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 | April 28, 2015 | Chamber | Judiciary 1

Full MP3 Audio File

Good morning, call house judiciary one to order. We are delighted to have with us three pages and I would like for them to stand up and introduce themselves and tell us a little bit about each other. Good morning, My name is kevin [xx] Craven county and I'm here represented by Representative John Bill. Where do you go to high school? I go to New Bern high school. And what grade are you? I'm in the tenth grade. yes sir. Good morning, my name is Toria Wickmen and I'm from Mecklenburg county, my sponsor is representative John Flairy and I I go to South Lake Christian academy. Hello, I'm Casey Mozley, I'm from Aila county my sponsor is Representative John Fraley and I go to Magnolia high school in ninth grade. We're delighted to have all three having in this committee and I hope that you are able to learn something about government. We have the Sergeant at Arms, Bailey Moore, Billy Jones and PH Pal. The first bill is house bill 678, a man's innocence commission status. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. There's a PCS I bought the those in favor vote by saying aye "aye", the ayes have it. Thank you Mr. Chair [xx] from yesterday. But we have a bill that is I think a consensus bill and I appreciate the time and the work of the chair and the work of the innocence commission staff and the work of Chris Muamar on the work of a number of people to come together, your bill summary sets out set down what this does and it really makes a couple of changes to the innocence commission structure requires the commission to submit a semi-annual reports to the administrator [xx] of the courts for debts and data collection purposes. It requires the director every six months to simply update defense council on the District Attorney on the status of investigations and cases that are ongoing before the commission. It clarifies that the D. A should be given an opportunity prior to the commission proceedings at least 24 hours prior to submit a written statement if they choose to on their viewers if they choose to on the case. It requires the commission full file and transcript to be provided to the D. A and Defence Counsel at the end of the proceeding, keeping it confidential until it's fully filed with the superior court. It clarifies the D. A and the Defense Council will be the ones who determine what evidence is present to the pre-judge panel once the commission rules that is probable caused to believe a defendant is actually innocent and finally it authorizes the commission to conduct a search of any location where additional files or evidence are reasonably likely to be stored related to a claim under the inquiry which it really does now but rule disqualifies that section two amendments that Representative [xx] is going to run on technical changes and with that Mr. Chairman I know I have no opposition to the bill Representative Burr is recognized to send forth two technical amendments. Representative Burr, the amendment is leaning towards a formal where it's substituting a commission hearing on page three line 23 of [xx] and page three line 29 about re-writing that line [xxx] These are technical amendments to my understanding and the members before you, all those in favor of the amendment, let it be known by saying aye "Aye" opposed no, The ayes have it. Does anyone in the audience wish to speak about the bill? I do, sir if you don't mind, go to the microphone and identify yourself and what you do. Can you hear me? how about now alright. My name is Kendall Montgomery Bren, I'm the Executive director of the North Carolina Innocents Exoneration Commission, I was hired by the commissioners when the commission was created in 2007 and I've been at the helm ever since. The commission has now reviewed over 1700 cases, 8 people have been exonerated through the commission process the commision is working the commissioners and staff have worked with the bill sponsored and finally reached a compromise I ask that you carefully watch this the

condition will not support any later amendment to this bill I know that you all received the many calls and emails from the commissioners thank you for your consideration is there anyone else who wish to speak about the bill? Morning, I'm Jennifer Thomson and from Chapel North Carolina. In 2004, I was asked to join the Actual Innocence Commission. I'm fulfilling commission because of my particular interest as a victim advocate. I was brutally raped in college in 1994. Faking my I. D my perpetrator who was sentenced to life in prison for 54 years only to find out 11 years later through DNA testing that he had actually been innocent so I bring kind of a special interest in this work. I sat on the commission for a couple of years and watch the ingrid commision being performed under the ideas of independent and netrolity and I was so proud that North Carolina had something such as this I travelled across the country actually across the world and one of the things that I was confound is people talk about North North Carolina being a leader in this issues and they talk about that every station should have something in lite to every innocent ingrid commission that's mutual and component that's not agrartory on nature I was going to be appointed to that to the commission in January of 2013 as an ultranet national [xx] victims applicacy, so I am truly at the heart of what I do of the victims advocate fast and foremost, last week [xx] holder gave me a [xx] carton the first ever courage award for DOJ acknowledged that those who are harm by wrongful conviction are all of the victims so I was very concerned about the changes that would be made to the entry commission so I can now at this point today I can actually say am in support of bill 678 as it is now ready but it should be [xx] I will not stand and support because that after [xx] then we travel in independences of this commission is central and inter [xx] to taking out the advertirial position which is really where truth and justice can leak truth and justices is what it is all about in the [xx] commission so I appreciate your time this morning. I do still support the senate bill 678 as is now written without any further changes and any further amendments going forward, thank you Can I ask you one question? Sure I heard someone say that there is a movie thing made up of [xx]. Yes. And movie is going to be soon Representative [xx] residence storing in it. Okay the directory is over here so [xx] you can go see her. Thank you Thank you very much. Thank you.  Anybody else? If not do I have a motion. favorable report speak yes unfavourable to the original, and round into our committee center. You heard the motion all in favor in all by saying aye. "Aye" Those no, the ayes have it. Thank you all very much for getting this done. Our next bill is House Bill 664 safer communities, as PSC Representative Mcneil moves to have the PSC before us at this time let all in favor let it be known by saying aye Aye Those no, the ayes have it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. It's a very bill which means it's going to be very controversial.company Police are private individuals Private Police Force these are people that have basic law enforcement training, they are sworn in the same way that city police are. They're hired to patrol private property to give additional levels of security beyond that which the Local Municipal Police are able to provide. This bill is a permissive bill and I want to hit this hard, this is permissive. This will allow cities under circumstances in which the cities to extend the jurisdiction of these company police officers around the specific piece of private property that they're hired to protect. It will allow county commissions, with the permission of the sheriff, to extend

