A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | June 17, 2015 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The house will come to order, members will take their seats, visitors will retire from the chamber, the sergeant at arms will close the doors. Members and visitors will please silence all electronic devices. The prayer will be offered by Representative Larry Pittman. Members and visitors in the gallery will please stand and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Representative Pittman. Thank you, let us pray. Almighty God our father, we thank you that you love us, and we know sometimes that's difficult, but we know that you are infinite love, and so your love covers all our mistakes, all our failures. You may not be pleased with us sometimes, but you're always seeking to reconcile us to yourself, and we thank you for such patients. And Lord we pray you help us also to love and be patient with one another, and father as we consider matters of importance to your children in this state Lord we pray you help us to remember that sometimes we may champion a course that is not pleasing into you, and if it prevails we have failed, and sometimes we champion a course that is what you want us to do and it fails, and we just to have more work to do, Lord we pray you'd give us the stamina, give us the courage, and give us the determination if what we're doing is right in your side, to press on, to continue to struggle, but Lord if we're doing wrong we will have to see it and try to firm it for we know Lord it is not us who are important but your glory and your will so help us to live for that and to work for that to seek after knowledge and understanding of your purpose and the glory that may drive us forward to do the very best to which you make us capable for we pray in Jesus name Amen of the flag of the united state of America and to the republic representative Tom is recognized thank you Mr. Speaker the journal for June 16 has been examined and found correct and the approve is written representative Tobit move that the bill for June extend the approve is written those in favour will vote aye those opposed no the journal approved is written chapter bill to be noted the motion today is the matrix of Chapel hill if you are here please stand reports of the standing committee the clerk will read Report of the standing committee clerk will read. Senator [xx] Representative Daughtry judiciary 1 committee report senate bill 212 favour counter Representatives [xx] Collins and Lawren, public utilities reports, Senate bill 88 with tax disputes, favorable House committee substitute on favorable committee substitute and re referring to finance. House committee substitute re referring committee on finance on committee substitute unfavorable calendar. Representative Dickson is recognised to send forth The Clerk will read. To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House Representatives. The conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 640 A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT TO PRESERVE NORTH CAROLINA'S OUTDOOR HERITAGE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS AND AMEND VARIOUS WILDLIFE RESOURCES COMMISSION LAWS. Senate Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee Substitute Adopted 5/27/15, Fifth Edition Engrossed 5/28/15 submits to the following report. The House and the Senate agreed to the following amendment to the Senate Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee Substitute Adopted 5/27/15, Fifth Edition Engrossed 5/28/15 and the House concurs in the Senate Committee Substitute as amended. Delete the entire Senate Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee Substitute Adopted 5/27/15, Fifth Edition Engrossed 5/28/15 and Substitute Detects proposed conflicts committee substitute 8640

there is PCCS 20370 there's TQ there's 2. The conflicts recommend it, that the Senate and the house representative brought this forward. They count for his appointed report June 17th, 2015 conflict of the Senate, Senator Jackson Chair, Senator Mark Kirk, Weagley and Wagley, Kafleys for the house representative Wesson and Pixon Chair, Wesson S Louis, Jay Bill, Lukas and Barley[sp?]. Counter. We have order please, on motion of member from [xx] Representative Dabson the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to his wife Velerie. Order, Kennedy and Miss McKenzie if you would rise so we can greet you. and on motion Representative Zachary, the chair is please to extend the courtesy in the gallery to Representative Zachary's daughter Rachel Zachary her friend Kate and Richie from Moore Head City. If you're here we'd like to greet you, where are you? Somebody did messages from the senate, the clerk will read. House bill 44 local government, regulatory reform 2015. Calendar pursuit rule 36B. House bill 154 local governments and health plan. Calendar pursued to rule 36B. House bill 327 studied EMS and safety, EMS personal technical changes Calendar pursued to rule 36B. Oh, Ok. Special message from the Senate the clerk will read. Mr. Speaker pursuant to your message received on June 15th 2015 that the house representatives failed to concur in house bill 836 senate committee substitute fourth edition. A bill to be entitled on electronic submission of absentee ballot list by county board election to authorize the use of new technology for paper ballot to extend the time frame who've met the requirements for paper ballots from 2018 to September first 2019 for counties that use direct records, electronic voting machines for current voting requirements to operate in certain municipalities to conduct unfortified elections enter the require county ballot of election to notify the the register of voters for the option to complete regular request for absentees ballot at one stop voting location when the voter presents without the eligible form of further identification through the [xx] points senator Rucho, Apodacca and [xx] on the part the Senate to confirm with a like committee appointed by Honorable Vady to the aim that the governance's horizons may resolved, respectfully so as [xx] Noted. The rule prohibiting eating is suspended in view of the hour. Members, we can group the first thee bills unless there's objection. Is there objection to including grouping any of those three bills? Seeing no lights, House Bill 217, House Bill 337 and House Bill 415. The Clerk will read. Representative Daughtry, House Bill 217. A bill to be entitled an Act to to describe partial from the town of Clayton, and to enacts describe parts to the town of Clayton. Representatives Dollar, Headcock and [xx] house bill 337 a bill to be entitled an act to amend the charter of the town of [xx] to authorize the town council to delegate to the city manager to authorize the disposal of easement that are no longer needed by the town, and to authorize the Raleigh City Council to delegate the city manager to authorize to dispose easements that are no longer needed by the city. Representative West. House Bill 415 a bill to be entitled an Act to Amend the Charter of the Town of Fontana Dam to Authorize the Town Council to establish electronic power board to manage and control the towns electronic public enterprise service. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Discussion or debate? If not, the question before the House in the concurrence on each bill, House Bill 217, House Bill 337 and House Bill 415 those in favor will say aye, "Aye", Those opposed will say no.

The ayes have it. The bills will be enrolled the Clerk will read. While he's doing that, the Chair is pleased to extend the courtesies of the 4 of behalf of the majority leader, Representative Mike Hager, to representative Paula [xx] of the Georgia house of representatives. If you would stand some others like to meet you. Crockery, Clerk will read Senate Bill [xx] was awarded, Senate Bill 256 are both of the entire [xx] chart off the city of Durham to allow the city to earn extra adjacent streets, to streets rights of way and voluntary annexations to prevent confusion on the part of emergency workers for attention to provide emergency services within the city limits General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Representative Luebke is recognized. Thank you Mr. Speaker members of the house, we had a vigorous debate on this bill yesterday, and I wouldn't know that I felt there was an employed request for the position taken by the county commission, so, I do have such position here from the county commission. If anyone is interested in reading it, I hope you can support the bill. Thank you. Further discussion of the debate is not the question before the house is passage of senate bill 256 in its third reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote noes. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. The ayes the no's are 18, the bill is passed and will be enrolled. We will not group the next two bills, House Bill 131 the clerk will read. Representative Presnell, House Bill 131 a bill to be entitled An Act To Remove Certain Described Property From The Corporate Limits Of The Town Of Maggie Valley. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Representative Presnell is recognized. Thank you very much. This bill is to deannex 14 pieces of property with 11 homes that cannot be serviced by the town of Maggie Valley. It has an 8 foot wide road with no colvesac[sp?], no turnaround. The owners came before the mayor and now they have asked again to be deannexed. In 2012 you have a paper that I know every one of you got, the vote was 3 to 2 to ask the legislators to annex them, and it was never brought before the legislature. So I'm here asking that you be de-annex them  Representative Floyd is recognized. Representative Quinn is recognized. Good day to speak on the bill. You're recognized. The town of Maggie Valley lapse Representative Presnell in my district. This particular issue has a sort of worried history, but the current board of a mayor and four oldermen, do not support this in a vote of 4-1, and, I just ask you to vote against this de-annexation, thank you. Representative Hamilton is recognized. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as voting 'aye' for Senate Bill 256, I was in the chamber you'll be so recorded, further discussion on the debate, if not the question before the house is the passage of house bill 131 on it's second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Right here. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, the ayes have 76, the no's have 39, the bill has passed the second reading and will remain on the calendar. Senate bill 140, the clerk will read. Senator J Davis, senate bill 140, a bill to be entitled authorize the attorney of late [xx] and act of tax [xx]. The gentleman from Chucky representative west is recognised to debate the bill thank you Mr. Speaker members of the house this would authorize town lake side [xx] 3% of [xx] tax I would appreciate you support on the bill.

Further further debate? If not the question for the houses for passage of senate bill 140 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Representative McNeil does the gentleman wish to record on this vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 98 having voted in the affirmative and 15 in the negative senate bill 140 passes its second reading and remains on the calendar, ratification of bills and resolution the clerk will read The role we are following duly ratified for presentation to the governor, senate bill 682 an act to labour to use contingent bassed for audit or assessment purposes, and the following bill will be ratified and enrolled and prepared for presentation to the office of the secretary of state. Senate bill 218 we're moving certain restrictions on satellite and extension for the town of Franklin and the city of [xx] and to remove the certain described properties from the corporate numbers of the town of [xx]. Chapter bill is noted. House bill 679 the clerk will read. Representing [xx] S Martins [xx] House Bill of 679 a bill to be entitled and act to authorize acquisition of construction of the financing without appropriations for the general fund, or certain capital improvements to project of the contingent to the institution of the University of North Carolina. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Members, before I recognize debate on this bill the Chair would ask that any amendments to HB 562 be turned in by 2.30. Now, the Chair understands that there may be amendments that someone thinks of at the last minute or they'd had a previous amendment that does, and if those come in we'll take them on a case by case basis beginning with any amendments on House Bill 562, the Chair would ask that those be filed with the Clerk before 2.30. The gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Brawley has the floor to debate House Bill 679. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the self-liquidating Capital Projects Bill for the universities, we do one of these every year. For the new members of the body, a quick review. The schools cannot issue debt without permission of the General Assembly, but these are not bonds that are backed by the taxpayers or the General Fund of the State of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, if I could have order? The House will come to order and give the gentleman the attention that he deserves. The gentleman has has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are 4 universities that have made requests. Appalachian State will be replacing Winkler Resident Hall, it's an old holding, they have discover that it will make more sense to tear it down and replace it with a more modern enough energy efficient structure with much more capacity and to try to renovate it to current standards. East Carolina University will be renovating four residence halls to bring them up to current standards North Carolina Central will be dealing with deferred maintenance and infrastructure improvements. This is the only one that will create a new fee, its dollars on students and in all candor, I will admit I'm somewhat embarrassed by this, they will be levying a $100 charge on some of their students to repair the building and some other academic buildings, but tehy did request it. It was approved by the Board of Governors, so I bring it forward today. North Carolina State University has a new classroom building in the engineering oval with some campus infrastructure. They are requesting authority for non-capital 77 million. The House budget included a matching number. The state portion would be paid by gifts and cash on hand in their endowment. This of course will be, this project would be contingent upon the final budget being passed to include the state share, should it not remain in the budget these bonds would not be issued. I'm ready to take any questions Mr. Speaker. But I would ask vote green on this bill today. Thank you. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage. House Bill 679 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

With 111 having voted in the affirmative and four in the negative,. House Bill 679 passes it's second reading and remains on the calendar. House Bill 168. The Clerk will read. Representatives Hager, Willis, Fraley and Collins. House Bill 168. A bill to be entitled an Act to Exempt from Property Tax the Increase in the Value of Residential real property health to settle by building to extend the increase as attributable to sub divisions or improvements by General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager rise? To speak on the bill and after that, Mr. Speaker, send forth an amendment. The gentleman is first recognized to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill as many of you who are in finance know is set up to try to develop and heal the sector of building and development that we see in a lot of our rural areas and some in urban areas. This bill very simply allows someone that's in the business of building and developing the ability to pay taxes on the raw land that they own, but to really push out for three years the taxes on the improvements until they sell the property. If they don't sell the property, they build a house on it, such as representative Brawdy does, they build a house on a piece of property they don't have to pay tax on that improvement for three years unless they sell it before then and then after three years, then they will have to pay the taxes. This has been estimated to the calls for this policy to drive out 507 new homes being build in North Carolina, and expand the building sector by about 2500 jobs. Mr Speaker I'd like to send forth an amendment please? The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment, clerk will read. Representative Ingram moves to amend the bill on page 1 line 18 by rewriting the line to red. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and finances [xx] some situations where the builder or developer needs to pay taxes on and approve property right away if they're using it for the sale of other homes or if they're using it for an office or if they're [xx] the property, and then it also makes sure that these policy is not perspective that you have a house sitting out there right now that a builder hasn't yet sold, you still will pay taxes on the improved property, this is only for new stuff moving after the dates you see on the amendment. So it doesn't take anything away from the county and the revenue that they are presently getting right now. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment, for what purpose. The question for the house is the adoption of amendment 1, set forth by representative those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The court will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and  record the vote, 114 having voted the affirmative and none on the negative, the amendment is adopted, we're now back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Lucas rise? Thank you Mr. Speaker to see if Representative Hager would yield to. Does the gentleman from Rutherford yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? I do. He yields. Thank you Representative Hager, is there any limit, are there any limit restrictions on the number that can be exempted from this taxation? Representative there's not,  my hope is that it spurs the development in the constructing business so much that we have to consider that next year we would love to have it to where we're building too many homes putting too many people back to work, putting too many framers, too many HTAC guys, too many electricians, too many back to work would that be great. Additional question please. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? I do. He yields. Thank you again Representative Hugh, do you a large contract I don't understand the meaning in the state, but in some places they are if they developed a project say 250 to 400 homes they exempt until they sell all apart what certain sense does this state. There's a couple of situations representative and Representative Connie is working on an amendment that I support that takes off the big multifamily projects so I think that is more or less of what you're talking about we don't have it ready I would object to a third reading to make sure we get ready. For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hannover Representative Davis rise? Thank you Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Ladies and gentlemen of the house we had a really good discussion about this proposed bill in the finance committee, and I made some comments during that committee meeting I would like to make on the floor for your consideration. First of I've always been a supporter of the bill against when I was a commissioner for 16 years and

I tried to support the home bill as much as I could during that time, but one thing I want you to think about and that is every year that a local government goes through a budget process, they have to look at what revenues they have to determine whether or not they are going to be able to pay their projected expenses, and as you can all pretty well figure out if the expenses are more, then projecting revenues they are either going to have to cut services, raise taxes, use fund balance if they even have fund balance to use, or look at alternative revenue sources. So I also say that one of the reasons I have been so supportive of the home bill which is residential real estate agent and the more home she sales of course that's the more money she can bring home and I like her to keep me in the lifestyle to which I become a customs so I do have a vested interest in the home building industry real estate industry, but in looking at this I contacted my local head of the county government and I would just like to read what they said if I may Mr. Speaker is a brief statement of why New Hannover County objects to this particular bill. As a growing community with continued build out of residential property exception of property taxes for residential real property will negatively impact in our area and [xx] county alone single family homes build in 2014 will approximately 875 as approximately valued over $206 million. This equates to over one million in revenues for New Hannover County while not all of this funds will remain in the bill inventory at the end of the year a potion of that value would be excluded from property taxation due to this bill, not only could it be excluded from taxation the year it was built but also two additional years under this proposal causing losses for the county year over year due to the negative impact it would pose on our I hear you New Hanover County opposes this bill arguments by the bill sponsor in the home building industry where the local governments were not truly losing money since that revenues the counties were not yet collecting, this directly contradicts their contenting that the bill benefits communities by sparing economic development, as counties would be blocked from benefitting from any of the growth. I just ask you when you consider how to vote on this bill, that you consider the financial impact that is going to have in your local government and your local government's ability to have this official revenues to make that project expenses. Thank you Mr. Speaker for what purpose does the gentleman from Nash represent the Collins rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Just like to point out. [xx] Thank you. I just want to point out folks that we are not in 99.9% of the cases we're not going to be exempting people for three years hopefully most of our homes, new homes will sit on the market for 3 years before their sell. As soon as the house is sold, the counties begin to get the money, if this far extra building as a my sit-mate has pointed out as the statistics that has been, the best projections we can get, the counties are going to benefit from this, immediately as the houses begin the sell. Even if they sit there, even if every single one sit there for 3 years, will still take on a very myopic viewpoint because beginning 3 years now and going forward every year after, the extra homes that have been built will be a boon to the counties, not a loss. so at most, you've got some loss for 3 years, after that, due to inspiring the extra home building activities is going to be a positive for every single county, but I don't think it's going to be a loss for 3 years because again, most houses are going to sell long before the 3 years period is over and as soon as they sell that exemption is done. I don't like to sell what we can [xx] activity and home building we know is the best economic activity there is, because it brings so many other industries along with it, so I certainly would hope that you would, vote for this amendment. thank you. For the bill, I'm for the bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Buke, Representative Black Will rise?   To ask Representative Hager question if he will yield. Does the gentleman from Rathoford yield to the gentleman from Buke?   I would gladly. He yields. Representative Hager, I think I understood you to that if the home was being rented they wouldn't qualify for this treatment, is that correct?   That is correct. well defined where the language is in here that says a rental will disqualify them from receiving it and am not reading it to finance maybe it obvious but I cant say. It was in the amendment representative

