Latest news with #HouseJudiciary2Committee
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
House Judiciary panel approves controversial concealed weapons bill
(Photo by Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Monitor) The North Carolina House Judiciary 2 Committee voted 6-5 along party lines Tuesday to pass a bill to allow the permitless carry of concealed firearms, one of the most controversial topics of the current legislative session. Senate Bill 50, 'Freedom to Carry NC,' would allow individuals who are U.S. citizens, at least 18 years of age, and not otherwise prohibited by law, to carry concealed weapons without applying for a permit. It's backed by Republican leadership and would make North Carolina the 30th state to approve of so-called 'constitutional carry.' Having previously cleared the Senate, the bill now proceeds to the House Rules Committee for further consideration. Though the Judiciary 2 Committee has only 10 members — six Republicans and four Democrats — House Minority Leader Robert Reives II (D-Chatham, Randolph) took the unusual step of using his position as a committee 'floater' to attend the meeting and narrow the margin. 'Nine states have allowed constitutional carry at age 18, North Carolina would be the 10th that this bill became law,' primary sponsor Rep. Danny Britt (R-Hoke, Robeson, Scotland) said. One amendment to the legislation increases the public safety employee death benefit to $150,000. Another calls for the University of North Carolina Board of Governors to develop a scholarship program for any child of a law enforcement officer, correctional officer, or first responder who is permanently and totally disabled as a result of a traumatic injury sustained in the line of duty. These scholarships would be available for children between the ages of 17 and 28. The bill received opposition from a several lawmakers and members of the public. No one other than Britt spoke in favor of the measure. Rep. Ya Liu (D-Wake) is the mother of two teenagers. She said there's a huge difference between individuals at the age of 18 and 21. At schools, students like Liu's son conduct drills for active shooter and lockdown situations. 'Our children are scared,' Liu said. 'We shouldn't accept it as a way of life, that they have to live with this.' Rep. Laura Budd (D-Mecklenburg) said this morning she told her 15-year-old son on the way to school that SB 50 was on the committee hearing docket today. He was shocked that an 18-year-old at his high school, potentially his classmate, would be allowed to buy a gun, according to Budd. She added that 18-year-olds in the United States can't drink a beer or rent a car. 'But yet, when it comes to something as a lethal as a gun… we want to lower the age and remove more restrictions,' Budd said, pointing out the irony. Anne Enberg, a local legislative leader for Moms Demand Action, said bills like SB 50 won't make communities safer. Enberg brought up a poll conducted by Everytown for Gun Safety in September that found 77% percent of likely North Carolina voters were against removing permit requirements from concealed carry laws. 'We should be looking for solutions that make us safer, not bills that would push crime and public safety's staff in the wrong direction,' she said. John Vanmeter-Kirk is a rising second-year student at North Carolina State University, a volunteer with Students Demand Action, and a lifelong Raleigh resident. He said he was speaking in front of the committee because SB 50 would put his home and community in danger. On Sunday, Vanmeter-Kirk noted, two North Carolina communities experienced mass shootings: one in Hickory and one in Asheville. 'Two innocent North Carolinians are dead, numerous injured, my community torn apart by senseless gun violence that could've been prevented,' Vanmeter-Kirk said. 'Even after two North Carolinians are dead, you're considering this incredibly dangerous bill that will only lead to the loss of more North Carolinians, dishonoring the memory of those we lost two days ago.'