jurisdiction in an incorporated areas. Now in both cases, I want to make it clear this not forcing cities and counties to do anything, and it does respect the constitutional office of sheriff. Who is the only law enforcement officer in the county that is actually defined by the Constitution, but the intent here is in those areas where they are additional problems. It would be possible for the cities to contract with these private forces to extend their jurisdiction, and provide additional security in those areas where everyone agrees it is needed. I showed this to several people to get it vetted, sent it to chiefs of police and the Sheriff's Association. I did get an email back from my chiefs and they said they had concerns but it is permissive and so in cities where police are operating correctly, I don't know if this would even come up. Representative McNeil looked at it. He said it's permissive. He didn't have any problem with it, and not only did he not object to it, he even agreed to co-sponsor it, so I'll take any questions Mr. Chairman. First question, what do you mean extend [xx]? Right now if a accompanied police officer will have full legal authority on a property, say Bank of America headquarters in downtown Charlotte that person is protecting that say a college police force or a hospital police force would have full police powers on the property. The moment they step on the sidewalk they are now without authority and are just the same as everyone else it has been said that they would have the same rights as private citizens to intervene to violent crimes but I would be concerned that they would be held to a higher standard of liability due to their training but would not be closed with any additional authority beyond that that you or I would have and so we could have situations where crimes would be in progress within sight of someone who could intervene and prevent it but they would be powerless to act. While the police force may not be able to respond as quickly as an officer [xx] said to me when seconds count, we are there in minutes. Representative Brown? Yes, Representative Brawley as we all know our law enforcement community are kind of under a microscope right now and what type of training does a company police offer? What standard of training are they involved in? They take the same training as a city police officer would. I understand that people in the audience would like to speak regarding this bill Now is the time to do it if you choose to. Yes sir. [xx]. Good morning I'm Roy Taylor, I'm the president of the North Carolina Company Police Association. I've been in law enforcement for 38 years, the Chief of Police for 20 years and Federal State local agencies including here in North Carolina's municipal chief and the state chief. And I just want to explain why we're looking for this ability to have extra jurisdiction. There are hospitals in the state that have private police departments. We don't have authority on public roads. The statute 74E which actually gives us our authority, doesn't allow us to have any control on the public roads around our properties. So when the life lite helicopter comes in, they have to wait for municipal law enforcement or sheriffs department to come and block those roads off. So what we're really looking for is just the ability to take care of situations that impact our communities that we're contracted to protect an not impede on the law enforcement agencies in that municipality or county, so we're not looking to have extra jurisdiction or authority. A lot of people think we want to write tickets on the roadways and that's just not what the case is. We just want to be able to protect our communities that have been generous in hiring us because they felt like they needed a little extra care. So what we're looking for is just that ability, but again, it's permissive as the Representative said, so each community that we are contacting with would have to go to their local legislature body and ask for that authority to be granted and that it would be heard out locally. So this way we thought it was better right now under 24G, your campus police on private campuses, they already have that authority. Even cartel branched every one of them in the state. Company police which are identical, do not have that same authority. We're constricted to the property only and our worry the