Backwell if you read the amendment it is there the moment we put the paper work Does the gentleman wish to ask another question? I will go back and look the amendment. Does the gentleman from Buncombe wish to ask another question? Yes sir And does the gentleman Guilford yield to an additional question? I do He yields I will go back and leave the amendment again but I thought I said that for commercial uses I used is about to say something about rent. Yes it does it is okay individual residence exclude property that occupied or use for commercial purposes such as residences sound to be perspective buy us miles in any of uses in residence so why the amendment was supposed to be written, Representative Berger I agree with you,  if you don't mind we will go over it. Regardless of the intentions, if it doesn't  say where, we will fix the situation. For what purpose does the gentleman form Cumberland representative soucek rise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to make two quick points. One, in the last 60-70 years, every session this country has had, home building, led the way out of every session, not just for the houses being built for the [xx] appliances, dishes, [xx] things like that, so, home building definitely supports the economy. The second point I would like to make is that, as you may know, I'ave been in the mortgage planning industry for past 17-18 years, being through the ups and the downs, and I'ave seen small builders, particularly hurt by the latest recession, a lot of them are going out of business, it's incredibly difficult a small builder to make it out today, this bill opinion will help small builders come back, small business come back and build some houses. Right now in many markets what we have are the big builders, then they dominate the market. What we're really missing is some of these small guys getting back into the business, like Representative Brody here, he's a builder. He is a small businessman, I'm not saying this would help him or not, but people like him who are building one or two houses a year, I think this will help spur business not only in large metropolitan areas but also in rural areas, and I ask you to consider that and I'd ask that you vote Yes on this bill. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Carney rise? To send forth an amendment. The lady is recognized to send forth on the amendment, the Clerk will read. Representative Carney moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 19 by rewriting the line to read. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, and thank you to Representative Hager for agreeing to this amendment This is going to the land rates, the new line if you see it on your dashboard. This classified property of trivial to the construction of a new single family residence or a duplex on the side. This goes to the heart I think of what this bill originally was intended to do, and that is to look at the smaller developments and the small developers, builders who just want to help get back in the market and again as they are saying health kicks start the economy again which is already in a kick start mode and we want it to just grow faster but this takes out all the multi family and the huge developments that could be out there in the future and it doesn't, it's still going to hit counties but I don't believe that we'll have as great an impact with the removal of simplifying down to single units and duplexes. Because when a county has to do their forecast and their planning, they look at all the development that are on the books, they plan for that and they count on thiese taxes kind of but this makes it a much better bill in my opinion, I would ask your support on the amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] representative Harger rise? To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to speak on the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker representative Connie came to me and I thought it was a great idea because the regional tension for this bill for me was to get as Representative Connie said those guys that are building few houses, ten or fifteen houses at most a year. They're all small time guys. They're just trying to irk out a living have been hurt more by this economy than anybody so I would support Representative's Connie's amendment. Any further debate or discussion on the amendment? For what purpose does the gentleman from Representative Millers rise?   To ask the amendment sponsor a question. Does the lady from Meckonberg yield to the gentleman from Pender?   I do. She yields. Representative Connie, just proper understanding in regard to what the bill is intending to do, in my view, is to get in the aspect of fair taxation. If no one is occupying the building whether it's a single family structure, a duplex structure or a multi-family structure.

I'm a little confused about why we should exempt the aspects of taxing the actual structure as if it is inhabited by the one multi-family, renter, leaser or the full build out. I'm just a little confused about the aspects, if there is no demands being put on the public school system, on the actual water and sewer infrastructure or on the Safety aspects, why should we treat multi-family different, than we should treat single family residence? They are getting taxes for the all end. But why should they get taxes for something that is build whenever no residence that's put burden in the local governments to occupy it? Thank you for the question and I'm coming from this, from the again I wasn't sure if I could even support this because that's a bigger brush strike when you are expanding that to a 250 unit. The impact on the county infrastructures that are needed going forward, I'm just, murmum, I'm simply taken down to single family and duplex to our internally[sp?]. Mr. Speaker to speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I fully respect representative Connie's amendment and I heard about this matter the way I view this is about a fair taxation, and again the why I view this is not really about aspiring or stimulating the aspects of growth is about the aspect of if there's no burden being put in local government then I don't understand why that they are collecting taxes, I don't even understand why they are estimating and therefore spending money based on the estimation of demand, to me when that first resident walks into that multi family unit, of course I you should actually be paying full taxes, but just because the building is sitting there, and it's built, in an unoccupied and vacant, I don't understand why that [xx] in demand, I definatly respect the amendment sponsor, but I ask you to vote against the amendment.  For what purpose does the, I've seen representatives Michael after representative Stan, do these members wish to debate the amendment? Representative Segal does the gentleman wish to debate the amendment? I'd like to ask Representative Carney a question on the amendment.  Does the lady from Mecklenburg Mecklenburg yield for the gentleman from Chamberlain.  I do. She yields.  Thank you, in financing which I'm involved in, the Epiche and [xx] financing allows a buyer to go up to a fourplex of four unit, and Representative Hager supports your amendment, and I support your amendment and concept. Thank you for the question, yes, I'm open to that because on my original conversation with representative Hager, I did say the quadruples, duplex of single family, we were just kind of hurry to get this drafted, but we can do that tomorrow if on 3rd reading we can object the [xx] if you would like that, thank you. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Is this the only amendment representative Adams? For what purpose does the gentleman from Catawba Representative Adams rise?   To debate the amendment The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Quick observation, if this is for a single family, when the house is built and it's occupied, it's taxed. Multi family or if multi family is going to be taxed at the point in the first senate, that's a very short period. think that will be of little consequence, the other thing I'm interested in is town homes and condominiums, the single family residences, there just the collected, would that be, I think what you are looking at is something that is very stimulative, I would not limit it. I would go against the amendment. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment, if not the question for the house is the adoption of amendment 2 we set forth by representative Collin. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 93 having voted in the affirmative and 22 in the negative. The amendment is adopted we are now back on the Bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake representative Stam rise? To speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. History repeats itself over and over, 30 years ago we got rid of the inventory tax and the intangible property tax and that was preceded by study eight years earlier that an invoked tax committee of the general assemblies are LRC in which 38 counties identified by name were listed in

the say and that is the main reason they didn't come to North Carolina I just say this is an extension of that 30year ago tax reform. We should not be taxing inventory before it is placed in you now think for just a minute, what is City and County taxes used for? Well the big thing is for education, huge services, fire report, you know lots of things. Under this bill the property with a house order to under construction still pays property tax for the land. It still pays building permit fees, inspection fees, acreage this facility at the wazoo, they're paying, but if there's a house that is not sold, there is not a child living there to be educated. There is not a family living there to need social services. This bill is really about tax fairness and for the same reason that we got rid of the inventory tax 30 years ago, we should pass this bill. For what purpose does the lady from Carteret representative McElraft rise? To speak briefly on the bill? The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to get up as our former town commissioner and county commissioner, I know you're kind of sick of my saying that, but when I heard about New Hanover county commissioner speak and I guess this, as a county commissioner, town commissioner, we didn't count our chickens before they hatch, so if you are prospectively going out and counting the those buildings are going to be built and you're putting that in your tax base right away then that's, I think, wrong, and I feel that just, and Representative Millis said this, we have children to be educated on the Property Tax. We have the fire departments as Representative Stam said, we have all kinds of services that those property taxes pay for, and if you're talking about inventory where there is going to be any people for some length of time, then we should not be taxing them. Also, we are getting taxes from the lumber companies, from the carpet people, they're generating jobs, so the state is getting income taxes on that, and we are having carpet companies not go out of business like they have been in my area. It's a good thing to do for our home builders, they have been in dire straits lately, and it's time for us to help them out. For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover representative Davis rise? To ask a bill sponsor a question please? Does the gentleman from Rutherford yield to the gentleman from New Hanover? I do. He yields Thank you [xx] representative, just so I make sure because we're in a little different position now than we first started with the amendments that we're doing, so as amended, is it my understanding that the single family duplex and quadruplex residential construction will not be subject to the taxes? That is correct, until three years, or until sold, or until occupied. It could be occupied as a rental unit also. Okay, and not be subject to the tax? Correct. Does the gentleman wish to, just a moment. Does the gentleman New Hanover wish to ask addition question? Follow up. Does the gentleman from Rutherford yield? I do. He yields. Thank you Mr. Speaker and then the family multi residential and commercial property will be subject to the taxes. The ones that I understand and will not be subject to the real estate tax on the improvement of the property. The property still tax are you single family, or your duplex type runs at a normal smaller builder will build, now if it's rented it's still subject to the tax. If it's commercial it's still subject to tax, if it's still those big issues the way I viewed if it's one of the big projects with a lot of condominiums and all those things, that it will still be subject to tax also. The multifamily? Multifamily yes One more for a follow up. Does the gentleman from Rutherford yield to additional question? I do. He yields. So as a result of the amendments really what is happening is we're protecting the all builders by encouraging them to go forward with construction because they will not be subject to taxes on the small project, but larger projects where people really can afford to pay the taxes will be subject to the taxes. Representative Davis thank you for that, that was the intention of my bill to start with, to protect those guys have been hammered by this economy the most and to give them a fighting chance out there to compete. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 168 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye,

those opposed will vote no, the clerk will record the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative and 11 in the negative, House Bill 168 passes the second reading and will without objection be read a third time. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager rise? Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this bill be displaced to the end of the calendar. We have one more amendment that's being prepared right now. So ordered. Senate Bill 43. The Clerk will read. Senators Brown and Meredith Senate bill 43 a bill to be entitled on Act to [xx] immediately preceding the date of the application for 90 days to one year in which the military veterans are seeking a waiver of the commercial skills tests must have been regularly employed by to provide the military veteran with an additional method for satisfying the certification requirements in the GS20 there's 3.13 General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The gentleman from Onslow, Representative Shepherd is recognized to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, this is Senate bill of Senator Brown sent over. It passes unanimous in committee yesterday. It basically, means the skills test waver for [xx] with military experience by expanding the time peer, allow between a retired or discharged ethic, the illegally employed in a qualified position and the date of application from the [xx] from 90 days to one year and also by providing an additional method of certification availed before the waiver beside certification by commanding officer by allowing the applicant to provide a DV form 214 and a military-issued driver's license. I appreciate your support for this bill. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Szoka, rise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. I mean the first part of this bill, and for those of you who were here two years ago, you recall we extended the time for being in service to 90 days and I checked with DMV, there have been over 400 military veterans who've taken taking advantage of this bill for an ever starting a pay between $45-50, 000 a year, that's 400 more previous older sailors sailing lines[sp?] on the roads with their CDL driving tracks and good paying jobs, and this will put even more on the roads. SO, I ask you to vote green. Further discussion, further debate, if not, the question before the house is the passage of senate bill 43 on it's second reading, those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, clerk will open the The clerk will lock the machine and will record the vote. 116 having in the affirmative and none of the negatives senate 43 passes its second reading and will without objection be read the third time further discussion and further debate if not question for the house has Senate bill 43, I want to start reading, those in favor say aye, aye, those opposed No. The Ayes have it. Senate bill 43 passed as it's third reading they are waiting those orders in load and send to the governor Senate bill 455 the clerk will read Senator Grag Senate bill 455 being entitled an act to enact, [xx] Investment act The gentleman from [xx] Representative Ross is recognized to debate the bill. Thank you Mr speaker, speaker, this bill comes to us from the senate, Senator Gunn, this bill is just to simply exact as the title says, senate bill 455 will prohibit certain investments and contracts with persons determined to be engaging in investment activities in Iran, there was a house PCS that we had before us and all the PCS did was move this from the Secretary of state's office over to the department of the state treasurer and the reason for that is obvious, that's where the state pension plan and the other pension plans and investment for the rest of the local government and the state are located. The bill is very straightforward, the federal Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, expressly authorizes the state and local governments to prevent investment And companies operating  in Iran's energy sector, with investments that have the result of supporting the efforts of the government of Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability the 'no's' are 18, the bill will be passed and will be enrolled. We will not group the next two bills, House bill

131 the clerk will read for other local governments and other entities in the state to use to determine who indirectly may have investments in Iran . It spells out limitations as to the amounts of money involved, it also limits contracts, so back to the state or contracts with the state to $1000. The bill's is pretty straight forward. Passed the senate commerce committee, unanimous. Passed pensions and retirement, in the senate, unanimous. Also passed the senate and then yesterday passed house pensions, unanimous and it's the day before us, there are a number of other states that have adopted these, the list is probably too long to read, so I'd say that unless someone really wants to see it and I ask that you support the bill, thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guildford Representative Blast rise? To see is Representative Russel will yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Altamont yield to the gentleman from Guildford? I yield. He yields. Representative Rosters, this stay in place if the current administration of Washington reach some sort of deal with Iran that leaves sanctions to the state sanction stay in place in eventuality. No it does not in fact in the bill it has provisions for what will actually cause the bill to cease and one is if the sanctions were lifted or any action by the federal government it would change the Act that was passed in 2010 Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 455 on its second reading, those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative and four in the negative, Senate Bill 455 passes its second reading and will without objection be read a third time.  General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 455 on its third reading those in favor will say Aye, Aye, all.  those opposed No. The Ayes have it. Senate Bill 455 five passes its third reading will be returned to the Senate. Member Senate Bill 478 which is next in the calendar the chair has received your request for a fiscal note, therefore, that bill is removed from the calendar and referred to the committee on appropriations Senate bill 621, the clerk will read, Senators Meridith, [xx] and Lowe senate bill 621 a bill  to be entitled an act to authorize the division of motor vehicle to state motor vehicle renewal notification by electronic means upon receiving a written consent from the owner of the motor vehicle. General Assembly of North Carolina act.  For what purpose does the gentleman from Campbell representative [xx] rise?  Senate bill 621. Further discussion and further debate if not, the question for the house is the passage of Senate bill 621 on second reading, those in favor will vote aye those oppose will vote no, the clerk will record the vote Clerk will lock the machine record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, several 621 passes its second reading and will without objection be read a third time. Mr. Speaker. I believe the question has been put. However, I will be, the Chair would be glad to delay the vote for allowed the vote to get a demerged calendar because [xx] will be read for a third time then I accept the motion pertained in the calendar. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett, rise? Inquiry of the Chair, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman may state his inquiry. I just wondered if this would be a proper time to let people know this did actually go to a committee was heard and there's no objection to it. That is sought of proper, but thank you. You're very welcome. And by the way since it's on third reading the gentleman may debate the bill, so if the gentleman would like to debate the bill, the gentleman is recognized for that purpose. To debate the bill Mr. President. The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. bill. The bill, I was not asked t carry the bill, but the bill did get through transportation committee, was heard, spoke about, no objection I'm aware of and I appreciate the vote. Further discussion further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of senate bill senate 621 on it's third reading those in favor will say aye, Aye  Those oppose will say

no, the aye's have it senate bill 621 passes it's third reading bill as ordered enrolled and sent to the governor, special message from the senate clerk will read We'll come back to that in just a moment momentarily the house will be taking a recess so that the amendments may be reviewed to house bill 562 also I understand Rep. Herger will be calling a [xx] upon recess, and there will be a pretty short recess, the Chair is thinking probably not more than 15 minutes, but we'll dispose of a few other matters members on behalf of our motion of actually the gentleman Rep. Elmore is recognized to send forth a conference report the clerk will read. To the president of the senate the speaker of the house representatives conferees upon the differences between the senate and the house of representatives on senate bill 333, a bill to be entitled act to require that the state board of education icludes specific data on it's annual report on the teaching profession. House committee substitute favorable 6215 submitted the following report, the senate and the house agreed following amendment to the house committee substitute favorable 6215 and the senate concurs in the house committee substitute, and amend it, the [xx] into our house committee substitute 6215 and the substitute the attached proposed conference committee substitute S333 - PCC S15258- TC-1. Conferees recommended that the senate and house of representatives adopt this report dave[sp?] conferees approved representative 2015 conferees for the senate Se. Soucek Chair, Sen Daniel, Curtis, Firward conferees for the house Representatives Representative Elmore Chair, Representatives Johnson, Horn, Glazier and Stam Counter percent rule 36 and that bill will be calendar for tomorrow's calendar members the chair is happy to extended the courtesies of the floor to the governor's page just for this week could we have any governors pages with us right now either in the gallery glad to have you with us today if you all would join me in welcoming our governors pages please Members earlier today house bill 44 was read and was not calendared, the chair understands their is going to be a motion not to conquer therefore the chair would ask is their an objection to house 44 being added on to today's calendar for a motion not to conquer hearing non, house bill 44 is acted to today's calender the Clerk will read. Representatives Conrad, Lamberth, Heins and Terry, House bill 44, a bill to be entitled and act to perform various provisions of the law related to local government. General Assembly of North Carolinian Act. The lady from [xx], Representative Conrad is recognised for a motion. Yes Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a motion. The lady is recognised Mr. Speaker, I would move that the house not concur with house bill 44 and that conferees be appointed. Further discussion or further Representative Floyd, I see the gentleman rise. Does the gentleman which to debate this motion?   Question before the house is the adoption of the motion not to concur, those in favour will vote aye, those oppose will oppose will vote no, the Clerk will open the vote. the Clerk will lock, the machine will record the vote, 117 If you having Rodney informative and none of negative the motion not concurrency adopted, chair points the following conferees representative Liam but chair represents Conlee, MacGregor, Loss, Biel, Heinz and Stem members.