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill allowing private school employees to carry concealed firearms passes NC Senate panel
Students line up as they return to school in Durham County. (File photo) The North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would allow employees and volunteers of K-12 private schools to carry concealed firearms on school property Tuesday afternoon. Senate Bill 280 would allow employees and volunteers at these schools to possess handguns and stun guns with the consent of school administrators and written notice to parents. They must hold a concealed carry permit and complete additional training before becoming eligible to possess firearms on school property. The proposal is part of a larger trend in the North Carolina legislature in which Republican lawmakers have sought to respond to the rise in school shootings by equipping adults with firearms and defensive implements. A bill with a similar approach passed the House Judiciary 2 Committee a day prior allowing schools to store tasers, pepper spray, and other 'less-than-lethal' weapons in biometric safes. A separate provision in SB 280 allows for firearms to be carried by attendees of worship services, funerals, weddings, and other religious events held at places of worship located on the grounds of private schools at the discretion of school administrators. Sen. Steve Jarvis (R-Davidson) said the bill 'balances safety with individual rights' through stringent criteria for training, permitting, and school oversight. 'This bill simply strengthens the safety in North Carolina's private schools while respecting the unique needs of our communities,' Jarvis said. 'It allows private school employees or volunteers with concealed carry permits to carry firearms on school grounds, but only with the explicit authorization of the school board and/or the administration director.' Sen. Sydney Batch (D-Wake) proposed adding a requirement that private school employees and volunteers affected by the bill be vetted against the state's Responsible Individuals List, which tracks adults implicated in the abuse and serious neglect of children. Jarvis said he would follow up with her suggestion at some point in the future. Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about the implications that other bills around concealed carry would have on these new exceptions. Sen. Terence Everitt (D-Wake) noted that the Senate passed a bill allowing permitless concealed carry in March, warning that this would undermine SB 280's reliance on permit training and safety requirements. Sen. Lisa Grafstein (D-Wake) expressed concerns about the lack of an age requirement, noting that the permitless carry bill would allow 18-year-olds to carry concealed firearms — and by extension, SB 280 could allow them to bring them into schools. Robert Ryan, an attorney with the General Assembly's Legislative Affairs Division, said that even with the existence of permitless concealed carry, this bill would still require a permit for individuals to carry weapons onto school grounds — leaving intact the training and age requirements. North Carolina would continue issuing concealed carry permits even under the March bill to maintain reciprocity with states that do not have permitless carry. Among the speakers during the public comment part of the meeting were leaders at religious private schools who urged lawmakers to pass the bill so they and their students could feel safe. 'We do everything that we can within the law to protect these precious children from danger,' said Matthew Floyd, a faculty member at Greenville Christian Academy. 'We love these children as our own and many are willing and able to be trained, you know, with rigorous training to be able to be an immediate line of defense against the horrible thought of a gunman entering the property.' Ron Baity, a pastor who founded a Wilkes County Christian private school in the 1970s, said 'every day we are horrified' at the prospect that a shooter could attack their school. 'I hear it said that innocent people could be killed if a shooter comes on the property and our staff is armed,' Baity said. 'The truth of the matter is, if we have no resistance against the individual who's armed, he can kill all of our staff, he can kill all of our students, and we have no way to protect anyone.' Amanda Lierman, a substitute teacher in Wake County with Moms Demand Action, said bringing guns into schools would only place an 'undue burden' on school staff. She was the only member of the public to speak against the bill. 'My friend and her sons experienced a shooting at their elementary school last year, when a staff administrator was shot and killed by their ex-husband,' Lierman said. 'My friend described the running students and the chaos that ensued — having more guns among that chaos would have increased the risk of more casualties.' After passing the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday, SB 280 will next be heard by the Senate Rules Committee, where it can then be scheduled for a vote by the full Senate.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC House panel advances bill restricting K-12 student cell phone use
Photo: Daniel deA bill requiring North Carolina school boards to adopt policies restricting student cell phone use during instructional time cleared a state House committee Tuesday. The House Judiciary 2 Committee approved House Bill 87 on a voice vote. The bill would allow individual school districts to create their own policies regarding cell phone restrictions. The bill differs from Senate Bill 55, which passed the Senate earlier this month and is far stricter. The Senate bill would require local education agencies to implement policies that ban students from using 'wireless communication devices' during instructional time. The bill defines a wireless communication device as 'any portable wireless device that has the capability to provide voice, messaging, or other data communication between two or more parties,' including cellular telephones, tablet computers, laptop computers, paging devices, two-way radios, and gaming devices. During Tuesday's committee meeting, several members of the public called for a 'bell-to-bell' policy, which generally means restricting phone use from the start to the end of the school day. 'Our children need a policy that provides strong guardrails all day to keep them from this addictive behavior, particularly between classes, when they are vulnerable to mental health insults from inappropriate content and cyberbullying,' said Mary Ann Tierney, a nurse and executive director of Safe Tech NC. Lina Nealon, a national expert on child online safety and a parent of Durham public school students, also voiced her support for a 'bell-to-bell' policy. 'When kids' faces are pressed to their phones outside of instruction time, they lose moments of closeness and critical thinking,' Nealon said. 'A bell-to-bell policy would prevent second-hand smartphone harm.' But the bill's sponsors — Republicans Neal Jackson, Brian Biggs, Mike Schietzelt, and Blair Eddins — say they would leave it to individual school districts to decide how to implement the policy, opposing a one-size-fits-all approach. Opponents of the bill have argued that limiting cell phone access could prevent students from communicating in emergencies. Tech advocates contend that restricting devices could stifle new avenues for learning. Currently, around 77 school districts in North Carolina have their own cell phone policies, according to legislative staff. The proposed bill would require all districts to implement a policy. The bill includes exceptions for: Remote charter academies Remote academies Virtual charter schools participating in a pilot program authorized by state law The bill now heads to the House Rules Committee before potentially advancing to a full House vote.
