Fallguy

As far as the law is concerned an animal is property, so you can not use deadly force against a human in defending an animal. You can use deadly force against another animal to protect the life of your animal. Basically the killing of an animal is like theft of property. So you can use force, just not deadly force.

Speaker of the Senate still has to sign it. Then it will be sent to Governor (not necessarly the same day) and whenever it gets on his desk, then the 10 days start.

There is no Federal law or regulation against carry in National Forrest. From Handgunlaw.us However it appears NC does not allow carry in National Forrest according to the NC page on handgunlaw.us

I kind of meant this discussion about different rights just reminded of me of what he said, not that it directly applies or even if it did I that it was a good comparrison to this situation.

Depends on the location. Here are some examples Violation of 39-17-1359 sign $500 fine Illegal carry in park, up to 11 months and 29 days in jail and up to a $2500 fine. School grounds, up to 6 years in prison and up to $3000 fine.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Well there ya go....

The Dept of Safety just makes the info available to those that request it. The DOS themselves don't distribute or publish it. The orginal bill would have closed the HCP records completely. The amendment would have made it illegal, for whoever got the information, to publish it "by electronic means" in other words on the internet, like the Commercial Appeals is currently doing...legally. But would still leave the records open for other reasons, minus certain information.

Well the way I take it...HCP information would still be "public record". However if someone other than LE or a child support agency requested the information they could not reproduce the entire database and allow electronic access to it. Also the DOS would redact the street address, SSN, month and day of birth and DL# from the record(s) before allowing the inspection or release of it. To be honest, I think it was a good compromise. It would prevent a newspaper from making an online searchable database such as the CA did. But it would allow them or anyone to find out if a perpetrator and/or victim of a crime had a HCP, without access to specific information about the HCP holder.

Welcome

...and just to note the above. HB1796 is law and is Chapter 435 Still watching HB0898 & HB0961

Probably the one that was introduced just before the vote on the main bill. See it here. (Note it was also slightly amended...see here)

I heard a commercial about the The Frankie Lax show on the way in to work this morning. I did think about trying to call in to him one time, sort of figured he would be on our side.

After July 14th, if they post a 39-17-1359 sign, then I don't think among the general public they could legaly allow some to carry and not others. But at the same time.....who else is going to press the charges. As was said the onwer has always been exempt and could carry, even before the new law.

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

Welcome

The 17th is a bye week for UT anyway......coienidence?

I do see your point. I don't think when anyone on here says "privilege" they are taking a shot at the founding fathers and agree mostly with what you say. It is simply their way of saying that in their opinion the government has eroded the right, through legislation, into more of a privilege.

I'm afraid you have a valid point as well. However at least on a one-on-one basis we have a good chance. I think I posted about an old friend of mine that called me when the Senate overrode the veto. He was all fired up, he had been listening to the media and literally thought people were going to be "bellying up to the bar and drinking" while armed. Once I explained to him what the bill actually did, he did a complete 180 and was all for it.

One reason is....because if it was a right you could carry without a permit and it would be up the government to prove you were not permitted to own/carry a handgun instead of you having to prove you are. You should not have to give money and time to the government to exercise a right. I think 99.99% of us on here believe it was the intent of the founding fathers in the Second Amendment to grant each of us the un-infringed right to bear arms. However over the years Congress, SCOTUS and state legislatures have eaten away at that right. ...and we (as a whole) have allowed them to.

**THIS IS NOT DIRECTED TOWARD ANYONE SPECIFIC** But you know.....if members of this board, where literally second-by-second coverage of this bill occurred and where thousands of post have been made on the topic, still are not sure of what exactly passed....maybe we do need to do a better job of educating the media and even more importantly the people that are simply eating what the media is feeding them......