The following alert has just come in from the National Rifle Association:
North Carolina: Castle Doctrine Language and Parking Lot Provision in NRA-Backed Omnibus Bill Threatened!
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Urge Your Representative to Oppose Any Amendments to House Bill 650!
As reported by the NRA yesterday, the North Carolina House Judiciary Subcommittee C sent House Bill 650, the NRA–backed omnibus gun bill, to the House floor for a vote. However, there is now a strong effort by the anti-gun lobby to add amendments that would weaken both the current Castle Doctrine language and Parking Lot/Employee Protection provision contained in this bill.
It is vital that you let your state Representative know that he or she needs to support HB 650 in its current form and oppose all amendments, especially those that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot language.
HB 650, introduced by state Representative Mark Hilton (R-96), originally focused on making a number of improvements to the Right-to-Carry (RTC) law, as well as improving the firearm preemption statute that prevents municipalities from enacting gun control laws more onerous than what has been passed by the state. A Proposed Committee Substitute (PCS) for the bill was approved by the subcommittee at a previous hearing, which greatly expanded the bill’s scope in a very positive way. The PCS includes a number of other issues, such as Castle Doctrine language, Parking Lot/Employee Protection language, Fraudulent Firearms Purchase Prevention language, and language to ensure North Carolina residents are not prohibited by state law from purchasing long guns in states that do not border North Carolina.
It is essential to the passage of this bill that you contact your state Representative IMMEDIATELY and urge him or her to support the current version of HB 650 with NO amendments, especially any amendments that would weaken Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot provisions. Contact information for your state Representative can be found here.
The 2nd Amendment is unqualified and legislation of any kind dilutes the meaning of what is called a “right.” If it can be legislated upon in a certain aspect or for certain purposes or otherwise, then it is a quantified privilege regulated by those who are our servants.
If any part of a “right” is subject to restriction, where does the ability to restrict it come from and where does it stop? Who limits the limiters? Can they pass legislation affecting rights without the approval of the people whose rights they are affecting? Who gave them such power? I thought the “ten amendments” were enumerations of rights the government did not confer and consequently could not infringe upon.
This type of attack on our rights is insidious and stealthy. It makes its appearance as a reasonable restriction in that it seems to protect others that “really need” protection so we don’t mind, and actually should be, in favor of same. However, it is nothing more than a tool to mollify us and persuade us into believing that not only does the government have the power and authority to “regulate” these rights but it is for our own protection.
If this right can be regulated then all the others, by similar standards, are also subject to regulation. Where does it end?
Take a look around, this is the standard that is being used to qualify all the other rights enumerated in the constitution whether state or federal. All of them have been diminished in favor of the government and it’s regulations and against the people. For the most part they have become ineffective shadows of the reality they are supposed to support and represent and have become nothing more than window dressing on the ship of statism and nationalism.
To call a representative in support or against any legislation which qualifies any right protected by the constitution is to admit of their power and authority to amend the constitution outside of constitutional requirements and without a vote by the people.
I shall not be party to such flagrant abuse of power.
My right of self defense, choice of tools to effect that defense, and locations where I might perform that defense, are not subject to encroachment by any person or collection of persons (civil or governmental).
With regard to Mr. Randell’s comments on the Bill of Rights above, I offer the following Supreme Court opinion on legislation that infringes upon those Rights.
Unconstitutional Official Acts
16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:
The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:
The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it’s enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…..
A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.