Pandering to the shaking heads
Published April 29, 2013
by Chris Fitzsimon
More hidden and loaded guns in more places, including bars, restaurants, college campuses and city greenways—that appears to be the General Assembly’s response to the national tragedy in Newtown and the public outcry to do something to prevent more gun violence.
A House committee approved a bill Wednesday to allow more guns in areas where families gather and they did it by listening only to the lobbyists for gun groups who clearly helped craft the wrong-headed and dangerous legislation.
The committee voted to expand places where people can bring their loaded and hidden handguns not only over the protests of gun violence prevention groups, but also over the objections of officials from private colleges and universities, local governments, and even law enforcement agencies.
The pandering to the pro-gun lobby included brushing aside a suggestion from Rep. Bob Steinburg, one of the most conservative members of the House, that loaded handguns allowed in cars on college campuses should at least have to be locked in the glove compartment.
Steinburg pointed out that car break-ins are common in university areas and that it made sense to make the guns less accessible to thieves.
The numerous gun lobbyists on hand shook their heads demonstrably against that idea and the committee majority responded by defeating Steinburg’s amendment.
They shook their heads even harder when a spokesman for private colleges pointed out that there had long been a consensus that it was not a good idea to allow handguns anywhere on university facilities. The bill also allows staff members who live on university property to have handguns in their residences.
N.C. State University Police Chief Jack Moorman spoke against the bill too, with no effect. Law enforcement officials have little influence on lawmakers when they are competing with the gun zealots dominating the meeting from the first row of the audience in the committee room.
Most of the debate focused on the startling provision to allow people to carry their hidden and loaded handguns into bars and restaurants where alcohol is served.
The committee defeated amendments to delete that provision from the bill altogether as well as one from Rep. Darrin Jackson to require servers to ask people if they are carrying a weapon before bringing them a drink, since people carrying concealed weapons aren’t supposed to consume alcohol.
That was defeated too in some bizarre interpretation of the Second Amendment. That means waiters can’t ask if people have weapons when they are ordering drink after drink. They will just have to trust them.
A lobbyist for the NRA thanked the committee not only for the bill he enthusiastically supported but also for all the cooperation and communication from the legislation’s sponsors as they were putting it together. In other words, he helped write it.
That explains why the next person you pass on your local greenway might have a loaded handgun under their sweatshirt even if your city leaders think that’s a bad idea.
The bill prevents local governments from banning guns on greenways, adding to last year’s legislation that took the authority away from cities to make public safety rules about their parks and picnic areas.
City officials are not in charge of their own communities, not when it comes to guns. Common sense has no place in the discussion either, the idea that maybe guns and whiskey are a toxic combination.
The gun zealots running things in the General Assembly these days won’t tolerate any dissent. They just keep shaking their heads and lawmakers keep pandering to them, making our communities more dangerous in the process.
Chris Fitzsimon is Director of NC Policy Watch and an NC Spin Panelist
April 29, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Rebecca Forbes says:
I am not sorry to say that the majority of America fully support our 2nd Ammendment rights and that does not make us gun Zealots, it makes us Americans who uphold the Constitution... just saying.
April 29, 2013 at 2:00 pm
ROBERT OWEN says:
So would you have us take after Chicago? Basically ban guns to LAW ABIDING citizens and have criminals be the only ones carrying a weapon? But, then again, criminals can't pass a background check so how can they buy the guns...I shake my head at laws and people who wish to diminish our right as a human to protect ourselves from those that wish to do us hard. I hate to use a current situation but there is 2 of them that offer a bleak picture for the argument against guns. This young woman and her husband brutally stabbed could have potentially ended the situation had a handgun been readily available in their household in an easily accesible (to adults) location. The second would be the kid acting like a reporter during the Bomber shoot out, videoing from his room, taking video of people Shooting. Criminals, terrorists with guns IN THE US. I would like to imagine someone with a .22 or the scary AR-15 could have taken aim from that very same location and taken out these terrorists and prevent how much more wrecklessness...Guns protect you, protect me and protect my family.
April 30, 2013 at 2:56 am
dj anderson says:
Is this attack due to red/blue politics? What should the Assembly have done? What did the Democratic assembly do after the Columbine school massacre, or the Virginia Tech massacre, or did the assembly do after the 100+ other deadly school attacks in the USA in the past decade? Why and what is the assembly to do now to prevent another Newtown?
Nothing in the just past proposed congressional legislation would have prevented Newtown, so how was it a response to Newtown? Is Newtown being "used" by anti-gun political interests?
I don't have a gun, but I want to be able to buy one if I thought I needed or wanted one, and I want others to be able to do the same. I don't care for what the legislature did, but I'm not bothered by the action.
As an aside, wouldn't the "size of magazines" debate be interesting, as the experts & lawmakers determine which of 10 or 15 kids murdered is too many before reloading? Would the 6 year olds have rushed the gunman as he reloaded even a double barrelled shotgun? I won't pretend magazine size is a key part of gun violence solutions. I won't pretend something constructive is being asked, if it isn't.
On a positive note, and not for the sake of attacking a political party, the legislature could have:
- required follow up checks on those who don't pass the background checks;
- required doctors, counselors, and even family members to report to background check database all homicidal or suicidal gestures, and changes in mental health status that might put into question continued possession of guns;
- if not already required, re-examination of gun ownership for those under restraining orders for physical threats;
- censoring, at least seeking self-censoring of media visual coverage of at least school shooting;
- preventing those of low intelligence, that can't be held fully accountable for murders (leading to death sentence) to buy or possess guns;
- changing monthly fire drills (when was the last time a public school student dies in a school fire?) to month intruder/assault drills;
- requiring picture IDs to buy guns.
There's been nearly a gross (a dozen dozen) deadly school shootings (including suicide by gun) this century in the USA, and a dozen since Newtown, one of them a high school girl in Fayetteville.
A proper response to Newtown would include responsible media coverage of mass murders, and not using Newtown for political attack on the opposing party, considering the lack of action or criticism of past assemblies.