Said will be soon notified, for what purpose does the gentleman gentleman from Cumberland represent the Ford rise? Inquired the Chair The gentleman recognizes the inquiry Mr. Speaker you indicate we will have a few team minutes recess. Yes. And then we will come back and address house bill 562. The speaker yesterday gave comments, if I ain't mistaken five minute for comments or amendments to the bill so are we going to adhere to that today or are we going back to our 15 minute   At this point the chair will allow once turn around the members to exercise the time around another rules for the debate but I think the general makes a thorough point and that will. That would be that, I think that the debate can be, the chair would trust members to keep the debate rather short and appropriate but we'll see how that goes. Flower up speaking The gentleman is recognized for a follow up I wanted to obedient to Representative Steven yesterday, and we'll take a vote before dinner We should take a vote for dinner. Looks like at this point the chair's in possession of the 11 amendments at this time and the articulately hour has passed, so the chair does not believe there's any further amendments to be before the body, so the chair's going to be reviewing these amendments during the recess to determine if there're any that are out of order then those members will be promptly informed of the same. So for what purpose does the lady from Randolph represent the rise?   Mr. Speaker the it appears that before we recess the house my vote on 621 to 'aye'. The lady from [xx] having voted 'aye' on 621 Bill 168 according to Representative Hager is ready to go. And, the chair's in possession of an amendment by Representative Blackwell, so House Bill 168 have been read a third time, House bill 168 is back before the body. The representative from Burke representative Blackwell is recognized to send forth an amendment, the clerk will read. Representative Blackwell that moves to amend amendment number one on page one line three of the amendment by rewriting the line to read. The gentleman from Burke has the floor to debate the amendment Mr. Speaker this is friendly amendment just to clarify that in fact rental property is included in that group of property that would not qualify for the special tax classification. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford representative Hager rise? Debate the amendment? Gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, representative Blackwell pointed out some confusion in the amendment that I ran he's correct and this straightens out all that, so let's get everybody to vote green on the amendment. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment, if not the question before the house is the adoption of amendment three offered by representative Blackwell, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. representative Riddel [xx]. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, and one in the negative, the amendment is adopted, we're now back in the bill as amendend further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House bill 168 on its third reading, those in favor will say aye, strike that those that was amended so we do need a recorded vote. Those in favour will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the Clerk will open the vote representative Farmer Batterfield, does the lady wish to record on this vote? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 109 having voted on the affirmative and eight in the negative, House Bill 168 passes its third reading, the bill is ordered enclosed, and it will be returned to the senate. Any notices or announcements before we go into recess? For what purpose does the lady from Wake Representative Alba rise? On the last amendment I got to the amendment we were mending and would like to change to yes. The lady will be recorded as having voted aye on the amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rathaford, Representative Hager arise? Announcement. The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Thank you Mr. Speaker focus will coax 1228 immediately after, immediately during the recess. Further notices and announcements members we will try and read the clock. We will stand in recess until 2.55. 2.55 in recess. the house will come back to order.

Sorry that was an awfully long 15 minutes but chair apologise but I believe the time was productively spent and the respective caucuses. House Bill 562 the clerk will read Representative shacker, Bill, Cleavan and clock, house bill 562, a bill to be entitled and act to emit various forms of laws. Further discussion, further if not. What purposes does the lady from Mcenberg[sp?] Representative Shepa[sp?] rise? To debate the bill The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker, members. Here we are again for our second-day of debate House bill 62 of course we had several hours of debate yesterday quite a few changes to the bill however I would continue to ask for your support on this bill, I understand there are a few amendments today that we'll be discussing but as I said I would ask you to vote green on the bill and will look for to, hopefully not to on debate thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] Representative Louis rise? To send forward an amendment The gentleman is recognized to send forward the amendment, the clerk will read. Representative moves to amend the bill on page six line 25 through page eight lines 42 by rewriting those lines to read. The gentleman from Harnett has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, yesterday we had a series of amendments so we adopted that changed this bill quite substantially. Much work was done by central staff in the process of engrossing the bill last night so that the bill you will have on your dashboard will be the bill that we'll be debating, and consider our amendments on today. There were three amendments that were in contrast to each other. The amendment that I offer today I feel artically[sp?] reflects the will of the House, what this amendment does is it clarifies that the the amendment offered by Representative McNeil yesterday, which 77 members of this body voted for. The amendment offered by Representative McNeil yesterday his intent was to preserve the pistol permitting process by the Sheriff's exactly as it is today. That was his intent that was what was discussed in the debate on the floor of the house and that's what 77 members of the house voted for. The amendment and also deals with correctly placing the language that Representative Adams added which says there would be a uniform pistol purchasing permit with a rate seal in place which passed the house 112 to 3. I would respectfully ask simply so that we can clarify that the will of the house is reflected on the dashboard, that if you voted for the McNeill amendment yesterday which preserves the pistol permit and process with   [xx] for the Sheriff's exactly at it is today which was explained and thoroughly debated on the floor of the House, and If you voted for the Adams amendment which passed 112 to three that you vote for my amendment. If you want to be consistent and you voted against Representative McNeill amendment yesterday, just vote no, on this amendment. Mr. Speaker I'll be glad to answer any questions if there are some. The Chair sees two likes of these likes on the amendment. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg Representative Schaffer rise? To debate the amendment. The lady has the fault to debate the amendment.  Thank you Mr. Speaker and I thank Representative of Luis for bringing this technical amendment forward, and as I've had a chance to speak with a few of you, I do want to make just a very important point about the nature of the technical amendment. Because of the way that things were passed yesterday between these three amendments. Part of Representative Luis's original amendment still stands on the bill it is on paper 6 lines 25 through 27 and the effect of that is that it is the exemption for hand gun purchases at a federal licensed firearms dealer the point here is that if you vote for this amendment then you'll be voting, if you vote the current amendment then you'll be voting to take out that exemption in effect what that will be doing is taking out the partial appeal. So if their are members that are in this chamber that support any form of appeal of

the epistle permit process then you should vote no against this amendment. So as I support a full appeal of the epistle permit process but I am open certainly to partial appeal, I would urge members to vote against this amendment, thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, representative Mcneill rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Representative Louis you did a really good job about explaining what and I want to take just a second now and I'll be brief. What happened in the House yesterday was was a series of amendments. Representative Louise's was first. It made certain changes. When mine came along second. It [xx]. When it was passed, my memo was passed, it basically, technically did away with his. But when the bill was drafted that did not show So we decided and we talked to the staff about running a technical amendment to straighten that out. Now I think it's been used by the bill's sponsors to try and mud in the water. So if you voted for my amendment yesterday, I would appreciate your green[sp] vote again today that will make everything consistent, thank you. Further discussion further debate? If not the question for House is the adoption of amendment 10 send forth by Representative Louise, those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no the clerk will open the vote. Representative McNeil does the gentlemen who wish to record on this vote? 75 having voted in the affirmative and 40 in the negative, the amendment is about. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg representative Al[sp?] rise? Mr. Speaker I'd like to change my vote on house bill 168 to yes. Okay the lady please repeat the bill number? 168, the lady wishes to get recorded having voted aye, if there were two votes, it was a second reading and a third reading does the lady wish to get recorded out both votes yes, they will be so recorded, thank you Representative Adams the chair understand that the members wishing to withdraw that amendment and replace it with a substitute amendment is that correct? Yes that's correct Is only Representative Adams is recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read Representative Adams moves to amend the bill on page 15 lines 16 through 25 by writing those lines to read The members then the gentleman did amend the amendment you will notice the wonder just make sure members understand that the amendment originally had another senate that begin with investigation. Believe the members is has stricken three days of the actual part of the amendment, the members will be considering what be the language begining at no person. The gentleman from Cadaba has the floor to debate the amendment Thank you Mr. Speaker this amendment specify that middle health providers are government entities cannot charge additional fee to applicant for background check, for conceal carrier permit and in no case may the sheriff take longer than 90 days to either either deny or approve the permit. Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeil, rise? Thank you. To ask the amendment sponsor a question. Does the gentleman from Cataba yield to the gentleman from Randolph? Yes. He yields Representative Adams, let me ask you a question on your amendment. Does your amendment mean that if someone who has a mental health record and they apply for a pistol permit, they would still get the permit even though they have a mental health record just because the sheriff wasn't able to get the records in 90 days? But the sheriff can deny the permit. Further discussion, further debate?

For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Rep. Glazier, rise? May I ask representative McNeil a question please? Does the gentleman from Randolph yield to the gentleman from Camblin? I do yield, thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you representative I'm trying to figure out your question the answer of representative in my reading so I'm going to ask you this way. Is it your understanding in looking at this amendment that if a sheriff doesn't get records in time or takes longer than 90 calendar days when the application is submitted that the permit would be deemed approved. That it takes any capacity denied away from the sheriff. The way I read it is that it says in no case may the sheriff take longer than 90 days from the date the application was submitted to issue or denied permit under this section. So I assume with what Rep. Adam answered was that the sheriff could deny it at the end of 90 days, if he didn't have the records. Does the gentleman wish to ask additional question? Follow up. And does the gentleman from Randolph feel to add an additional question? He yields I do. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you representative. So your view would it be correct then to say that if a sheriff is coming close to the 90 day period and doesn't know that this sort of forces the sheriff because they might need a few more days to be cautious and therefore denies someone who might otherwise really be approved if they had a few more days, but out of an abundance of caution because they are limited by 90, they are going to have to deny. Would this not mean that in fact it's sort of counter-intuitive that is if the sheriff has a concern and doesn't have time to determine the concern they are almost going to have to deny out of the safety view. Will that not happen? Mr speaker. Does the gentleman has the floor to answer the question.  Alright thank you.  Representative Glazier I just saw this amendment basically when it appeared on the dashboard so I'm kind of reacting to it too, I tend to agree with what your premise now that I read the last sentence because the last sentence says, a permit will be denied shall not be denied unless the applicant is determined to be ineligible, and if the Sheriff doesn't have the information back in 90 days, and then with that last sentence he couldn't deny it because he wouldn't know whether they are ineligible or not. So, I think it's kind of conflicting language, but I'm not the Attorney in the room, so Speak to the amendment. The gentleman from Camden has the floor to debate the amendment. I think we're all just kind of reading it, and I do think it's conflicting language, and on the one hand, the second last sentence which suggests that someone would have a course of action will be able to avoid a share of denying a permit if it occurred after 90 days, that seems clear to me, but if they can't deny it under the last sentence unless they're determined to be ineligible that creates a real problem if the Sherriff doesn't get the information back to make the decision within 90. So I think the sheriff is going to be caught between a rock and hard place under this one way or the other, and that is the language appears to be on a minimum conflicting, but I think in the end it may actually cause a sheriff  under the second last  sentence to deny before the 90 days if they're not going to be able to get information under the basis that the best they can do is determine in their discretion that they're ineligible, but then they run into a problem with the last sentence. I don't know what I would do if I were the Sheriff under this provision, for all those reasons, because I think it's a very unclear what its effect is going to be. At a minimum I would urge members to vote against the amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from from Durham Representative Mitchell rise? To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I think it's very clear to me what this amendment says. The last Senate says it's in a nutshell, a permit nutshell not be denied, shall not be denied unless the applicant is determined to be in pursuant to GF14 that's 415.12 in other words if the sheriff does not get that information back he cannot that permit and that's exactly what it says.  For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston Representative Torbbet rise? Ask the gentleman from Cumberland a question. does the gentleman Cumberland yield to the gentleman from Gaston

he yields  thank you Mr. Speaker Rep. Glazier not being an attorney know you're far the accomplished one. There was talk and language about not receiving information. We seem to be looking over the first paragraph as if it not say that all these fires after the receipt of the required records can you help with that from the legal aspect? I am reading it as you are Rep. Torbbet and receipt [xx] well let me answer the question Just a moment Rep. Glazier, for what does the gentleman from Mecklenburg Rep. Jeter rise? Inquiry of the chair. The gentleman may state his inquiry May I suggest that this amendment be temporary displaced so we can get some clarity on what it does The chair was about to make that suggestion so that the attorneys in the room can consult and come up with a legal opinion. We are going to move forward to a, we've Rep. Pittman has sent forth an amendment. ALH 41 the chair has reviewed the amendment, has also consulted with Rep. Pittman the chair rules the amendment out of order. The chair is reviewed two additional amendments that would be summarily ruled out of order. One is ASA47 sent forth by Rep. Harrison the member is [xx] the bills ruled out of order, this amendment is SA62 sent forth by Rep. Meryers, the amendment is ruled out of order. The amendment be returned to the members. The Rep. Speciale is recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read. Rep. Speciale moves to amend the bill on page 8 lines 40 -43 by inserting the following between those lines, the gentleman from Cravin has the floor to debate the amendment. What this would do is, if you get denied your permit and you fight it,  you appeal it, because that's your only option. If you win your appeal, you should get reimbursed for your legal fees. If there is a questions about whether it is or isn't already in the law, but because looking at it was going over it with Rep. Stam looking at it I am convinced that doesn't necessarily include this it may may not but I want to make sure that for example if I have to fight to get my permit because for whatever reason if I prevail that my fee my loyalties should be given back to me. Again, it may already be in the law but the law is as written and ambiguous this will clarify it so I ask for your support. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake representative Stan rise? To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Mr. Speaker members of the house, my opposition has nothing to do with the guns but rather geometry. Symmetry, I believe in symmetry in the law and as those members who have been on judiciary too for the last few years now, whenever somebody comes up with an idea for attorney's fees to be paid by one part or the other I usually suggest that source for the goods, source for the gender. England has a loser pay rule, America has a general rule that you pay your own attorneys and that's a good idea. We have a lot of exceptions for it, a lot of exceptions but usually they're symmetrical, for example later on in the same bill,  on page 14 about the middle of the page lines 22-26, there's a provision that if you're adversely affected by an ordinates rules or regulation about this subject that either side can get reasonable attorney space the prevailing party, my objection to this particular one is that it's not symmetrical. Now they are already three different ways in which either side in this case can get attorney space. One is rule 11 which is part of our rules of civil procedure, another one is 6-21. Something or rather, 45, and the third one is a law that Representative Brawley got passed about 3 years ago, and in each case without going to the detail summit, if the position of the government is unreasonable, you can get your attorney to this, that's the long insured of it. So I would ask you to defeat this, for lack of geometric symmetry. For what purpose does the gentlemen