stepping off our property is that we've been told that if we go off our property and try to intervene, say you're being robbed on the side-walk we don't have authority there and we're not even allowed as a private citizen to intervene because we're wearing our uniforms and we're carrying a weapon. So we feel even further constricted, and people are upset because they see a uniformed police officer who is not able to do anything and likewise, if there's a traffic crash, and we're standing there watching it happen, we can't go in the street and direct traffic around the crash or administer first aid. Because, again, we don't have authority to do so and are accepting a lot of liability if we do. One of my police department's is in the mountains in Western North Carolina in [xx]. I have 39 homeowners associations and contractors with my agency over 1200 homes, we have over 40, 000 people come through there in the summer time. Again, the Sheriff's office, Jackson county, great job but there's only one deputy in the entire South end of the county and we end up handling the majority of calls and even backing up the Sheriff's office, but we can't enter into a mutual agreements or we really don't have authority to do that based on the current statue. So I ask for your kind considerations and I'm happy to discuss that with anybody at length if we can movethis but thank you for your time. A question. Yes sir. Thank you Mr. Chair, When do the joining payments of this bill contemplates, the bill seems to make sense to me that I just want to make sure that municipal body of the county and if you could terminate that agreement at any time of the insurance. There is for some reason they decided they wanted to take away that jurisdiction. My one concern will be that they would be locked in to that an incident may happen where the council or commission want to in the jurisdiction, you wouldn't be able to admit it. I don't have any objection to amendment even now on the floor but I think that agreements that the city or the county would sign was the individual agency would be drafted by the county or city attorney, approved by the, and give them I would expect him to put that right in there, the ability to counsel for just house. Follow up? Yeah I'll [xx]. Okay, super. Are there any other people in the audience they will [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'm Fred Barger I representative of North Carolina Association of Chiefs of police which opposes this bill. This notion has come up in previous sessions, we've always been in opposition to it. Company police provide a viable service on the property that they protect. They also in a lot places have cooperative relationships with the local police and sheriff that works very well.  However the absolute jurisdiction of line of company police is always been the property line, everyone understands that. Citizens understand it, company police understand it, and local law enforcement understand it. Company police are like regular police but yet they aren't in several ways. They do receive the same basic training as city police officers, however any additional training may be different the supervision of company police is up to the company, that is the company police full profit organization. The supervision of the city police is under the management of the city and the police chief. One of the most important differences between company police and city police or sheriff's deputies that's so important to the public is accountability. If a citizen is mistreated by a police officer or a deputy, they know who to call. They call the police chief, they call the mayor, they called the sheriff. All these people are elected officials that are accountable to the public. If that citizen has a problem with company police, all they can do is try to penetrate the company bureaucracy and leadership and complain to the president of the company. Imagine a situation outside Crabtree Valley mall, if the company police police respond to the public off the property. You have a mixture of city police, company police, different uniforms, different accountability, trying to interact in the same environment. As to the permissive quality of the bill, it is permissive. However you will wind up with a patchwork across the state in different counties and cities of jurisdiction. We think this will be confusing to the public, to company police officers who may be transferred from one county to another county by the company and confusing to local law enforcement as jurisdictional

lines are different in different cities and different counties. The bill allows the county commissioners of a particular county to agree with company police to extend jurisdiction of the company police to allow the jurisdiction of the county. That doesn't mean the unincorporated area of the county, it means the jurisdiction of the county. Deputies of course have jurisdiction within municipalities as well as without, and so if a county agrees to this and the cities in the county don't he might have Mecklenburg County agreeing. Accompanied police can go anywhere in the county and the city of Charlotte didn't agree to it. So this creates all sorts problems we think and questions, that deserve serious consideration. I'm authorised to say North Carolina Sheriff Association proposes the bill. See these counties did not request this bill, law enforcement did not request this bill, the only interest in this bill is from the company police so, thank you. Any question from Mr. [xx]? Is there anyone? Thank you. Anybody else who want to speak about this bill on the problem Representative McNio[sp?] [xx] I would like to make a comment about what was had been said to day having been a retired deputy sheriff, 32 years in the sheriff's office. Representative Riley did bring this bill to me and I did look at it, now I'm concerned that is not the same bill that I signed onto. there's been an addition added to that I think [xxx] 879 [xxx] of it. It' still basically a permissive bill, law enforcement agencies in my whole time of being a deputy sheriff have ended into mutual law agreement, an agreement with other agencies, if an agency wants to allow more of their [xxx] officers to another county there's usually a mutually aid agreement of some kind of and that spells out all the if, what, which, when words and how to supervise and everything. This is permissive bill as hate to go against my friends in the sheriff's association, and I don't really feel like I'm going out, may it's a difference of opinion but it's a permissive bill if the police chiefs, if the sheriffs in some counties don't want to do it there is nothing in this bill that forces them to do it. I just simply say no, so, I don't really see a problem with the bill, I support it. Representative [xx] If I could ask the bill sponsor you referred [xx] [xx] [xx] [xx] we allow company police to enter [xxx] roads beyond property line and maybe contractors. What's the requirement for I mean the calendar the worry during that and rule there somewhere on the road how did an individual know that to not look in the review mirror and see the words company police on the car, not seeing the county chair know that this is someone who can not in this bill Representative and I'm not sure of there is in the general statute. There is Okay, that's all ready included in the General Statute Follow up Follow up Are they if they're confident to work with the Chief's Department or with the City police [xx] they're working in that zone. I believe in the way that the bill was structured, it will be up to you [xx] Representative Hall.

