Good Afternoon, I'm Representative Larry Pittman I appreciate you being here today. The reason we're here is asked to do 562 I've always promised the citizens ever since I began running for office that I would always defend their right key from bare arms. we have a few bills put forward this year in the house concerning gun rise and they leadership chose to roll everything into one bill and they picked using what they wanted from the bills that were put out there to make up an omnibus bill which is house bill 562 and ever since we've been working on these, they have been some groups who have been trying to put pressure on our leadership either to abandon the bill or at least weaken it considerable and in response to that, GRNC has asked me to have a press conference name to come and talk about the bill and to talk about some of those efforts by opponents to the bill and to answer some of those issues they've raised, and so this time I'm going to ask DRC President. Paul Velon to come forward and to take it from here. Thank you Larry, I appreciate that very much. Representative Kevin, by the way has done extra work for our rights in general assembly. I wish we had a 1000 Legislature just like him. As you said my name is Paul Velon, I direct Grass Street North Carolina since 1994, we've been states primary gun rights organisation. I should say bill of rights organisation, because we actually do tackle other items on those rights occasionally, essentially we want to preserve individual liberty that is our primary mission, since 1995 when North Calorina passed our law enabling citizen to carry concealed hand guns, violent crime in our state has dropped by 45%, with corresponding drops in rape, robbery, murder and aggravated assault. Grass street North Carolina, was involved drafting and passing that original Bill. And we've since worked to improve our concealed hand gun law, by removing obstruction to perimeter application, and extending the number of places where people can protect themselves. Our primary goal is to detour violent crimes. According to researcher John, a lot of the crime center, who studied victim public homicides. Since 1958, with only 2 exceptions, all of the mass shootings in the United States have taken place where guns are supposedly prohibited securing the knowledge that no one can stop them, criminals, sociopaths, and terrorists are drawn to these victim disarmament zones. Our goal is to eliminate those zones. Each time we've expanded our concealed carry law, and the ability of lawful North Carolinians to protect themselves our opposition has predicted blood on the streets. When we passed concealed carry back in 1995, they predicted shoot outs of traffic lights. When we passed restaurant carry in 2013 they predicted drunk permit holders would be shooting each other at bars. When we passed the bill for limited carry on educational properties they insist that college students with permits would shoot each other at football games. I defy you to cite a single example of any of these, much less a trend. Each time they have predicted mayhem, each time they have been wrong. So too editorialists are now expecting mayhem from House Bill 562, the Second Amendment Affirmation Act. Some of these are based on ignorance such as the editorials in the Riley News and Observer, and elsewhere which railed about the minor changes the bill has to educational property provisions contained in the bill. All the while, these editorials were blissfully ignorant of the fact that Limited Campus Carry has been the law since 2013 without incident. But other attacks targeting House Bill 562 have been political in nature and part of national agendas. With respect to the medical privacy aspects of the bill which prevent politically motivated health care providers from prying into whether their patients own guns, the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have a long standing agenda to work toward banning private ownership of firearms, we by the way have a handout outside on that if you'd like to see it the fact is politically motivated questions or treatment of patients is a a violation of medical ethics and it's called a boundary violation, but the bill faces a more insidious opponent in the form of billionaire anti gun [xx] Micheal Bloomberg who's now spending upwards of a million dollars to kill house 4562 sing television ads which falsely claims the bill will abolish gun purchase background checks. Bloomberg staffers claim to represent a grassroots movement of 100, 000 and so people of North Carolina, in truth they number perhaps two dozen and variously call themselves Moms Demand