from Gilford representative Bolsius rise? Speaker on the amendment. The gentleman has opposed debate on the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker members, I would support the amendment, simply following what Representative Stan just shared symmetry, there is no symmetry when the individual out there is going against the government, when the individual has to hire his own attorney, and the government's already got the attorney's own staff to protect payer support. Therefore there isn't symmetry. That's the hard thing for people to have to do, and see it in the tax are in all the times to take on a government that has a legal staff already in place that whether the government wins or not they'll lose a page for already in the budget, but the citizen has to spend  extra funds to go against this government. So I support the amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ash Representative Jordan rise?  To debate the amendment.  The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I will respect to disagree with the colleague from Wake representative stam, and I will also support this amendment using cemetery and using geometry, and that would be the four corners of the page. The sheriff has full description on whether to deny this permit and the less of the qualification the sheriffs power to make sure that he denies based upon the law. If he does not, we need to have this sitting here and four corners of the page right there with the same law on this permit, that says, if you turn this permit down and if you are out of your discretion you will have to pay a price for it you better carefully consider the decision you are making and whether or not this attorney fees can be gotten some other ways like Stam says, if we have it in the four corners of the page it'll be right there in front of the sheriff when you look at the permit. I think that is most important thing to look at for this amendment is. Thank you. For what purpose does the Lady from Wake representative rise? To ask representative Sam a question. Does the jam from Lake Hill to the [xx] lake I do. Hills. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mine has to do a little bit along the line somewhat the argument that representative George has made in the fact that it refers to Counties and Municipalities and the Chair of Head the authority to make these decisions. How is he controlled by the County, in terms of the execution of his GD's and the county would be held responsible rather than the sheriff. It may be kind of implied sort of the time and I'm wondering is that kind of If I can get clarification of the question, are you referring to page 14? Yes sir. I am. I was using that as an example of how we normally have he go both ways. I don't think it directly relates to this denial of a permit, but on a denial of a permit. There're three different ways in which representative Speciali could get attorney's fees. Not that one. Rule 11, rule 60s 21.5 I believe, and then the law that Representative Browley got passed about three years ago, but not that one. For what purpose does the gentleman from Kaberres, Representative Pittman rise?   To speak on the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the the amendments. Thank you Mr. Speaker,  there are a few judges who are friends of mine, so I hope if they are listening, they don't take this personally, but, sometimes judges even misinterpret what we have put in law. Sometimes we have to go back and make clarifications because we didn't make it clear enough to start with, and to me, this is a matter of just further clarification to make it clear that this does apply to Sheriffs and as it has been said, Representative Jordan said make sure that you really have good reason and not just flavorsly deny this permit. I've heard stories of sheriff and will not name him, but heard stories of Sheriffs denied permit because the person had previously been married to a relative of that Sheriff they had been divorced and they just didn't think the guy was a good [xx] because of that situation, things like that. We need to make sure that Sheriffs are deny permits if they have to on good reasons, not something favors and I think this is just a little urging them to do that, in clarifying that the person who has been denied, if it's wrongfully done, does every [xx], thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeil rise? Can I ask Representative Sam a question?

Does the gentleman from [xx] up to the gentleman from Randolph? I do. Yields. Representative Sam I appreciate your explanation [xx]. I was just wondering how far this could go. If a person was charged with the crime, and District Court and the judge found him guilty. But then he was found not guilty in Superior Court. Would we have an action on that judge to pay for our extra bills, if we as legislators pass a law that's later found out to be unconstitutional, can we be held liable under the same theory that we caused somebody harm, I just wondering how far this could go. That's the good part of the American law as you pay your own lawyer, which you can negotiate with I have seen in fee shifting cases, I have seen humongous bills where people are charging $600 an hour and charging hundred of thousands of dollars for cases which is never even a trial because it's been shifted to someone else, and usually it's the state that ends up paying that because those are the types of cases involved. I just don't think it's necessary to do that kind of fishier thing and it can go to your example it can go everywhere. But what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg representative Brawley Ross? I wondered if Representative Spezially would yield for some questions? Does the gentleman from Craven also the gentleman from Mecklenburg? I yield He yields. Thank you, representative I'm noticing in here it says if the Sheriff denial on the applications overturned upon appeal, the Sheriff shall reimburse the applicant for our core custom reasonable attorney's fees, does this mean that the Sheriff is personally liable for these expenses? Personally, no that's not what the intent is, the intent is the sheriff, he has funds at his disposal to take care of this If I may ask the gentleman a second question. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? I yield. You yield? Thank you Sir, we did discuss earlier a bill that yes I introduced it's town's bill 687 which was passed into session law 2011 that's 299. It amended article three of chapter six of the general statute by putting in a new section that set attorneys fees cities and counties acting outside the scope of their authority and it created a situation where if anyone prevailed an action against the city or the county and the judge determines that the city or the county had abused their authority and their discretion, that they would be eligible for attorney's fees in cost and I  think you express the opinion that this did not apply to the share  and there is a question about that, so what I would ask you is, is the issuance of a pistol permit, the only issue where the sheriff exceeds his authority he should be liable for court costs and lawyer fees. the gentleman has the floor to respond.  That's not my issue, my issue is the permit, so I can't answer that question  To debate the bill sir. The gentleman from Meckleberg has the floor to debate the amendment.  Excuse me, yes, to debate the amendment. Mr speaker, it would seem to be that a more prudent course of action for this body is if the sheriff is not covered by this bill, we should be amending the general statutes to bring the sheriff under it for all of his abusive actions and not just for a pistol permit and if I may, I would like to ask Representative Glazier a question if he would yield. Does the gentleman from [xx] yield to the gentleman from Mackleberg? Sure He yields. Rep Glazier, please have no fear sir, it is a sign of respect for your ability in constitutional law, the amendment as stated says the sheriff would be liable. Would it be opinion that the courts would interpret that to be the individual or the office of the sheriff That actually is a really good question, because we have an unusual in North Carolina that requires the sheriff to have a surety. So when you sue the sheriff, you must also sure the surety or you can have your case it's a bizarre and acronistic statute but it's there and so, sometimes the sheriff is [xx] in his or her official capacity and sometimes in their individual capacity and so you always have to

designate on your pleading what you're doing. I'm not trying to sort of the question because it's a good question because there's no easy answer under North Carolina law and it involves the surety so we're also talking about the surety being involved beyond that I can't really answer your question, thank you. Well, Mr. Speaker being perplexed by the situation I will sit down and discuss it no further. Representative Brawley, did the gentleman sue the sheriff but not the deputy? What purpose does the gentleman from Craven[sp?] Representative Spesheli[sp?] rise? To speak again on the amendment. Gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. I want to clarify one thing, we had Representative Stan talk about excessive fees and everything, if you look at the amendment it says reasonable attorney fees not hundreds of thousands of dollars, a reasonable attorney fees. The other thing with regard to what Representative Brawley brought up, I believe if I wrote it down correctly, the phrase was out of scope of their authority or something similar to that yet cities in towns acted outside, the sheriff denying the permit is not acting outside the scope of his authority. He has the authority to deny that permit question is is he doing it justifiably or not? Is he doing it because he doesn't like me? Is he doing it because for what other reason and so if the only option that I have is to appeal this through the courts, If I win that appeal which is going to cost me money, then it's only only fair that I get my attorney fees back. The reference by Stan that England has the loser pace, it's that kind of all the stuff that caused us to whip them and become a country on our own. So, we don't subscribe to letting xx. This is America. I wanted to remind you of the history of the permit which is why we're trying to get place. This is a Gym-pro error xx that was designed to keep minorities from and to keep republicans from getting guns. Do your history, don't laugh. Do your research and this is precisely why this is necessary, because they have their arbitrary power to determine whether or not You are of good moral character, and that was the catch phrase that they could use to deny anybody they chose a pistol permit. You're all laughing not necessarily. I find this amusing considering it was the democrat party that brought up this thing up in the first place. So, Anyway I don't mean to demeanor you, but again I don't like being laughed at. I don't appreciate it. This is serious business. People are being being prosecuted are being denied for xx people. If there are choices where people have been denied a permit on some obituary reason and then yet so much talking then. You know it and I know it. There was one case brought up the other day about some lady in the news which's common sense here. that's the purpose of this, if we're going to keep that permit let's make sure that if we use that avenue of appeal which's all we've to appeal to the courts that if they prevail and it was frivolous or whatever it may be, that they can get their attorney fees, and I ask that you support this. For what purpose does the gentleman from Dare, Representative Stein rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and during the discussion the question about whether or not the sheriff could be personally liable or not. I just went back and asked staff, and staff said because of ambiguity of the language, that yes, based on the arguments in the court and the decision by the judge, yes, they could be held possibly personally liable so I just want and to answer the question that had been asked by several members. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? To speak on the amendment.   The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. And it's just for clarification. The denial of the permit is within the scope the sheriff's authority, the giving of the permit is within the scope of the sheriff's authority. It is only when extringent circumstances arise, that go outside of that scope of authority that he may be held liable. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd rise?

Mr. Speaker, to see if Representative Stam would yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? I do. He yields. Representative Stam, on line 5 they use reasonable attorney fee. The question that I have for you, what is considered per hour as reasonable attorney fee? the Lodestar is the market fee in the area just a moment, for what purpose does the gentleman from Johnson, Representative Daughtry rise? Try to help answer the question. Does the gentleman from Wake yield the floor? gentleman from Cumberland wishes[sp?] to redirect the question to the gentleman from Johnston, and the gentleman from Johnston I believe he's indicated he would be glad to respond. The gentleman from Johnston has the floor to answer the question It depends on who you hire. Mr. Speaker may I read that question to Representative Stam. I yield. He yields. On line five that we're at reasonable attorney fee the load star is the, the starting point is the market rate for that type of attorney in that area enhanced by success or failure, reduced by unnecessary work, enhanced by novelty of the claim reduced by portions of, it's very complex. I've participated in helping prepare affidavits for out of state attorneys and seen Well I've seen the state of North Carolina pay about 600, 000 in reasonable [xx] fees for a case that never had a trial, many motions, lots of depositions and it can get up there if you hire expensive council, if you hire someone like me it's cheap. A follow up Mr. Speaker? I yield. [xx] Mr. Speaker.  He yields, the gentleman is recognized to state [xx] if you say your reasonable. I am reasonable. Defeat. Just defeat. I'm reasonable, yes, but many fee applications are for huge amounts that will shock your conscience. Mr. Speaker? Yes, what additional purposes does the gentleman rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Mr. Speaker, the reason why I raised that question, and this is on the know of [xx] to our vast county board of commission or the individual sheriff, himself or herself that this fee is going to be accessed to the county board of commissioners. So it's an unknown fee and I'm just concerned about the cost that is passed on to the residents in my district, so that reasonable fee just raises a flag to me as I go back to my county and share with my county board of commissioners that this may be pays on to them. Members the chair is aware that representative Speciali is doing a perfecting amendment that was as I understand that the gentleman is drafting the amendment, but just in the interest of time he is going to change it so that as to, I believe he's going to change on line 15 where the words starts out at the sheriff [xx] the application they returned upon appeal, the sheriff shall reimburse, I beg the gentleman is changing sheriff to county, is that correct? County or the sheriff? The gentleman is drawing a perfecting amendment to his amendment. I'll let him send forth the perfecting amendment then we will vote on the perfecting amendment. Let's do this, we're going to displace the amendment, but I would ask members when we come back on this amendment to, if we could avoid the floor debate that we've had on the amendment, that's set off and let someone who really feels moved by the spirit to speak on it right now. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Alexander rise? For a question. To whom is the question directed sir? To you sir. Gentleman is recognized for inquiry to the Chair. If I'm following this correctly,

wouldn't that amendment as he is proposing to perfect it require a fiscal note? It would not require fiscal note because it would not result in a cost to the State of North Carolina. Certainly there could be some potential cost to counties, but under our rules on a fiscal note, it wouldn't be a cost that would affect the state so would not require a fiscal note. Now that question but the answer is no. The Chair is going to temporarily displace that I see Representative Speciale was stuffed on back on that, but again the intention of the Chair is to come back and simply adopt the perfecting amendment which I don't imagine will be controversial and then actually have a vote on establishment of amendment that's there. The gentleman from Carteret has recognized to withdraw his previous amendment, I believe the gentleman has a revise the amendment, is that correct? That is correct. The gentleman, the original amendments return, the revised amendment will be read by the clerk. representative Adam moves to amendment bill on page 15 line 16 to 25 by re-writing on those line to read the gentleman has the floor top debate the amendment Thank you Mr. Speaker I just want to comment and appreciate that Representative Gladys assistance with us we've kindly conclusion that the line should read, the sheriff shall make the request for any records concerning the mental health, or capacity of the applicant within ten days, of the receipt of the items listed in General Statute 14.4, 15.13. No person, company, mental help provider, or governmental entity, may charge additional fees to the applicant for background checks conducted under the subsection, and the language that follows it is already in the bill, a permit shall not be allowed unless an applicant is determined to be an eligible pursuant to general statute 14. -415.12. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Rep. Speciale[sp?] rise? To request, to withdraw that amendment and replace it with the correct amendment. We've actually displaced the Gentleman's amendment, we are on Representative Adam's amendment we'll come back to the members shortly For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Glazier rise? To speak to the amendment Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative Adams and I do with representative Adams perfecting the amendment, I think it gets that the problem he's trying to do get at narrowly, but doesn't create the problem in the backend, because I understood what Representative Adams was trying to do was to make that the sheriff doesn't send back the application by delaying it, by delaying the request for the records and this says you got request the records within 10 days, actually the bill can have a similar provision in a different place, lets just put it in a section that representative Adams was concerned about, but it then says the fee provision which is fine and it says the same thing the bill has always said which is can't be denied unless it meets the criteria, but what it doesn't do when it's taken out is the problem that the prior mayor may created where it was not delayed by the sheriff, the sheriff sent it off, but delayed getting the records and he's barred if he gets the records late on the 90 day provision. This takes that 90 day in the back end limit off, it creates a solution to the problem upfront and I will encourage people to vote for the amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ash representative Jordan rise? Inquire if the amendment sponsor. Does the gentleman from will yield to the gentleman from Ash. He yields. Yes I do. Thank you representative Adams I have a question and it might be because of my particular counties or something we have have a separate, mental health organization that handles this, so when I went to my share of my conceal care I had to go to this other entity to get the mineral health care and they charge me $15 or something. Your statement says no, personal covering medihealth provider etc may charge additional fee mean they can't charge me anything because I've already paid a permit to the sheriff or are you meaning they can't charge me anything above what they would normally charge someone coming in for a regular mental health check, because I'm getting it for some specific reason, does that make sense? That would be subject to interpretation I can't interpret that here. Follow up, does the gentleman yield to additional question. Did the gentleman from Catawba[sp?] to additional questions? Yes. Well that answer actually concerns e because now we need to make sure of what's actually going on sheriffs are not going to say do you agree that the sheriffs will not, that the sheriffs will be concerned about this language of extra fees if it's coming from other miller entity. The sheriffs will be concerned about the fees. If there are not, if there keys of charges