Thank you Mr. Chairman I could ask this questions to the bill's [xx] and the bill's sponsors or staff, anyone that would know, has there been a state-wide study or anything from legal municipalities or County Commissioners Association indicating a state-wide need for additional police support? True. Representative Hall I'm not aware of a state-wide study, I would say that the genesis of this was neither with county police nor with municipalities, but was with individuals. There are areas where crime is more of a problem people would like additional ability for their protection other than just conceal [xx] it was written as permissive so that cities could decide to do it if they wanted to but there is no requirement that they do it if permit is requested and the city choose it's not to, that's not an appealable decision on the part of the county police, the issue was raised in the county jurisdiction but also within this bill that the Sheriff must give his approval. So a county sheriff in Mecklenburg county that you it's not to give his permission past the hands of the county commission and they can't overrule him. This is the PCS but this does not incorporate part of Representative Jordan's bill what it does do is, if Representative Jordan's bill passes it amends Representative Jordan's bill to conform with restrictions within this bill on jurisdiction and permissiveness. There's follow up. Just a comment Mr Chairman, it seems some good intent went into this feel but certainly it seems that folks who would have to be utilizing this and supervising and being irresponsible for coordinating it or not in support of it. I'm also concerned that having more not necessarily coordinated or clearly identified law enforcement involved who may show up at the scene of some problem may in the end, end up in endangering themselves even more and or the public without proper level of coordination and so I'm very concerned that that does not seem to be addressed in this bill as it stays.  Representative Robinson Yes, Representative Lori, what is the scope of [xxx] a police officer now? Does he have arrest powers or the power He has the power of a municipal police officer on the property that he's hired to protect. Follow up what supervision is he employed by, is there a local supervisor or exactly how's he supervised? I think that would be how's a police officer supervised. When the town [xx] had two officers, there was only one on duty. I don't think that they weren't effectively supervised and in a department like Meckenberg, you have a very high command structure and so it would vary there's a single answer to your question sir. Representative [xx] Yes, thank you Mr Chairman, I got some concerns about this bill.coming from, I lived in Virginia for about 28 years or so and we had an ongoing problem up there in the Charlotte [xx] area. We had a lot of folks were playing police and I don't mean that with any respect anybody in any agency, but the private agents. But they were pulling people over, there were a couple of offenders [xx] sound extreme but young girls alone were pulled over only to find out that this was not a police officer and a couple of this things, incidents, more than a couple resulted in death. And I really feel like at least as far as I'm concerned that I have to defer to the professionals, and the professionals are obviously the Sheriff's Association and the Police Chief's Association, if there are high crime areas. This is something that both the police department and the sheriff's department should be addressing. And it should be handled if they need more help, they need to hire more officers. But the coordination as Representative of Halls said that coordinating who does what and when seems to be problematic to me and so I will not be supporting this bill Thank

you Mr. Chair members of committee often times we are critisied during general assembly for being to retrictive and to controlling of the sub-divisions the government counties and municipalities here we have an exact opposite of that we are giving a tool to municipalities and counties to use if they choose. We are not demanding that they use it not requiring that they use this tool, we're giving them a tool and a testimony of a one gentleman I heard that there are situations throughout the state for this would be a very useful tool, they would actually police and security all the estimates localities. There's cities and counties might choose not to do it. I think it's good bill, I think a lot of thought went to it and Mr. Chair at the appropriate time I'll like to make a motion. Thank you Representative Mcneil, I like to make one last time. There are all kinds of situations occur across all this great state. In Randolph county we have a lake, Randleman lake, and when they decided to to open up, they decided on being a couple of police and that is how the way they went about how and their officers to protect the lake and the buffer around the lake. