently fighting the NC Sheriffs Association over the passage of HB 562, it was not until 1959 that the duty of issuing purchase permits was transferred from the Clerks of the Superior Court to the sheriffs.

The Law As Passed

Chapter 197 of the 1919 Session Laws reads:

The General Assenibly of North Carolina do enact: Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation in this State to sell, give away or dispose of, or to purchase or receive, at any place within the State from any other place within or without the State, without a license or permit therefor shall have first been obtained by such purchaser or receiver from the clerk of the Superior Court of the county which such purchase, sale, or transfer is intended to be made, any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks.

Sec. 2. That the clerks of the Superior Courts of any and all counties of this State are hereby authorized and directed to issue to any person, firm, or corporation in any such county a license or permit to purchase or receive any weapon mentioned in section one of this act from any person, firm, or corporation offering to sell or dispose of the same, which said license or permit shall be in the following form, to wit:

North Carolina,
______________________County.
I, ___________________________clerk of the Superior Court of said
county, do hereby certify that ___________________________whose
place of residence is ________________________________Street, in
____________________(or) in______________________ Township
_________________________County, North Carolina, having this day
satisfied me as to his, her (or) their good moral character, and
that the possession of one of the weapons described in section one
of this act is necessary for self-defense or the protection of the
home, a license or permit is therefore hereby given said________________
_________________________________________to purchase one pistol,
(or) ____________________________________________from any per-
(If any other weapon is named, strike out word pistol.) son, firm, or corporation authorized to dispose of the same.
This ______________day of ______________________________, 19___

Clerk Superior Court.

Sec. 3. That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms. The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license or permit a fee of fifty cents.

Sec. 4. That the clerk of the Superior Court shall keep a book, to be provided by the board of commissioners of each county, in which he shall keep a record of all licenses or permits issued under this act, including the name, date, place of residence, age, former place of residence, etc., of each such person, firm, or corporation to whom or which a license or permit shall have been so issued.

Sec. 5. That each and every dealer in pistols, pistol cartridges and other weapons mentioned in section one of this act shall keep an accurate record of all sales thereof, including the name, place of residence, date of sale, etc., of each person, firm, or corporation, to whom or which any and all such sales are made, which said record shall be open to the inspection of any duly constituted State, county or police officer, within this State.

Sec. 6. That during the period of listing taxes in each year the owner or person in possession or having the custody or care of any pistol or other weapon mentioned in section one of this act shall he, and is hereby, required to list the same specifically, together with the value thereof, as is now required by law for listing other personal property for taxes : Provided, that all persons listing any such weapons for taxes as aforesaid shall also be required to designate his place of residence, local street address, or otherwise as the case may be.

Sec. 7. That any person, firm, or corporation violating any of the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 8. That upon submission or conviction of any person in this State for unlawfully carrying concealed weapons off of his own premises, the pistol or other deadly weapon with reference to which the defendant shall have been convicted shall be condemned and ordered confiscated and destroyed by the judge presiding at any such trial.

Sec. 9. That this act shall be in force from and after the first day of April, one thousand nine hundred and nineteen. Ratified this 10th day of March. A.D. 1910.

 1923 Amendment

The General Assembly adopted two changes to the original concealed weapons bill. First, it made it unlawful to receive one of the weapons mentioned in the original bill by mail, railroad express, or any other common carrier unless you possessed the permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court. You were also required to present that permit to the mail carrier, postmaster, railroad agent, etc before taking delivery of the weapon.

This amendment also specified the fine and potential prison term for violation of the law. Fines were to be from $50 to $250 while the prison terms were not less than 30 days nor more than six months. All of the above were at the discretion of the court.

1947 Amendment

The changes to the law in 1947 were very minor. As part of an omnibus revision of a number of state statutes, blackjacks and slung-shot were added to the list of weapons that required a purchase permit from the Clerk of the Superior Court.

1959 Amendment

HB 1048 made major changes in the administration of the purchase permit law. It transferred responsibility from the Clerks of the Superior Court and gave it to the Sheriff of each county. The sheriffs were now made responsible for issuing permits and keeping records of the issuance of the permits. It was also the sheriff's responsibility to dispose of confiscated weapons.

Interestingly, this amendment did not apply in all counties. 41 counties were excluded from this act. While most were small counties in the eastern and western parts of the state, the most significant exclusion was Mecklenburg County.