extra fees because it came from a different entity. Well my preserves would be that the sheriffs couldn't charge any additional fees, the county couldn't charge any additional fees Okay. Further discussion, further debate, if not the question for the house is the passage of amendment 13 offered by representative Adams those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Representative Reese, gentleman wish to record the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 96 having voted in the affirmative and 19 the negative, the amendment is adopted. Now I believe the gentleman for specialty, the gentleman I believe is prepared, a revised amendment to replace the earlier amendment I believe is at that correct? The gentlemen's original amendment will be returned to the gentlemen and will be replaced with the new amendment that is now been sent forth the clerk will read. Representative Speshali[sp?] moves to amend the bill on page 8 lines 42 through to 43 by inserting the following between those lines. The gentleman from Gradeline[sp?] has the floor to briefly debate the revised amendment. The change in this, it specifically now states that the county of the sheriff will be reimbursed with reasonable attorney fees and the question was asked what is reasonable attorney fees, reasonable attorneys fees is what is determined by the court and I don't know why it was such a hard question for the lawyers to answer. The court determines what is reasonable. I ask that you support this. You may be the next one turned down for a permit. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cambort[sp?] Representative Floyd rise? the speaker to speak the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Mr. Speaker I really have concern with line 15 with the word inserted that the county be responsible for paying the debt. I think this is an unfunded mandate for the counties that have not appropriated money for this particular purpose. Further discussion, further debate if not the question before the house is the adoption of amendment 14 sent forth Representative Specali[sp?]. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine record the vote. 54 having voted the affirmative and 61 in the negative, the amendment fails. The lady from Mackenburgh, Representative Cunningham is recognized to send forth an amendment, the clerk will read. Representative Cunningham moves to amendment bill on page 14 line 27 through page 15 line 15 by deleting those lines. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, Mr Speaker. This amendment remove section 13, which could require North Carolina law enforcement to approve application for machine guns and other powerful weapons, which will revoke the authority to deny these guns to people who pose a danger to public safety. It also weakens to federal law that relies on police and the Sheriff's to fulfill the important rule. The background information on these are sections, for those types of weapons are there for over 80 years. The federal law has recollected the machine guns and shot bear rifles and shotguns. Any person who wants to purchase an automated weapon must seek clarification from local law enforcement. Local law enforcement makes the determination whether the applicant is to be prohibited from possession of automated weapon and that the applicant is not likely to use the gun illegally. at present time, the local authority acts as a back stop, against putting powerful weapons, such as machine guns into the wrong hands. Our local law enforcement personnel are in the best position, to know whether an applicant has a violent history or the presence of additional information in an applicant's history that would trigger concern. This morning I did make a call to the sheriff's association director, Mr Cadwell and they are also concerned about

this provision in the bill and they are in support of the amendment, I ask for your support, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenberg Representative Shafer rise? To debate the amendment The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr speaker, I rise to oppose this amendment Representative Cunningham thank you for bringing it to our attention, however, I'm afraid there is a misunderstanding about what this section does. The federal law requires that the local law enforcement whether it's the sheriff, whoever is designated by federal law, once an individual who is applying to attain a certain type of final arm that is regulated by federal law. The law requires that that law enforcement official sign off on it in addition to getting the law enforcement officer signature a lot of other hoops that the applicant has to jump thought the final thing is getting the sheriff to sign off on that certification. What this section does is it simply says that the the sheriff, shall make that certification whether they are issuing it or denying it within 15 days it is very similar to the provision that we were just looking at with concealed carry permit we basically do not want these law enforcement officials sandbagging these applications when an applicant has gone through all of the required pre-requisites for getting to obtain this fire-arm, the last step for them is to get the law enforcement official to sign off on it, this is simply asking the sheriff to make his or her decision in a timely manner, if asking them to make their decision within 15 days or whether they're going to issue that whether they're going to give that certification or whether they're going to deny it, they're going to the same research in terms of whether they should have it or whether they should not have it, if is not we can Federal Law that's quite frankly impossible. It is simply asking our sheriffs and our local law enforcement officials to apply the federal law for fire arms that are governed by federal law. Thank you. I ask you to oppose the amendment, thank you. Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the house is the passage of amendment 15 offered by representative [xx] those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 40 having voted in the affirmative and 74 in the negative, the amendment fails. The lady from Buncombe representative Fisher is recognized to send forth an amendment, the clerk will read. Representative Fisher moves to amend the bill on page 14 lines 21 through 26 by re-writing those lines to read. Thank you Mr. Speaker. The lady does have the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, this amendment would protect cities and towns that might have stronger laws than the state as far as what we are protecting their citizens and their towns and their cities from law suits brought by organisations who support, maybe for a less strong law. The bottom line what we are doing is, taking out the punitive pre-emption language in Section 12H and in Section 15 I believe, and that would keep other out of stake groups from being able to sue the mayors or the Town Councils of cities or towns in North Carolina because we have seen instances already where out-of-state entities are suing local cities and towns because they were just trying to protect their citizens. Now, this is an instance where the citizens of North Carolina would have to pay for this law suits, for the attorney fees and for bringing this suits, so I think that it would be in the state's best interesting and in the tax payer's best interest if we do support this amendment and I encourage your favorable support, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg representative Schaffer rise? To debate the amendment? Lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you again Representative Fisher. Representative Fisher brought this amendment to me yesterday and I always appreciate the heads up on that. I do respectfully ask the members to oppose this amendment, one of the things that we have tried to do over the past few years is to really enforce that state wide uniformity of laws. What we're seeing despite the fact that we have been very clear in the past few versions of our fire arms

legislation in past session, we've really tried to make it clear to cities and towns, what they're allowed to do and what they're not allowed to do, unfortunately there are, there are some cities and counties that are not following what we've set and so we have been searching for a way to keep accountability and to protect individuals right, what we have established as the general assembly if we pass this amendment we would remove that ability to do that so I would ask all the members to oppose this amendment an allow us to have that uniformity and really keep it in place thank you and please vote no. For what purpose does the gentleman from Muckelnburgh Representative Jeter rise? To see if Representative Fisher would yield for a question. Does the lady from Buncombe yield to the gentleman from Muckleburgh? I yield. She yields. Thank your Representative Fisher, my question is what examples are you trying to capture? I'm trying to understand your amendment, what would the city have done that could be captured by your amendment? For lack of a better way of saying things. Well if we're allowing more access to four citizens in local towns and cities then we could predict maybe a higher incident gun violence in the city or a town and where mayors and police are trying to keep their town or city safer than maybe what our law in North Carolina might enable them to do this it would keep them then from being sued by some outside entity who thought that maybe our town and city was being too strict in gun safety laws, for example one of the states that we know that had this similar preventative preemption language in their law, was had a suit filed against it from places as far away as Texas and Virginia, and this is in Pennsylvania they have the same language in their bill and because there were some towns and cities in Pennsylvania that wanted to be a little more strengthen and protecting their citizens, they open themselves up to lawsuits form other states, and then the people in that state, the tax payers are having to foot the bill to fend off this law suits coming from Texas and Virginia, it opens the door for law suits from other places, and I think that we are in the business here to not only protect our citizens and keep them safe and that's what our Mayors, and our city council's, and our police, and sheriffs, and all these sources are doing but we're also responsible to our citizen's in terms of what they're bound to pay for in terms of lawsuits, the cost of lawsuits. Does that follow up Does the lady yield to additional question? I yield.  She yields.  This hypothetical situation, let's say the town of Huntsville, the greatest town in North Carolina no doubt.  passed a law that said you couldn't have concealed carry. Is that permissible currently? I don't think that that's permissible but I think that they probably would have laws in place that would prohibit guns in certain places in a city or a town.  For what purpose does the gentleman from Rep. Arp rise? See if Rep. Fisher would answer a question Does the Lady from Buncombe yield to the gentleman from Union I yield She yields Thank you Rep. Fisher. I'm trying to wonder how this is different from law suits that are brought on to cities by outside groups as it relates to say religious freedoms, prayer before council or other types of things, can you address that and how this would be different in fact I'm not an attorney and so I'm not really sure what the differences might be. I'm sorry I can't answer that For what purpose does the gentleman

from Nash, Rep. Collins rise? To briefly debate the amendment Gentleman has the floor to debate the the amendment The section in question clearly says a person adversely affected by any ordinates, rules or regulations promulgated or caused to be by any county municipality in violation of this section may bring an action to declare for an injunctive relief and for damages. What we're trying to make sure of here is the purpose of this bill and others will be fast and in the last five years that the citizens of state of North Carolina are afforded their proper second amendment right is not a place for the city or county to deny certain citizen of the state the second amendment right of state in US constitution are guaranteeing them, if Durham county or Orange county whatever decides at some point in time that I cant fair concealed weapon and the jurisdiction I'm going to take it out of my car while I'm driving through those counties, and throw it in the ditch somewhere, and they don't have the right to keep me from doing that to start with. If the cities and counties don't try to illegal try to deny the people their second amendment right there will be a law sue if they do try to those of us were affected by it will take to court take him to court this is just what amendment is doing to try to get cities and municipalities the right to over-rule state law and really to undermine the U. S constitution, so I would ask that you defeat this amendment. Further discussion further debate, the question for the house is the adoption of amendment 816 set forth, those in favor will vote aye those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote Representative Grady does the gentleman wish to record on this amendment? Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 34 having voted affirmative and 79 in the negative the amendment fails, the lady from Orange, representative Enscale is recognised to send forth an amendment, the clerk will read Representative Vinsco moves to amend the bill on page three lines nine through 13 by rewriting those lines to read. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you, to Mr Speaker and Mr Speaker I would like to ask Representative Sheifa a question. Does the lady from Mecklenburg yield the lady from I yield. She yields. Representative Sheifa I've read section three, it has to do with educational guns and educational property, could you tell me specifically what you were hoping to achieve with this amendment, what needed to be changed in the law? What we wanted to do in house bill 937 two years ago and when we allowed individuals with concealed hand gun permits to be able to take concealed weapon, keep it in very near circumstances, keep it within the container are locked vehicle, we wanted to effectively allow them this affirmative defense, they were giving individuals these abilities, this right for purpose of self defense yet under the law there was no ability for them to remove the weapon from that closed container in order to protect themselves. So what we wanted to do in this is to provide that affirmative defense. We were very specific about making it an eminent threat about protection for stealth and other from dept tare great badly harmed but again, it was for a threat of imminent danger. Thank you. And ladies and gentlemen of the house, I we don't really disagree with that if a person has a hand gun permit has a concealed handgun, has it in the car on the load container or a loaded latch, glove compartment and they are in imminent death, a threat of death or violate she is very they ought be able to use that is illegal legally they have a right to use it. So I think it's inconsistent to prevent them from using it, and I think my amendment actually does exactly that. What I don't want personally the counseled hand gun, locked in a car to be able to do, would be to be drive on to a campus, or an elementary school, or a high school, and see a dangerous situation across campus, or hear about it on the radio, and be able to go into that danger, put themselves in dangerous situation, and then use the handgun. My first job was a teaching at elementary school, in Berkeley California . We had California youth authority students there periodically, occasionally

one would be sound to have a weapon, a hand gun. I think one of the most counter productive things would be to have had many people on that campus with guns and become aware of that I think that would increase the opportunity for violence [xx] and free [xx] and so my amendment allows the person to do everything that Representative Schaffer said that she intends for it to do and it would also make narrow, so that it take away the question for their person could actually become involved or move far away from the [xx] getting involved outside the district and I would appreciate your support of my amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Lucas rise? Speak on the amendment sir.  The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment.   Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen I think this to be a good amendment, if you look at line seven where it authorizes a person to be able to retrieve the weapon to protect themselves it further numerate stat they will be able to protect others conceivably innocents such as children who are in imminent danger maybe unintentionally but if you're able to protect children under this amendment, I think it's a good amendment, perhaps we could have saved some of the carnage, some of the schools in earlier experiences. So I think line seven makes this a good amendment, so I urge you to support it. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, representative [xx] arise. To debate the amendment. Lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you representative [xx] and we had a just chat briefly, before this and then came up and I do appreciate that we agree on the concept of this amendment in the substituent purpose of it, I would actually ask the members to vote no on this amendment and the reason why is that I believe that the situation that representative Insko is attempting to solve is already in the bill, it's specific and this is something came up actually, this question came up in committee when it talks about that freeze imminence, that really does solve the problem that I believe she's trying to resolve that threat has to be imminent that's not going to be a situation where someone hears something on the radio and then goes, that would not quality under that definition of what it is being imminent threat, so I would respectfully ask for the members to vote no on the amendment, thank you. For what purpose does the gentlemen from Pender, representative Millers rise?. Speaker on the amendment gentleman has it forward to debate the amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to say something than representative Schaffer did and what actually has me concerned is in eight, it is clear that a condition to be able to be lawful is that you have to remain in the vicinity of his/her vehicle, and it's my understanding if this amendment were to pass and become law, if a principal was actually present when a school shooting actually immediately occurred, in between the time that law enforcement was arrived, it's my understanding that him or her runs to their vehicle to be able to get the concealed farm that they're lawfully possessing, that they have to remain at the vicinity of their vehicle in order to protect life. They cannot run back into the school, and actually stop the violence. To me this amendment actually would harm lives, it doesn't actually perpetrate safety. And I understand the intent of the amendment sponsored, but I think that the intention does not lead to the results of what is actually put in a language in this amendment. So to add something additional to what Representative Schaefer said, I think this amendment harms lives and the potential that happened, and I'd ask for you to not support this amendment. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburgh representative the Bishop rise? To ask Representative a question. Does the lady from Orange yield to the gentleman from Mecklenburgh? I yield. She yields. Further to Representative Miller's points and focusing on that same clause too and the end of the proposed amendment, wouldn't the amendment deprive one of the affirmative defense if they removed a gun from their car under risk of hurt and anticipation of imminent attack and fled from the assailant? So, they ran away from the assailant with a gun in their possession, wouldn't they be deprived of the affirmative defense on this language? That's a good question, there's another part of the bill that is changed in this

amendment also it deletes section F and section F is the release the duty to retreat and I believe that a person should have a duty to retreat. If they're in the car, they can move the car out of danger. This will not preventing a person from retreating from danger. Follow up.  Does the lady yield for an additional question?  I yield. She yields.  I understand you're saying that the language that requires as a condition of the department of defense that a person remain in the vicinity of his or her vehicle would not prevent from retreating from fleeing. they can stay in the car, but they can't run away. I think they'll get away a lot faster in the car. Very well For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash representative Collins rise?  To ask the amendment sponsor a question. Does the lady from Orange yield to the gentleman from Nash. I yield.  She yields. representative Escho if I understand this amendment correctly, let's say I'm going to pick up my granddaughter from her elementary school and I'm in the parking lot right across the street and I see some guy walk into the building with a rifle and a shotgun and bullet belts strapped across him and he goes in and I start hearing shots inside and people screaming, are you telling me that the only way I can go in if I happen to have a concealed weapon with me is to drive my car through the front door then I can go in and aid the people and if that I don't do that I can't offer them aid I think the problem that I have is that you wouldn't be the only person with a concealed gun who would be for what purpose does the gentleman from Eckenberg represent [xx] It's getting increasingly difficult to hear this riveting conversation back here in the back of the chamber nobody would ask the Sargent arms to ask our visitors outside to please be a little more quiet. The lady from or to continue debating. And Representative Collins, that is actually my intent. I believe it is very dangerous. I would not have wanted people in my junior high school running into the building with a gun. I would not have wanted three or four people running into the building with a gun. I would have trusted, I did trust the people in my school to be able to defend us, that was their job. And I think it's very dangerous on a school campus where there are young children involved to have multiple people with guns, and I think if this bill passes we will have multiple people around with guns, and I think that's very dangerous. I think that my intent is to say, if you have a gun in a car and you are in danger yourself you have the right to use it. And I have no problem with that, and I think if you saw your daughter was being attacked across the car, or you could see your daughter anyway within eyesight of your car you could certainly defend her and, or anybody else that you saw right there, you cannot leave and go into the building away from, out of vicinity of your car. You would have to stay right by the car. To debate the amendment. [xx] has the forward to debate the bill. It looks to me this is basically a matter of opinion, some of us think that it's more dangerous to have people who have been trained to use hand guns and have followed the law all their lives and have a conceal permits to being in location trying to stop a shooter from carnage and some people think it's safer to just have a shooter whose in somewhere shooting a place up, just let him go until the kids there are eventually fortunate enough to wear some hogties in the building that can help them, so if you agree with the first part of what I said you need to vote no on this amendment like I'm going to, if you agree with the second part of what I said vote for it. Pages the chair thanks you for your service today, pagers are excused today. For what purpose does the gentleman from Hamblen, Representative Glacia rise?   To debate the amendment Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, this is one of those that's not an easy decision one way or the other and I'll explain why, say that but why I'm going to vote for the amendment, but with concern, but my concern on the amendment lest on my concern of the provision that exist on the bill, you can't look at either the bill provision or the amendment provision without knowing the self defense law on the state as it relates to the defense of others. There're two theories on defense of others and that's the problem it's not the himself, herself or the family members as representative of Collinson because that is clean and clear I think. The problem is the others. We are in a minority jurisdictions