Action, Moms rising every time for gun safety mayor against illegal guns, and the law center to prevent gun violence. This paid staffers and few activist have distributed literature in the names of all those organizations right here at the general assembly. So to better describe our response to those attacks, please allow me to introduce [xx] director of development after which I'll fill questions. My name is Josset Shermil like anyone else in grass root North Carolina I work as a volunteer taking time away from my work, my family, and my friends to defend our rights I do it because laws enhancing the rights and abilities of citizens to protect themselves when the police can't actually empowers women. Women who are forced to cross darkened parking lot at night, women who live alone with apartments in apartments with doors that can be easily kicked in and women who have left abusive partners and are subversively protected by restraining orders worth no more than the paper that they were written on. The bad news is we can't Michael Boombox billions the good news we don't have to unlike Bloombox many catastrophe fat groups we represent real grass root supporters the same supporters who directed tens of thousands of emails and phone calls to our legislators in support of House Bill 562. So with that, we would like to announce the kick off of a new project, North Carolina mums against Bloomberg, featuring not the professional actors and pink staffers that just the Bloomberg users but rather real North North Carolina mothers. These mothers will be featured in spots that begin running today which the bank the blue berge adds and finish by declaring I'm a North Carolina mom and Michael Bruberge does not speak for me. My name is Stephany, I'm a North North Carolina mum, Michael Bloomberg does not speak for me. My name is Emilly, I'm a north Carolina woman, Bloomberg does not speak for me. Hi, I'm Susan I'm a North Carolina resident and mother and Michael Blueberge does not speak for me. Hi, My name is Jane, I'm a North Carolina mum and Michael Bloomberg does not speak for me. Hallo, My name is Tiffany, I'm a North Carolina mum and Michael Bloomberg does not speak for me. Hi, I'm [xx] North Carolina mom and Michael Bloomberg does not speak for me In fact we invite everyone to say, "I'm a North Carolinian and Micheal Bloomberg does not speak for me" so take your [xx] back to New York Mr Bloomberg your gun control and your attempts to control our people are not welcome here. To our state legislators we say, listen to the people of North Carolina the real grassroots and bring house bill 562 to the floor of vote intact and in it's present form, thank you. I'm going to relinquish the podium for any question May I answer any questions about the bill, about [xx] positions on the bill? Essentially, we are promoting the house bill 562 primarily because we are interested in the re-appeal of the Jim Croe purchase pharmacist and also the medical privacy provisions there are other provisions to the bill, but those two things which primarily concern us. Unfortunately Mr. Bloomberg is disseminating some misinformation about the bill. His television spots claim that he would abolish background checks. I'm afraid that's not true. Under our present system, the sheriff, by the way which was implemented in 1919, one year after Missouri implemented a similar law, which was in response to race riots,
which was designed to keep minorities from obtaining firearms our Pistol Purchase Permanent law essentially involves the share of doing a background check and issuing a slip of paper which remains good for five years it is entirely possible as our radio sports point out, that someone could get one of these permits, go out and commit a crime, be disqalified from owning a firearms yet, use that permit to bypass the national computerized background checks system and I say, yes. If we repeal the background law then those background checks will be done at the time of sale not as much as much as five years earlier we've heard from Mr. Bloomberg that consent of gun transfers are private sales and that the private sales would then allow criminals to obtain firearms as documented by Pot that assertion is false the data it was based on was actually impact prior to the adoption of the Brady law when background checks were not even required under the federal law and in fact the studies own author Feel cook routinely say that neither he nor anyone else know how many of these are in fact private transfers so that information is false we've heard from the Bloomberg crowd that Missouri experienced 25% increase in it's murder rate after repealing it's purchase permit law. Well, that's a partial truth. In fact, what happened was that in the five years prior to repealing the purchase permit law, Missouri homicide increased by 32%. In the five years after that, it actually dropped to a 17% increase relative to the rest of the United States. Clearly there's a problem with Missouri but it has nothing to do with our purchase permit law. Essentially that is our our presentation for today. If anyone has any questions I'll be happy to answer them go right ahead. What are you hearing from the Speaker and from Rules Chairman Lewis on this? We got mixed mixed reviews right now I know they're very concerned with the budget we do know that there are some members of the house of the covus where problems with some provisions we're working to address those provisions for example the medical providers had initially pointed inferior a patient who presented danger to herself or others could not be reported to governmental authorities as holding guns we actually gave the speakers ofgice and the sponsors language which will address that so it's medically relevant to their case and that couldn't be disclosed this bill doesnt nothing to hamper tge doctor patient relationship or the treatment anyways Gesar So whatever percent of gun sales are private who