1971 Amendment

Historic edged weapons were defined to be any bayonet, trench knife, sword, or dagger manufactured during or prior to WWII (as late as January 1, 1946). These and antique firearms previously defined as those made prior to 1899 or muzzle loading firearms were excluded from the purchase permit requirement. As an aside, it is interesting that edged weapons from the Korean Conflict and Vietnam War were not excluded.

1979 Amendment

Three significant changes were made in this amendment by SB 213. First, the permit was now required to be obtained from the sheriff in the county in which the purchaser or receiver resided. It has been previously required to be obtained in the county in which the sale or receipt took place.

The second major change was that any provisions of local acts in conflict with these changes were repealed. As noted in the 1959 Amendment, it only applied to 59 counties.

The third major change was that the list of weapons now only included pistols. Dirks, daggers, bowie knives, metallic knucks, blackjacks, slung shot, and "so-called pump guns" were now excluded from the permit requirement.

Interesting Sec. 3 and Sec. 4 still refer to obtaining permits from the Clerk of the Superior Court even though this requirement was changed in 1959.

1993 Amendment

While the 1979 amendment dropped everything but pistols from the permit requirement, this amendment headed in the opposite direction by adding crossbows to the law. Crossbows were added because a person ineligible to purchase a firearm used a crossbow to murder someone in Union County according to former Union County sheriff and later NC Rep. Frank McGuirt.

1994 Amendment

This amendment was part of a larger omnibus bill that codified classes of misdemeanors. Rather than being a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment of up to six months, the penalty was now listed as a "Class 2" misdemeanor. This was the mid-range classification which meant imprisonment for more than 30 days but less than six months.

2003 Amendments

HB 817 provided that a North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit could substitute for the pistol/crossbow purchase permit.

HB 281 made grammatical corrections and changes to the law.

2009 Amendment

These changes concerned crossbows and the definition of a crossbow dealer, manufacturer, and wholesaler. It deemed the permits issued to dealers, wholesalers, and manufacturers as being continuing permits with no expiration date.

2011 Amendment

Just as the 1993 bill added the crossbow to the purchase permit requirement, so SB 406 repealed the requirement to get a "pistol permit" to buy a crossbow.

This bill also clarified that persons under indictment for or who have been convicted of a felony were not eligible to be issued permits. However, pursuant to a NC Supreme Court ruling, the bill excepted those convicted of felonies involving antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, or restraints of trade. It also said that a person who had been pardoned or who had his or her firearm rights restored could obtain a pistol purchase permit.

If You Support A Law That Is Based On Racism, Are You A Racist?

The headline to this post is meant to be provocative. In the last couple of days, I have received numerous emails from gun prohibitionists groups and have seen Everyday Moms for Illegal Mayors launch a media campaign all of which is intended to keep in place North Carolina's pistol purchase permit system.

§ 14-402 and § 14-403 of the North Carolina General Statutes were originally passed in 1919 and gave the Clerk of the Superior Court (later given to the Sheriff) of each North Carolina county the power to determine just who of their county's residents would be eligible to purchase a handgun. Note that this preceded the Gun Control Act of 1968 by almost 50 years. Firearms of all sorts could still be purchased over the counter and through the mails. So why would the North Carolina General Assembly give Clerks of the Superior Court such power? Below is a little context.

The end of the Great War in 1918 saw the return of many African-American veterans who had served in segregated military units. They had served their country both home and abroad and were now coming home expecting some recognition of their rights. W.E.B. DuBois had encouraged black veterans to not just return home but to return home fighting against Southern racism.

At an Emancipation Day ceremony in Raleigh in January 1919, a crowd of 3,000 passed resolutions condemning lynching and attacking segregation. Through the 1920s, the annual commemorations of emancipation as well as the Armistice ending World War I remained occasions for rallies. Editorials in the black press in Durham and Raleigh frequently called for improvements in, if not an end to, the Jim Crow system.

White North Carolinians listened with concern to the outbursts of black protests after the War, but they managed to preserve both white supremacy and the myth that black North Carolinians were contented with legal segregation and Jim Crow. North Carolina's postwar reconsideration of racial relations and racial policy took place in the context of the nationwide "Red Scare" between 1918 and 1921, touched off by fears of communist and foreign subversion.