in North Carolina on our defense others, law. The majority jurisdiction says you can come to the defensive others, if you know them, or their family members, and if you understand the circumstances in which they are in danger, and that' s the majority. North Carolina because we want to be able to come to the aid of anyone, as a sort of has a more Samaritan kind of approach and that is, you can come to the aid of anyone, even if you don't know them or don't know their circumstances, as long as you know that you're taking the place they would have. So if you come to the aid of someone for example, just a simple example. I come out of the Bar and Restaurant and I see a guy beating up a woman, and on top an pelting her, and my chauvinistic instinct takes over despite my body and I go attack the guy, and I take them off a woman, and the woman get's away and runs. Well, I'm in great shape if the woman had a right to defend herself, I'm in really bad shape, if that was a cop on top of her, she had no right to defend herself, he was trying to keep her from escaping, then I've committed assault on a law enforcement officer. So we're in the jurisdictions where you can come to the aid of anyone but you've got to know you sort of take the position of the person you're coming to the aid of. That's my problem in the bill. The bill says you can come to the aid of anyone based on the stature[sp?] where you believe it's threatening imminent danger. What representative Inscore is trying to do is have some limitations to that, and really get out allowing what representative Collins has, I don't think it quite does that, I agree with representative Collins with some issue, but here's the problem I have with the bill. The bill sort of goes from a grounded or practical school safety approach to sort of abstract play because it takes the general proposition that you ought to be able to come to the aid of anyone in a threatening situation out of the context in which it's happening and nearly out of the context of the school, and here's the problem I have at the school, we've just put in presumed to [xx] 's bill and others a couple of years ago the panic alarm system and and most schools will be given money to put in more protective glass doors, more tinted doors, all those kinds of things. So I want someone a maintenance worker. I hear [xx], I hear over the loudspeaker that someone has a gun, I don't know it but I raced to my car because I got carried and sealed, I grab my gun, I believe I have information that's a threatening situation and someone on campus is in imminent danger, I don't know who but they are, and I raced into that situation, the same time panic alarms are being hit and police are being called, and when the maintenance worker or maybe the parent who happens to be there on the PTA meeting comes racing in with their gun and the officers are coming in the other door racing in with theirs responding the panic alarm, unfortunately the pairing with the volunteer and the maintenance worker doesn't have a T-shirt we've issued that says I'm the good guy don't shoot, and so we have created an performance potential, I think under the bill without limitation to really causing potential harm or death to law enforcement officers coming in who don't know all these circumstances, but they know will wait and dance, and that's not good around kids. So, I don't know what the answer is. I think there is a way to do something between what Representative [xx] doesn't represent this but the amendment does, but I'm at least sure passing over the Senate, that I'd rather have the more restrictive version that the completely open version, and work from there. I feel that what we have done in the bill is create a real practical concern, that law enforcement trying to respond and not knowing who the good guy and the bad guy is. When we allow everyone to race to their car and get their gun and come on campus, it takes out of the context what happening at the school and what we put in in place with those panic alarms and all the other things to get quicker response by law enforcement but there are means that they don't get all the details until they get there and so what Representative Collins and Representative for right. There are circumstances that we are getting, that gun out may save lives. There are equally circumstances in my opinion in which they may cause them, and I think we need to we fix bill crossing over and if it needs to fixed but I would rather start from a position of a more respected position that representative Insko is saying, at least that's one of the gun for right now of sanity of where the real threat is to the person, because at least we know they can asses that threat. They can really be assessing the threat across campus not well and so that's my concern I don't have a good position except I'm going to support the amendment, but I think it's better that the bill, but I think both should be amended on the senate side. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg Representative Jeter rise? To debate the amendment.

The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment . I appreciate Representative Insko's amendment and I appreciate the intent my concern Representative Glazier just a little bit is concealed carry permit holders are the most well trained, non police officers in North Carolina. These are the best trained. If I was a concealed carry permit holder and I was at my daughter's school, and I knew who she was behind that glass two doors over. This provision says I can't go in. I'm going in because if I don't go in I'm going to get killed when I go back home to my wife, and that's the problem I have with this provision. I understand that in a lot of cases but when you're talking about immediate family I understand Representative Glazier point that that's not clearly defined, it is clearly defined for me. In this sense I can't go in a glass door in a building to protect my child, that to me is a bridge too far for the best trained people we're got. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the lady from Orange Representative Insko rise? I'd like to ask Representative Jeter a question. Does the gentleman from Mecklenburg yield to the lady from Orange? Yes sir. He yields. Representative Jeter you stated that concealed carry permitors have are some of the most well trained people, could you be more specific about how many hours of training they have to have and what kind of training they have to have? I cannot, I know the concealed carry training is a lengthy course with educational requirements. I will say this, I don't think anyone disputes that having a concealed carry license is better than not having any. Second question. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? Sure, let's see if this is going to work out well for me. So, would you be surprised to learn that they receive four hours of class training, and four hours of range training. No, I would be encouraged. another question. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question. Sure. He yields. So Representative Jeter you believe that somebody who said four all is a class training? I grew up with guns in my house. I have a brother who is a gun smith and a gun owner and a gun shop owner and I have a son who is law enforcement officer. And you are saying that four hours of in-class training in a book and then four hours on the range, wouldn't let a person go into a school, and use a gun and be considered highly well trained?   I am saying, that someone who has any level of training, and their daughter or their son is behind that glass door, they should have the option to go in there and save them. and I'd like to ask one question. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question to the lady from [xx]. Yes, as long as s well so far. He yields. And if there were 20 parents who had children in there, and two or three of them had guns, two, would that make you safer or your daughter safer? I cannot answer that hypothetical question can only tell you what I would do as an individual. For what purpose does the lady from Meckonberg, Representative Cotham rise? Thank you Mr. Speaker, to speak on the amendment. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and members, I'm really struggling with amendment, I struggle with this bill, but, I really, with some of the points that have been brought up by Representative Glacia and Representative Millers, I really do struggle with this amendment, and I'm thinking of some personal experiences, as an administrator at two of the largest high schools in North Carolina. And I I heard what representative Jitter just said that he wants somene to go in behind the glass door. Well I understand that, but I'm thinking, as a principal, when I know of an active situation in my school and right, and this is policy in CMS Union County everywhere, I immediately put that school into lock down. Immediate. And people are trained on it, teachers are trained on it, the community is aware, and once we go into lock down, it is our job and responsibility that you ain't coming anywhere.

So I struggled with that part of this whole conversation that someone is going to leave the building, especially if you're on a large campus like were I was go to their car, because once I have put the school on lock down its policy of its safety you're not coming back in, we don't want anyone to come back in, right? That's why we're on lock down, there is no movement, nothing is supposed to happen, but then this amendment also talks about staying in the vicinity of your vehicle which I completely understand and agree with what representative Miller said, but I'm thinking again about the other High School where I worked and we, it was our home coming, it was a Friday night, and it was Friday night football, and we're at the football stadium, and the parking lot is full of cars and people, and we losing the game of course, but then something happened we heard a shooting at school at our home coming game, and we had a gang because this is a gang activities that occurred, and that part hasn't been brought up in this. They left the stadium, and where do they go? Parking lot all these vehicles are, and we couldn't find them, and we were all looking for them, and so I'm just thinking from that perspective if fun's, parents, like Representative Jeter, if they're leaving the stadium, and they're in their car would they be protected by this amendment to protect themselves around their vehicle, it's night time, we don't know who they are, it's already an act of crime scene. So I just think that I understand the intent of what you're, no I really don't understand a little bit of what you're trying to do. But I think our schools are more complicated, and especially when we have very large, big high schools, where we have events going on, staying near your vehicle, or not understanding locked down, and how that works, or a gun coming back on campus. I've been in a situation where a child also at another school left class, because he was being bullied, he went to his and he came back on campus walking in with a gun. I don't understand why we're even talking about having guns on school, I can't understand that at all, but that where we are today. I do think this amendment needs some more work, and I'm struggling to support it and I'm struggling not to support it. So I'm very conflicted, but I would ask you and those who gave you this idea to really think about how that's going to be impacted based on real situations that could happen anywhere in North Carolina. Mr Speaker? For what purpose does the lady from Orange, Representative [xx] rise? I'd like to just make a brief comment and I'd like to withdraw my [xx] I agree that certain issues have been raised. Ladies recognized to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I didn't mention and I think that this section really does need some serious thought and some serious amendment, serious work on an amendment. I believe with the language as it's currently written, you could actually have two young people in a school fighting one clearly small, one clearly big, one clearly losing, one clearly in danger of being harmed, and this will allow a person to actually use a gun and have an affirmative defense against being charged with anything, that we can't let that happen happen. It's also true that the great majority of educators, the great majority of parents in schools, the great majority of administrators are opposed to having guns in school at all. So I hope that as we move forward to the bill whether it's this side or the Senate side, that we will work together to fix this section of the bill. It's very important for our schools to remain safe and for our schools to be a safe place without guns. I appreciate your support and Mr Speaker I withdraw the amendment. The amendment will be returned to the lady. The gentleman from Buncome, Representative Turner is recognized to send forth an amendment the Clerk will read. Representative Turner moves to amend the bill on page 8 lines 42 through 43 by

inserting the following The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker. This amendment is doesn't really change anything in the current bill this is an addition yesterday we had and today a lot of lively debate about the permit process process and yesterday I brought up concerns about the importance of that permit as it pertains to private sales. I think that's the only way when you're engaging is private sale you know this one is eligible to buy a fire arm. We then again talked about the short comings of the permit process we talked about the fact that they are valid for five years and things like that, and so what this amendment would do is direct the department of public safety with the office of IT the FBI to study and look at making a next C. J leads type of process available to the general public this way when I'm in the home depo parking lot trying to conduct a sale, and someone hands me a permit that's years old, I have a way to verify that they're still eligible to buy that handgun. I thank for your considerations and amendments and I ask you to please support it. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburn Representative Schaffer arise? To debate the amendment. Lady has the floor to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative Turner for bringing forth this amendment, we had a chance to talk earlier today about this amendment and I think it's a great amendment, I think that it addresses some good things and things that we have been conceptually trying to address in the bill as a whole, so I would ask the members to support the amendment and give us the opportunity to look at this option before moving forward thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Catawba Representative Adams rise? To debate the amendment. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. Well this an amendment just popped up haven't really had time to study this, but I fear that this might be a back door means of registering firearms just not what CJ leads entirely designed for Nix was designed for this purpose it is a database of criminal behavior, have a problem with making a decision on this and I will oppose the amendment. For what purpose does the lady from Surry Representative Stevens rise? To Speak on the amendment. The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. I think my opposition of the amendment comes from a very different place, and that's any of us who's been here as long as I have and that's only six years, CJ leads has hard a horrible time getting up getting started and is so overburdened that we cant add something like this to it, it doesn't you can't develop those systems over night and would really basically take almost the new systems, so I would oppose the amendment for that reason. Representative Conrad is recognized the second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and appreciate the comments from Representative Adams, Representative Stevens. This is to put forward the study. This is to study the process and it is looking at CJLEADS and NICS as in that study CJLEADS needs to be used, it doesn't mean that NICS need to be used, it means that we're going to do a study to look at a way to give the public access to the a system like that or it even says, or another similar system. So it doesn't have to be NICS or CJLEADS, but it's a system that would provide private sellers the ability to run those background checks and be sure that, the people who they're trying to sell firearms to are eligible to buy those firearms and again this is a study. Representative Pittman is recognized to debate the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker, as I have stated on the floor previously and other debates. When my son made that purchase from a friend of mine, we used the existing NICS a background system, check system and it was fine I don't think this is necessary because that's already available, and plus I do have some fear that if we go to this it might lead to registration of firearms which doesn't need to happen because registration is a prelude to confiscation which has proven itself, and Nazi Germany and  other places as well. We don't need to have that happen, and I don't see why we even need the study there. I think we should learn from history. Thank you. Representative Floyd is recognized to  debate the amendment. Representative Adams recognized debate the  amendment.  The debate amendment second time. What Willis proposed here, is a study for a development system to allow a background check to be conducted in private transfers for firearms.

We have that system. It's a mixed system. We voted not to do that. that. We voted to use the purchase permit system, why are we back tracking if we want debate this and go through a proposal of using the Nick system for private transfers, I would entertain that, why are we going around in circles cause I guess?  Representative [xx] to recognize.  Thank you Mr. Speaker I don't believe this is necessary but just realized there is a typo on line six, the word B is listed twice or written twice before the word sour, just thought I point it out. Representative Shefa recognized and the clerk will be looking at that. Thank you to debate the amendment the second time. You are recognized to debate the amendment a second time. Thank you, I simply wanted to mention that the languages is permissive in the study, I mean it's a study, it's something that again conceptually we're trying to look at one of the sticking point for individuals with a pistol permit if we do away with it what are we going to do about private transfers, any idea is that this might be an opportunity to allow that, to allow individuals to access the language of, the study language doesn't say to develop a system, to require individual to use this kind of a system simply to investigate and there would be a the end of it, I encourage members to support it, I think that especially those who would advocate revealing if it's a permit requirement this is a positive step in that direction and frankly when we've stripped a lot of that from the bill this is one effort where we can move forward in terms of looking at what are we doing when I came, so I would urge members to support it, its not a clerk requirement it's permissive that why I'm asking to vote yes on the amendment the clerk has corrected the type of Representative Bumgardner recognize to debate the amendment? I don't have it on my screen right now, and I'd like to see it while discussing it it will be posted to shortly   Okay I was trying to get my hero this is study of implementing two different systems to allow people to do a background check on someone they're selling a weapon to and the first thing we'll do is allow, and pretty soon thereafter we'll required and mandated, that's what happens a lot of times, so it happened years ago seat belts [xx]. We started allowing people wear seat belt and then requested then demanded, and it's happened on a lot of other things and I don't want to go down this road and I have it now, thank you. I oppose this amendment there's a lot of things here I don't want to do including this thank you. Further discussion question or debate? Representative Lewis, Inquiry to the Chair,  State your inquiry. Mr Speaker my computer went out too was the starter that was found on the amendment correct? Yes, thank you Mr Speaker.  Representative Arp is recognized [xx] Ask the amendment sponsor a question, Representative Tine do you yield for a question?  I yield. He does. In the amendment it's, and I'm trying to understand is the Department of Public Safety, The Information Technology and then the FBI, the question is can we mandate that they participate in there? how does that work out practically? Because the Nicks is obviously from there but have you got an agreement that they're going to do that or I got in an agreement the do what first staff on how we can compel them to be participants but I would imagine there's some sort of reciprocal in the state has with the FBI and Nicks in order for that process to even work here. Follow up. Do you yield? the yield to the follow up question? Yes.  He does? He yields?  I was in kind of support but after the ability of this things to work would be is to include them in there and I'm concerned that we passed this and they would not participate so I'm kind of concerned about that for what purpose do Representative Ford yield?  The noise is getting louder outside it's getting tough to hear. That is noted if the Sergeant at Arms would enquire and report back to the Chair and if necessary contact the capital police.  Mr Speaker,  Representative Brust for what purpose do you rise?