is going to perform that federal background check in the private center who's going to prevent whos going to make make sure that occurs. Well we should keep something in mind. The purchase permit system as it applies to private transfers right now is a illusory. The fact is most of the population doesn't even know the law exists, much less adhere to it. And consequently, it's rarely used and because the permits are utterly untraceable, it's utterly unenforceable. Moreover at this point we now have the majority of our transactions of rifles and shotguns don't require a purchase permit t all. So we feel that the point of purchase background check more than offsets any other provisions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I am. Federal law is silent on individual purchases. It only applies to licensed dealers. So I think somebody maybe [xx] but I think somebody will say, how are you gong to comply to federal law? It does comply to federal law. That's correct. Yes, sir. Current pistol permit system, does it allow the Sheriff to discriminate against the [xx] permit? Unfortunately, because the system was designed to be highly right now Sheriffs can deny any permit they arbitrarily deem to be not of good moral character, whatever that means. In 1919, good moral character meant they would deny permits to minorities. Now, I've had applicants tell me they were denied a purchase permit because they took antidepressants in 1985 after the death of their spouse. I have another applicant who says the Sheriff denies him a permit because, he's now 45, at the age of 21 he went AWOL briefly from the military to find his wife who had run out on him and got an other than honorable discharge, which by the way is not disqualifying under federal law. Only a dishonorable discharge would be. So we now have 100 sheriffs and 100 sets of issuing criteria. We have sheriffs in Durham for example who obstruct the
issuance of permits as much as possible by requiring notarized character affidavits. In Orange County, I recently had a conversation with the sheriff, and they are apparently requiring three character affidavits and two references from law enforcement officers just to buy a hand gun for self-protection. Anyone else? Do you think that's discriminatory against certain ethnicities? I am working on a couple of cases where that sort of discrimination may have been the case. It certainly was in the past. Now I think it's difficult to say. I won't say it until I can get further evidence. yes. So I'm hearing from a lot of pediatricians that they are concerned about families that have unsecured guns at homes in their homes, and that's why they are asking, it's a safety issue with children. what do you say to that? Well first off, my question is this. What qualifications does a health care provider have? What training do they have to decide what is or is not the safe storage of a hand gun? They're not trained on this. Perhaps we should bring in concealed handgun instructors to consult with them instead because they'd be far more qualified to comment on that topic than pediatricians. Yes sir. Doesn't the state law already require you to secure handguns that's correct if the firearm is misused by a resident minor, it's a crime in the state of North Carolina and has been since 1993. Yes mum. Article 516 may cross over so what's next with that? It was actually taken into rules and physical no it's added it's immune to cross over, so it's remains alive today. And in fact we have a PCS or Proposed Committee Substitute which actually addresses some of the previous concerns like the one I was describing about the medical privacy provision. Yes sir. If this bill doesn't move, where we get to the end of the point you cant accept it, are you preparing to line up a whole host of primary challengers for Republicans, how would you, somebody in your rate, you were pretty clear online about your feelings about this bill. Well lets say that grass roots North Carolina has a very robust candidate evaluation system we call remember in November and we track votes on gun related issues, we track bill sponsership and we track a measure called bill support based on whether leadership moves or does not move given pieces of legislation. I surfice to say that those legislators who obstruct the ability of lots of North Carolinian's to protect themselves will certainly receive additional scrutiny in the up coming elections. Yes madam. How much are you spending on this new [xx] campaign? That is ongoing as we speak I can't put a number on it because we've been fund raising there is the fund raising come in, we're going to continue to expand the campaign Can you tell us which markets are in? Right now we're marketing Riley and Charlotte, and we will be extending that as the time goes on. Yes Sir. Would you say that it would be more or less than Bloomberg's millions? I would say it would be a small all fraction of bloom-bergs billions or millions that he is spending on this thing, we don't have the sought of financial resources he does but as [xx] kind enough to point out we don't have to, because we have the will of the people of North North Carolina, not the I guess actions of a maniac from New York. If that's all I think we can adjourn the press conference. Thank you very much.