Adding to this general fear was Winston-Salem's November 17, 1918 riot over the attempted lynching of a black man who had been erroneously accused of raping a white woman. Most of the rioting was done by whites but it was the black community which had the tanks sitting in their streets.

The General Assembly passed "An Act to Regulate the Sale of Concealed Weapons in North Carolina" on March 10, 1919. It required a permit to purchase "any pistol, so-called pump-gun, bowie knife, dirk, dagger or metallic knucks." The "so-called pump-gun" is, as best as I can determine, what we would now call a pump shotgun. Section 3 of Chapter 197 reads:

That before the clerk of the Superior Court shall issue any such license or permit he shall fully satisfy himself by affidavits, oral evidence, or otherwise, as to the good moral character of the applicant therefor, and that such person, firm, or corporation requires the possession of such weapon mentioned in section one of this act for protection of the home: Provided, that if said clerk shall not be so fully satisfied, he shall refuse to issue said license or permit : and Provided further, that nothing in this act shall apply to officers authorized by law to carry firearms. The clerk shall charge for his services upon issuing such license or permit a fee of fifty cents.

The Clerk and the firearms dealer were both required to keep records of the permittees/purchasers including name, age, residence, former residence, "etc."  The owner of the firearm was also required to list it as personal property with the local tax authorities.

Let's think about this a bit. Who would be considered to be a person of "good moral character" in 1919 to a legislature that was composed primarily of white Democrat segregationists who were sympathetic to the KKK? And what do you think the Clerk of the Superior Court is going to consider by "etc." which is actually included in the text of the bill? I think any intelligent person could reasonably assume that a person of "good moral character" would tend to be white, probably a Democrat (unless living in the mountains), a segregationist, a church-goer, and someone who owned property. It would not have been an African-American nor would it have been a populist, socialist, or union organizer. I would also assume that the race of the purchaser was intended to be kept as part of the records.

Given the state of race relations in North Carolina in 1919 and the contextual background of this law, I defy anyone to say that there is no racial component to this law. It may not have said de jure that blacks couldn't possess pistols and other weapons but that was the de facto reality.

So I say to Mike Bloomberg, Gabby Giffords, Dan Gross, Shannon Watts, and all the others of their ilk who have been agitating against HB 562, does not your support for the continuation of a law conceived in racism make you just a wee bit racist yourself?

What Sheriff Bailey Didn't Say

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Chipp Bailey is one of the North Carolina sheriffs who is determined to retain the state's racist, Jim Crow-era pistol purchase permit system. In an interview given to WCNC-TV of Charlotte, Sheriff Bailey contends that the pistol purchase permit system would have prevented the shooters in Tucson, Virginia Tech, and Aurora from obtaining their pistols.

Mecklenburg County Sheriff Chipp Bailey said that he agrees with every law-abiding citizen’s right to own firearms, but says he wants the state to continue to allow his office the right to dispense permits, because of the NICS system does not catch all mental health issues.

"We also check our transport logs for involuntary commits and those kinds of things which wouldn't be picked up by NICS or some other device." Sheriff Bailey said, "I think it’s important for us to know who is being permitted for firearms or who is going out to buy firearms...until the process gets where you can really count on it, then I think the sheriff's need to be involved with it."

There is only one little flaw in Sheriff Bailey's argument. Once the permit which is good for five years is issued, it can't be revoked. It also substitutes for the NICS check. Thus, a person who based a background check up to five years ago can take their permit to a FFL, present their permit, buy a gun, and avoid the NICS check. If they have committed a felony, a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, or had been adjudicated mentally ill after being issued the permit, they could still obtain a firearm. I don't think the fact that they would be committing a Federal felony by lying on the ATF Form 4473 would matter much to such a person.

The Charlotte Observer - Sheriff Bailey's local paper - did an analysis on pistol purchase permits. It found more than 60 felons in Mecklenburg County alone held pistol purchase permits. A NICS check would have caught these felons when they tried to purchase a firearm.




Mecklenburg County is also lagging the state in the issuance of Concealed Handgun Permits according to the most recent data. As Sean points out here, something is a little fishy when Mecklenburg County has only seen a rise of 2.83% in new permits as compared to the statewide figure of 9.36%. Moreover, just slightly smaller Wake County has issued 4.5 times as many permits in the same time period.

I think Sheriff Bailey, despite his so-called support for the citizen's right to own a firearm, has some explaining to do.