Yahoo
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NC House panel votes to raise punishments for sending sexual content to minors, attacks on officials
The North Carolina Legislative Building (Photo: Clayton Henkel) A North Carolina House committee advanced two bills that would increase the punishment for exposing minors to sexually explicit material and threatening or assaulting public officials in a Tuesday meeting. Lawmakers in the House Judiciary 2 Committee voiced concerns that the language in the bills — House Bill 83 and House Bill 95 — could be overly broad and used to punish conduct outside their intended scope — including criticisms of lawmakers not intended to be 'real threats' and sexually explicit performances aimed at adult audiences only. HB 83, introduced to the committee by Rep. John Torbett (R-Gaston), raises the class of several crimes related to the dissemination of 'obscene' and 'harmful' material to minors and 'exhibition of harmful performances' and allowing courts to require those found guilty to register as sex offenders. The bill would also create a new felony offense described as 'habitual indecent exposure' for individuals found to have committed indecent exposure on three or more occasions. The largest change in the bill involves raising the dissemination of material or exhibition of performances that are 'harmful to minors' — defined as including sexually explicit nudity or sexual activity in violation of a 'prevailing community standard' — from a misdemeanor to a Class H felony, punishable by up to 39 months in prison. Torbett said the bill was prompted by a case in which a 16-year-old was sent 'harmful, vile, nasty material' by an adult man in South Carolina, but extradition was denied because the offense is classified only as a misdemeanor in North Carolina 'even though he was just across the border.' The minor's mother contacted Torbett, he said, and shared her outrage over what had happened. Rep. Yao Liu introduced an amendment to make explicit that the bill does not seek to punish performers themselves, if a parent brings a child to a show without their knowledge. 'My bill has nothing to do with strippers or exotic dancers,' Torbett said in response. The committee voted down the proposed amendment but approved a separate limiting felonies to ones in which sexual material is exchanged between individuals four or more years apart in age, mirroring statutory rape laws to avoid inadvertently punishing teen couples. While civil rights groups have opposed similar laws around content legislators define as 'harmful to minors' in other states out of concern they could be used to target drag and cabaret performers, no advocates attended Tuesday's committee meeting to speak out against the bill. Other states have used similar statutes to target librarians for criminal prosecution for checking out books considered by some as explicit — though North Carolina's law lists schools, libraries, churches, and other public institutions as well as their employees as exempt from prosecution so long as they are carrying out a 'legitimate function.' Rep. Deb Butler asked, 'Who defines harmful?' and suggested that reliance on community standards could lead to subjective judgments about offending material, but ultimately conceded, 'We'll just have to let the court define it when they see it.' HB 95, which was sponsored and explained by Rep. Keith Kidwell (R-Beaufort), stems in part from his own experience of being threatened at a Beaufort County polling place last year, when a constituent allegedly told him 'I'm just going to shoot you.' Kidwell said he did not understand why threats made by the same individual against locally elected Democratic officials were not also considered felonies as they are for state lawmakers. This bill would address that concern by classifying serious threats against local elected officials as felonies. The bill additionally heightens penalties around this conduct, raising the class of felonies around threats and attacks to public officials and granting judges greater latitude in imposing pretrial release restrictions on defendants in these cases. Even if officials do not directly receive or believe the threats being made, they can still rise to the level of felony offenses. 'In today's climate, I think most of us are going to agree when you're threatening an elected official, we need to take that serious,' Kidwell said. Rep. Charles Smith raised the possibility of including language that requires the threat to be imminent or create reasonable belief that it will actually occur, but ultimately did not propose an amendment to that effect. 'I'm not as concerned about how do I feel as to whether the threat was realistic,' Kidwell said, adding that the courts can make that determination. 'I've seen it where they threaten school board members, county commissioners, city council members — and to me, you know, I've always taken threats as real.' Also approved by the committee Tuesday was House Bill 188, by unanimous vote. The bill seeks to introduce new requirements for companies whose subscriptions or contracts automatically renew to protect consumers, on the grounds that many do not read the lengthy user agreements that mention them. Kidwell said he was moved to propose the bill when a constituent told her their lease automatically renewed without their knowledge, requiring them to continue living somewhere they did not wish to for an additional year.