Could you quiet things down in here so that I can hear this singing? Representative Tine are you finished with your response? Yes, Mr. Speaker having a chance to confer with staff in response to representative Odds[sp?] concern. The amendment directs the DPS to consult with the Federal Bureau of Investigation does not mandate a required that they precipitated. Further those question on Vegas not to question before the House, they eternal amendment 19, those in favour will vote I, those who oppose will vote no clerk will open the vote. Representative Paul, The corporal will lock the machine and record the vote. The I's have 68 the no's have 46. The I's have it. The motion is agreed to representative Glacia is recognise for motion, the Clerk will read.  Representative Glacia move to amend the bill on page 8 line 42 through 43 by inserting between through those lines the following. You are recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you members and I hope one of this ends with may be one of this contravention amendment.  This is meant to be actually  a technical fix.  If you look the Piston Permit statute, we don't have the language that we are now adding in on section 7 of the bill of the current  conceal, which is that,  if you are in  violation of 922 June due to domestic violence conviction, that you are and not able to or disinfrenchise from getting the permit.  This is exactly the language that we are adding in section one of the bill to care conceal because we didn't have it in there, so I have taken exactly the language to  fix the same pro vision for pistol permit. It's not meant to do anything else, I first know opposition, and if it does  something other than that, it can be dealt with on the senate side, but it is strictly to fill a gap  and to make sure that we are complying will federal law, thank you. Representative Luis is recognise. Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from [xx] amendment, is one that we have tried to come to groups with, and understand thoroughly and have not been able to do so. May be recognised for a motion? You are recognised  for a motion. I move that  amendment 19 be laid upon on the table. There is a second of Representative Berger, the question before the house is the motion of Representative Luis, that the Glacia amendment be laid upon the table, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the Clerk will open the vote. You should have told me to tell you they are making arrests. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, the I's are 68, the no's are 44, the motion delay to laid upon the table is agreed to. The sergeant of arms officers reported and you may want to know that arrests are being made as we speak. Further discussion, further debate on the bill is amended, for what purpose does the lady from Guildford, representative Harrison arise? I would like to briefly debate the bill. Lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen in the house, I'm sorry my amendment was rolled out of order, I am, I was hoping that when we had gun related legislation in here would be promoting gun but a protection against gun violence to promote gun safety. I think that would have been the appropriate response to Sandy Hawk to Tucson to [xx]. I am, I was dismayed with last session's bill, because it continues to expand guns and put these guns in more violent criminal hands. I think this is a most inappropriate response to recent situations, I don't think it's good for public safety, I don't think it's good for North Carolinians and I'm very grateful to this chamber for making many of the progress that we made protecting pistol permittingless scheme, protecting the doctors ability to communicate with the patients was important, and the domestic violence changes were very very important, and I think those were great changes. But the fact remains that this bill does still allow more guns and places and put them in the hands of folks who should have no guns, so I would urge you to vote no, thank you.

What purpose says the gentleman from Representative Hall rise? To speak on the bill. Gentleman has the floor to speak to the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker thank you to all the representatives and all the members who took the time to engage in this discussion and work on this bill. I continue to maintain that we should make North Carolina and all of our facilities safe for all of us to use and exercise fully. We continue to go down the path, thinking we can make an individual safe and avoid our responsibility to make our schools safe and public spaces safe. And so we continue this idea as I far discussed this evening, somebody would be the super star. Go to their car and get their gun and come back and save all of us. Now this, suppose this super star we are talking about is somebody who has not maintained his their level, probably never achieved this skill level as not continue to be involved in some type of come back firing or pistol course so they can react on other stress and pressure or a life shooter situation, somebody who would come back and get in the way of properly trained law enforcement people, and so this bill safe to hit down their road and I would hope, that as this bill moves and we do other legislation we keep in mind that we are created in the false [xx]. I don't know if anybody in here has been engaged in the active combat pistol course or weapons course in the last four, five months? And if you have not then you're not qualified, and I would not want to have to rely on you to save my life. I would hope that we would make the whole bill this safe, so all of us could be safe and I think we owe the same thing to the citizens of North Carolina. We shouldn't create a false hope, we should not areas that aren't safe and say let's just have individuals think that they're going to be safe. So as you vote on this, I would hope that you would reject this idea of just that the individual being safe. And let's work towards keeping and making our public spaces safe, and making our communities safe not just select individuals in our communities. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gilford represent [xx]? Speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house, I know this is third reading minds are made up, but I just I'm always uncomfortable sitting here and hearing certain assertions made and having them go unresponded to at all, even when we know the outcome of the vote and how I just say this to Representative Haul, they have been numerous instances, they are almost blocked out in the national media very little coverage but there's numerous instances where this very thing has happened. Someone with a gun has stopped a much larger crime in its tracks from occurring, one was in Texas just a few weeks if not even [xx] to sandy hook where someone with a gun stopped a bugger massacre and the rationale here is simple, it's very simple to grasp. The lie here we're passing is only going to apply to our law abiding citizens. The bad guys, the criminals are going to have the guns. [xx] safer it can be documented, it can be proven, people are safer when more good people have guns and the bad guys know they've got to be careful almost every big shoot out is in a gun free zone, so some might think they're safer, and they might get cold feelings of joy because all those awful guns we've kept them out of people's hands, but the bad guys have them and that's when we run into problems. This bill is a simple step towards having more law abiding people able to exercise their 2nd Amendment Rights, to protect themselves, and their loved ones, and other people in the community, and I commend it to you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Union representative [xx]? Speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Ladies and gentlemen we've had a very very thorough, very thoughtful debate on this whole bill with amendments, some with the opposite way that I wanted it to go but the rhetoric is terrible really.

It was being alleged that this bill will put more guns in the hand of violent criminals, I see nothing in the bill that does that. It talks about those who want to have weapons, who choose to do that and exercise their Second Amendment right through the lawful process here in North Carolina to have a Concealed Carry Permit to protect their family. Let me tell you, as a father who has two children that I absolutely love, if I come across the evil that has shot and killed innocent children and I knew that my children were in there, hell could not stop me from trying to get to them and protect them. I think this has got to go down. While we're talking about law abiding citizens and the right to use their second amendment right, to protect themselves and their families, and that's what this bill does. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Rep. Pendleton rise? To speak on the bill Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill I have asked hundreds of law officers through the years, do you favor citizens have and can steal weapons from us. And the answer is yes. It's usually, yes and is only our wish were people have. We need to back up we can't [xx]. Now let's talk about the school situation. A few years ago in Mississippi, there was a man that went in into elementary school and started killing people. The assistant principal ran outside to his vehicle, got his gun. Now he was unlawful because he had a gun on school property. Mississippi now has some sense and they now allow him to keep it in a locked vehicle. It goes back in the school and kills the guy. He said a bunch of lies. I just don't understand why some of you people's thoughts are going to. I don't understand in which county we've got most of it, and I will shut up. In Wake County we're up to the [xx] state point and we're allowed citizens and employees of the county to carry guns on county property. For four years, till somebody else took over and they repealed it, but for four years the citizens can come on property, the staff can carry guns, huge county, how many guns [xx] that we have because they're law abiding citizens with xxx]weapons from [xx]. In four years how many did we have? None. Thank you. For what purpose does the lady from [xx] Representative Terry rise? To speak about the bill sir. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank very much Mr. Speaker. I have respect for everyone who has worked tirelessly to create this bill. So I'll be as brief as I possibly can. There's one area that I have not had very much the We've spoken about and that's what I wish to speak to at this moment. I recognize the lead for [xx] laws. There's no question about that. However these laws must be done with due diligence, citizen protection, physical response ability and common sense. Gun violence is expensive for all of us. Cowardly the cost to America in the aggregate is estimated from my research at $229 billion. North Carolina's numbers are not yet available. There was a study done some 16 years ago at Duke University by a doctor Cook and a college at George Town University where they discovered then that it was at $ 2.6 billions, but since that time it has gone up to $ 229 billion. The ripple effect of this cost is the devil that is in it's detail. emergency room course, mental health, Medicare and Medicaid, private insurance, rehabilitation cost,

victims's assistance, if they survive, the list really goes on and on. No one really know the true cost of gun [xx] in America, but there has been studies done to calculate the cost of rules and relationship to there driving up tax payer and government cost. The numbers are staggering and should give those who say they care about the burden of taxes on the citizenry, so reasons, to pause and look at the to before consciously, then as we are doing here in this chamber. I for one cannot support this funded mandate to the tax payer of North Carolina, until we take a more comprehensive approach to the cost that it is on the public. It is reckless, it is thoughtless. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? To speak on the bill.   The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill.   Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I'm getting real tired of, well let me back up. I'm one of you people. I'm one of you people, and I'm getting tired of being imbued with things that just aren't true about us people. I've sat here for these last three months or four months hearing all types of a description given to you people and us people. I carry in my pocket and always have, two documents. The first one is the Constitution of the State of North Carolina, and the second one is the Constitution of the United which by the way still called me twig fist of a person but we won't talk about that right now. I also stand before you to let you know that the laws are on the books right now concerning on control, concerning other things that you see before many of you got here were put there by me. I was the one who was the target of the NRA who found a whole campaign poster of mine that had my picture on it drew a target on it and you'll reach the target practice. Now, that's my feeling in terms of, I was the one that got the Brady Amendments put in on the books in this State. Now I have sat here for two years now and watch many other things that I did that had my name on go down in twos. Now what we're doing is we're retrogressing. What you're doing is instead of leaving things up to those people who have the authority who have the know how, who have the experience to do things you want to put it in my pocket to do it. I don't know how many of you would want to see me carrying in a concealed weapon. I sure don't want to carry it because I wouldn't know what to do with it if something happened. Now you talk about following the constitution, United States Constitution says no law shall be made to infringe upon the rights of people to bear arms in terms of militia. The North Carolina constitution says the same thing but it goes one step further you talk about the constitution, let me just call to your attention that one step further it talks about the militia and the right to bear arms and not infringe, but the last portion says this, Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against such practice, that's your State Constitution. There's a difference in what the Federal Constitution says about weapons that doesn't go as far as the state

constitution we've been sitting up here arguing about this thing, what I consider unconstitutional, so you're going to pass it because you have the numbers to do it, you've got the numbers to do anything you want to do whether this is right or wrong, you've got the numbers to do it, you're going to pass this, but I'm telling you, [xx] a slippery slope For what purpose does the gentlemen from Catawba representative Adams rise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill the bill.  I have listened to this dysphemistic language from the other side, the opponents of this, and it leads me to believe there is a very strong prejudice for all its gun owners. I've been a gun owner for over 50 years I know probably more than a 1000 people that are members of the gun culture, they're wonderful people, they're salt of the earth people, they're ministers, they're teachers, they're law enforcement people, they're soldiers, they're veterans, and it's deeply to me, that you folks characterize all gun owners as criminals somehow in your mind. Speaker. Representative Adam, if the gentleman would suspend. Members, pursuing  to house rules references that could be interpreted as a foreign individual personalities are not in order, the chair will remind the members to please contain their debate to the issue at hand which is the third reading of the house committee substitute for House bill 562, the gentleman from Catawba may continue. I stand in favor of this bill because this bill provides for gun owners to be protected, we talk about concealed carry, we've been through a number of issues and we've worked out some conflicting issues to my satisfaction, we have made progress in proving the pistol permit system, and I'll work together to continue that. I think that the debate about the conceal carry was misplaced, concealed carry has been shown to reduce crime and is probably one of the main contributors to reducing violent crime in the last 20 years I support this bill and hope you will too, thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Orange, Representative Insko arise? To debate the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, I'm on the DHHS Appropriate sub committee. And I really like some of the work we've done this year. The staff, Republican leadership had the Pew foundation come in and talk about evidence based programs, and that's getting more and more popular now, that we will fund programs that work and that makes a lot of sense to put tax payer dollars where programs work, and we are beginning to do that, and helping human services. We have, evidence about guns. There's a lot of research that is done on guns and gun safety. The [xx] University is the center for gun policy. They publish a lot of research on guns, we know that more guns equals more violence. We know that more guns in public spaces, equal more deaths, it's not, we don't have to live it up to any total information about an incident we heard here, where someone said the life because they had a gun. We know that there are any double information on both sides, you can come up with stories about people with guns saving life and you can find plenty of stories about people with guns who created violence and mayhem. It's in the news everyday, Connecticut for example dropped, there was a dropped in homicides when they increased their gun laws, did more background checks there was a significant drop. In Missouri when they repealed the background check there was a spike in gun homicides, so the issue of gun safety is more of an issue than whether we have guns or not. Background checks make a lot of sense, stronger laws result in less gun violence. Stronger laws result in less trafficking less bad guys having guns, but we've

got to get to the place where we can talk across the isle about this. I said already I grew up in a gun, I grew up in a farming family so I grew up in a gun family and I've heard my old life, family members with guns, so it's not true that there's nobody in this side of the isle that comes from a gun culture but we also believe in smart gun laws and that's our duty as state legislaturers is to take steps to protect our public, the evidence is here if we will get it, vote no on the bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash representative Nash rise? To briefly debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Im a lot like my seatmate, I guess that's why we've gotten a long well he continues to allow me to sit with him after five years, but he uses a phrase which, I'm data driven, I hear a lot of claims being made, I hear a lot of adjectives being thrown around but I haven't heard any hard data, so let me give you some. The 31 states that have Shall-Issue Laws concerning private citizens to carry private citizens to carry concealed weapons have on average a 24% lower violent crime rate, a 19% lower murder rate and a 39% lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the non-states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right to carry states. Remarkably guns are used for self defense more than two million times a year, three to five times, the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns, we all know that cities with the strictest gun control laws like Chicago and Washington D. C are some of the most dangerous places to live in the United States, so if you really want to see gun violence go down, if you really want see our expenses through all the programs that one of our representative talk about go down then please vote for this bill For what purpose does the lady from Wake representative Holley arise? To speak on the bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. I have been sitting here for two days up and down I have written pages, I have been angry, I have been sad write now I'm just afraid and my fear is based upon my community and the use of guns you ask why I will tell you why, the existing reality of my people and among to get specific particularly the African American male they are being killed for standing on the corner doing nothing, doing nothing selling cigarettes by police officers and all this is with the assumption that he or she may be in possession of a weapon a lot of time and many time as you've seen in the news lately, their have never been a weapon found and this have been innocent people who bribe police who've been trained on how to diffuse certain situations and with the [xx] and these incidents are happening. Mr. Speaker, my fear is. Point of order Mr. Speaker. The gentleman may state his point of order. The ladies comments, are they in order for the bill it seems she debating something that has nothing to do with the legislation before us. The Chair thanks the gentleman, the chair would ask the lady from Wake to confine her remark to the extent possible to the House committee substitute number three for House Bill 562 the material printed there in as amended. Lady has the floor to continue her debate what I'm talking about is to wait for somebody to have a gun, I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with the like somebody to use a gun in a situation where they're not equipped to do, and this bill allows that. This bill allows somebody to shoot first and ask questions later and all they have to say, I feel threatened, and that's where I have a problem because my community are the ones who are being killed that's why I cannot support this gun bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Sampson, Representative Bail rise? To debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. I don't know whether what I have to say is going to be to me to the bill  that much or whatever, but I would like to have something say say saturated, or super saturated when you sit down so long and

listen to all of this, you get overwhelmed. And I was talking to my seatmate and I told him it reminded me of the song that Tina Turner says, what does love have to do with it, and sometimes I wonder when I look at this bill, what has gun safety got to do with it, because I think it's all about some other things, as I have looked at some research too, and I think, I don't see how we can sit here and go with this bill without doing more to it whenever we, in North Carolina we have so many murders with guns. Says between 2001 and  2010 we have had more that twice as many people were killed with guns in North Carolina, then killed in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we need seem to me like, I don't think Consio Kerry would answer that, or would solve that problem. But then as I go on down there, [xx] to do with, I see where it said, and it's hard for me to see all of this, where the NRA has collectively donated $195, 200 to federal candidates from North Carolina. So, I'm saying that, more than gun safety has to, I think that has a lot to do with, then I said a list of people talk about the Bible, and they've banished us not to vote for certain things because we probably we'll be confronted when we got to the pearly gates or something, but I read the Bible too, and in 1 Timothy 10:6 and the sixth and ninth verse says talks about, For the love of money is the root of all evil, and sometimes I'm just, let me just tell you that I think maybe instead of thinking about all of the gun safety and everything, just follow the money and you might see why we're here debating all of this stuff. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham, Representative Jones arise? To debate the bill.   The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House I've been relatively quiet over the last two days while we've spent quiet a bit of time. I've been listening to quite a bit of rhetoric that has to do with the second amendment rights in general with gun ownership, and I've come to the conclusion that with this bill just like other bills we had heard in the past and no doubt others will having a future that has to be with general issue really comes down to how you feel about this question either you think that having law abiding citizens have more access to gun ownership is a good thing or it's a bad thing that how you basically going to make a decision when you come down to the assigned some people seem to have the idea that the way to reduce violence is to keep guns away from law abiding citizens, I think that's a misguided idea. To me is worse than saying that the way find obesity is to get rid of the forks, the forks are not the problem. Ladies and gentlemen violence is a problem, it is an evil that lies within the heart of man kind is not because of guns I was strongly encourage you to go back and study your little history before guns were will ever advantage, and I would suggest that you would find that some of the great greatest atrocities some of the greatest acts of violence in human history occurred long before guns were ever invented now the fact of the matter is that we have gun technology today, whether you like it or not and the fact of the matter is that those who are determined to break the law and to commit violence using guns are going to find there way to use them. The question is, are we going to make it more or less difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and make no mistake about it, guns are far more likely to be used in the prevention of a crime than they are to commit a crime

and I would suggest to you that you're are going to be very quick, when a crime is been committed against you or your loved ones, you're going to be on the phone calling 911, doing whatever you can to try to find a good person with a gun to come to your aid. Now we've had a lot of rhetoric about, I would suggest that those children and those teachers that were victims at places like Columbine High School or Virginia Tech or any others that you might suggest would have been more than happy, would have been thrilled, would have been praying for law abiding citizens to be in the vicinity with guns that Mike could have protected them had they have been allowed to do so. I've got a it's full of statistics that I'm not going to cite, Rep. Collins and others have cited some of those statistics, but it is very clear, time and time and time again in different states how homicide rates, violent crime rates, have gone down dramatically, whenever concealed carry laws were expanded, whenever law abiding citizens were allowed greater access to guns. I could say a lot more, I know the hour is late and I'm not going to, but I just hope that going forward as all these rhetoric continues that maybe some of those things people might stop and think about, I hope that you will vote for this bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, representative Moore, arise? Mr. Chairman to debate the bill. the gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, like Representative Holly and others  have said here, the last two days and I've heard different things said, and we hear about rendering well, this is all that this bill is based upon, is rendering. Now I've heard some references by my colleagues on the other side and I have no ill will toward any of you who supported this bill, or who oppose it, but I've heard things like, this is a Jim Crow era law that we need eradicate. Which is hypocritical, because we institute Jim Crow era laws like blocking people do, so, what do I have to do?  And I'm going to [xx] The gentleman will contain his house committee substitute for house bill 562, the gentleman may continue. Thank you Sir, Listen, this bill is a part of an ongoing legislation that we've seen since we have come into this chambers some three years ago we started with and excuse me if my rocks might be out of order sir, we started with standard ground laws, we started with the amendment of the Castle Dutchman and now we come to eradicating pistol permits we speak some of that and I applaud some of my colleagues on the other side for fixing some of the things that were most autrocious  like having members or interns coming on to the floor with concealed carriers that was the most insane provisions that I saw in this whole bill and you can believe or whatever you want to and let me just say this I come from my family comes form a gun culture, we've had guns in my family for years, and yes I own a gun, couple of guns as well, but I sure wouldn't feel that much safer to have 30 of my friends on the floor packing heat when we get hot in here about the days like the ones we've had for the last two or three days. So I understand that hours late but Mr. Speaker I was just compelled to stand up and say something because I just couldn't sit down without making my particular statement, this is a much improved bill but this is still a bad, unnecessary, insane bill and I for one sir will

honor clinically be voting no and I give back my time thank you sir. For what purpose does the gentleman from Representative Glacia arise?   Mr. Speaker, to debate the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be very brief and just make couple of comments. Number one I commend the by-passing work that was done in the last few days on policy decisions that are now incorporated in the bill I think. Smart choices were made on the whole end and that's helpful. But they will in the in the end policy choices and so as my first point to make it clear, second amendment was really never much involved in this bill. Like most the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited and the court is made clear an opinion by justice Goriah and I read the following language cause I think it highlights the point. In our opinion that recognize the second amendment right for citizens to have arms for self defense fencing their homes. Justice Scalia says the following, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast out on long standing prohibition on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill or laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings or laws imposing conditions or qualifications on the sale of arms. Effectively, that's really all effectively that is being dealt with, so it wasn't about the second amendment. There is no second amendment right to carry a concealed, there's no second amendment right to carry guns in schools public buildings, there is no second amendment right to not have a permitting process or a licensing process. There aren't any policy choices left to us, and there are good arguments and bad arguments both ways and we have argued about, I think for the most part civilly about those. But we shouldn't confuse the institutional policy choices, number one, and my reason for voting against this bill despite the changes to it, come down to a policy choice philosophical one, for me, the differs from some of my friends and colleagues in the majority and that is, I think local citizens have the right to deprive themselves of the freedom they may otherwise want to carry concealed in public places or non home private places, or to regulate in different days, who and where we posses weapons and how we use them, including on school grounds or otherwise and that in the end, they have the right to do that if they view it as necessary to eliminate in their communities pervasive gang violence or intimidation, or issues in their communities, and that they have the right to determine, communities have the right to determine determine just as the statistics point out, in some communities having access to guns may have been a community way of approaching their problems but in others it may not be, and so communities have the rights to determine that the elimination of one set of freedom is worth the deprivation of the other. My problem is I think we have no business in Riley, second guessing either the degree of necessity or the fairness of the trade that local communities make, and we seem to be inclined to do all that, for those reasons I'll be voting no. Thank you.  For what purpose purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland representative Lucas arise?  To speak on the bill.  The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill Thank you mister speaker. Ladies and gentlemen I come from a prospective that may not be consistent with what I have heard about sides. I don't know which is the other side. I submit to you that The bill before us, I suspect has positive intention. as it relates to conceal carry. I have no problem with conceal carry. The next that I have no problem with increasing safety. In fact I think every member in this house would like to see improved Safety, not only on the general assembly on school grounds, public occasions, wherever we are. I think we ought to spouse

safety, we can never be too safe.  I'm a gun owner. I own several guns and I guess that makes me different from some of the statements that I have heard about the other side, whichever side that is. Please know that to me discretion needs to be the better part of the valor.  I have the right to have a concealed carry, but using the scenario that I've heard described many times, I don't know how whereas I'm going to be if I approach a school ground, or any other public activity where something has gone wrong, obviously gone wrong. It could be even a neighborhood that's gone wrong and gun violence appears to be the order of the day, even if it involves my family members I to go an extract a concealed carry weapon from my vehicle, being the person that I am and run into a crowd with that gun. I'm asking law enforcement to shoot me because they don't know who I'm. I don't think that creates safe conditions and I know that minds are made up, but it doesn't matter Life is lost. It's gone for ever. We need to protect lives as best we can. And I'm hoping that we can work with those folks like Representative McNeil, Representative Farclock who have great experience and crowd control and how to dispense bad situations. That we would rely upon them more them more than we will we allow selves when it comes to diffusing these situations. Again, I'm not going to run in there because I know I'm going to get shot, because I'm not using good discretion. Location. Location. Location. You've heard that in real estate, but it also apply when it comes to This particular bill defending your home is a location that you would use every means necessary to protect your family, but guns safety aught to take a back seat, when it comes to the public. Again I lift my arm I'm going to vote, but I want you to think. are exacerbating the problem, are you proliferating the problem, or are you solving the problem? You may have a greater problem than you anticipate. Thank you Mr. Speaker.  For what purpose does the lady from Medenberg representative Ross. To speak on the bill Mr. Speaker. The lady has the floor to debate the bill.  Thank you, on February 2015, concealed hand gun carrier killed three people here, the three Muslims that was killed here. On February the sixth, concealed hand gun permit holder, I won't call his name, killed two people and he committed suicide. What I would say about the gun deal, I'm not against guns but my concern is if it's the right person that has the right consciousness to carry the gun and do what's right with it. One out of four individuals in North Carolina, one out of four in this chamber has some type of mental illness that has been undiagnosed, I'm not against guns, like I said, I've taken care of people who have shot themselves, I've taken care of people who have been shot by other people and survived and it's not a pretty site, but I

believe this conversation is bigger than about just guns. I believe it's way bigger than that. Our rights are not anymore ostentatious than the public rights and I think like I said is a bigger conversation, are we doing all we need to do to protect the public. Thank you, those are my comments For what purpose does the lady from new Hanover representative Hamilton arise? To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. The lady had the floor to debate the bill. Thank you very much, I'll be brief, I just want to say that I believe that this bill and this legislation has brought out the worst in all of us, and in years that I've been here, I've not heard the kind of rhetoric predominantly coming from the other side of the aisle, because democrats this time have remained relatively silent while we listen to an internal debate going on within the GEP calculus. But, having said that, I'm going to quote just one number, maybe two, that are relevant and will challenge some of what you have heard from the other side. In 2012 out of 8342 criminal homicides. Only 259 of them were considered justifiable. That means that gun owners are 32 times more likely to kill someone without cause than to act in self defense. I think that's a number we should all listen to.   Speaker And I remember. For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash Representative Collins rise. Would the Representative yield to a question?  I will not. Does the lady yield to a question? I do not Mr. Harvard does not yield, the lady has the floor to continue debate. I will close by saying that this bill has done nothing to move our economy forward in North Carolina. It hasn't recruited or created one job. But what it has done is created a division within this body and upset a lot of people. There are a lot people here this week, mostly mothers, teachers and others that are very much opposed to this. Just keep that in mind everybody 32 times more likely to kill someone without cause than to act in self defense. I'll be voting No. For what purpose does the lady from Franklin Representative Richardson rise? Thank you Mr. Speaker to debate the bill. The lady is recognized to debate the bill. I would like to acknowledge here that a lot has been said and I'm not going to repeat any of it, but any time we have actions there're always consequences. And my question and I don't expect an answer but is a question that I want all of us to consider is that once this bill is passed are we ready for the consequences are we ready for the law suits, are we ready for the broken hearts or the broken homes, the added additional people in prison, and if that doesn't happen then great but I do believe that we need to be mindful of the fact that passing this bill will have these consequences and we  as law makers we are being responsible for consequences. I ask you to think about that and and I will be voting against the bill thank you.  For what purpose does the gentleman Dame representative Hall rise?  To speak a second time on the bill. The gentleman is recognized to speak to the bill the second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker and although I rise to speak a second time, I want to make it clear this bill for anybody who might be listening this bill was never about taking away the people's right  to the the second amendment to have a hand gun the second amendment to say we but one of the first things that was sought to be done was to ignore the best expert we probably we had on guns the sheriffs and the police chiefs and their recommendations, and I think we went down the wrong road when we did that we should take the information we have available and experts we have and then hear what they had to say about their experience as they deal with issues everyday. We want to talk briefly about safety because having the goal does make you safe or the person around you safe, and I've said this before and bares repeating and bears in my mind and may be not anyone else's, but I've been in the court house before where fights have broken out, where people have gotten loose with guns and the guns they took were those of some of our court personnel, so having a gun doesn't make you safe and it doesn't necessarily make someone around you safe. We talk about having they permit to have a gun, that is great, have a permit and have a gun but again do you take the responsibility to be trained with that weapon do you take the responsibility to have it safely stored?

We understand North Carolina is fifth state for guns showing up in other being the source for guns showing up in other states at the scenes of crime. Are we exporting crime and making it easier, have we done anything in this bill to make gun owners more responsible I heard people say well, gun owners are concealed carry permit are responsible. That may be, but are you responsible when you're dealing with an instrument of deadly force so I think we have a question we have to answer, what have we done to make North Carolina safe what are we doing now to make our communities safer and is this the route we want to take. Finally I would ask again and a lot of work was done to bring some people around to at least respect in our law enforcement community and that's great. Maybe going forward we'll listen to them more. This is an issue that's going to continue to be on the fore front and I hope we'll make a partnership with our sheriffs and police chiefs in what they're trying to do in our communities as opposed to making them adversaries in the process. I'd ask you to vote against the bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanly, Representative Borough rise? Speak on the bill Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker and first Mr. Speaker thank you and leader Hager and chairman Louis for your efforts in working with the bill sponsors to help move this bill forward. There have certainly there have been a lot of rhetoric today and, I felt like it's a deja vu. For those of you who've been here since 2011, when we passed our first large gun legislation in the General Assembly since we've taken the majority. The rhetoric you've heard was the same rhetoric you heard under House Bill 650, which is a castle doctrine and a number of other items in it, which by the way who signed that bill into law? Beverly Perdue signed that bill into law. The former Democratic Governor of North Carolina signed that bill into law. House Bill 937 was passed in 2013. We heard the same thing. Two years ago, there's going to be shootings in parks there's going to be shootings at schools, there's going to be all these law abiding citizens going out drawing their guns and shooting people. Well, it's not the law abiding citizens that we've go to worry about, it's the criminals. It's the folks out here who don't care about that sign posted there. We are doing everything we can to continue the efforts that we in the making since 2011 to expand the rights of law-abiding North Carolinians to carry, to protect their families, their friends, their neighbors and along with that, these bills have also contained efforts to make sure that we're strengthening and preventing those with mental health problems, those with criminal records, from obtaining guns. This has been a two-time approach and we have done that and made every effort to improve the rights that we, as law-abiding citizens and the people that we represent should have. And I finish by saying that we heard the stats mentioned earlier that there have been lots of gun violence and deaths, but I didn't hear a breakout of those stats in terms of how many of those were concealed carry holders versus how many of those were folks just breaking the law. Or how how about those people that actually shot. How many of those individuals were conceal carry holders or gun owners who were at a location where they were prohibited from carrying a weapon and defending themselves. Let's look out for the law abiding citizens, let's give them the right to protect their families and themselves. This legislation continues that and I am certainly going to be proud to press the green button and help to move our state in the right direction and strengthening, the rights of the people that we all represent and their rights carry. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman rise? Speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Mr. Speaker, I have been viciously attacked from various sources for introducing and supporting gun rights legistlation especially since my son shot himself earlier this year I understand some of the thoughts, views that has been expressed by some of the folks, here tonight, but I just tell I don't believe that the

right of our citizens to keep and bear arms should be denied or diminished in any way because of my personal tragedy and I wish we would all realize that you have a basic right to self defense that is what right to keep and bear arms is all about and you know a lot of things happen that we wish would not happen in our lives and in our war, that doesn't take away that basic right of self defense, I haven't been really happy with some of the changes we made yesterday in this bill I think it's been ordered down I really wish that hadn't happened, but  there is still a lot good stuff on this bill and so I would ask people to support it because it is a bill that supports the rights of our citizens, and so, I'm going to vote for it and I'd ask others to do so in recognition that right to self defence and about keeping better option, thank you. Further discussion further debate? If not,  the question for the house is the passage of the house bill 562 on it's third reading. Those in favour will vote aye, those in opposed will vote No, the Clerk will open the vote. Representative Cunningham, does the lady wish to record? The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 78 having voted in the Affirmative and 37 in the negative, House Bill 562 passes its third reading Reading, it is ordered engrossed and sent to the Senate.  Representatives Conrad, Presnell and Ross are recognized to send forth forth a committee report, the Clerk will read. Representatives Conrad Presnell and Ross, Commerce and Job Development Committee Report, HB 482 Employee Fair Classification Act. Favorable Committee Substitute Unfavorable to original bill and re-referred to Judiciary II. Original bill unfavorable Calendar, Committee Substitute referred to the Committee on Judiciary II notices and announcements and the chair also has an announcement. Tomorrow, the session will be at 10 AM. that will allow folks to have an early start to the end of the week I don't think there will be many complaints other than maybe representative West who will not like us getting out that early, but I we're going to have session at 10 AM, and I believe that the Appropriations and Finance have 8.30 meetings. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Szoka rise?  To make an announcement gentleman is recognized for an announcement As you just stated, the house committee on finance will meet beginning promptly tomorrow at 8.30 AM, we'll have five bills and the announcement will be sent out at 2 O'clock, thank you  For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Darlan rise? An announcement The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. Appropriations, full Appropriations will meet tomorrow morning at 8.30 in 643 with just the one bill 372. So see you in morning, we'll get started right on time at 8.30 thank you. The gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker, subject to re-referrals, bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the senate, receipt of committee reports from the state of conference reports, a move that the house adjourns to reconvene on Thursday June 18th at 10 AM. Representative Louis [xx] seconded by Representative Dickson that the house adjourns, subject to receive the messages from the senate, receipt of committee reports, receive of conference reports and re-referrals of bills and resolutions to Thursday June 18th at 10 am, those in favor will say aye. Aye.  Those who oppose no, the ayes have it, we stand adjourned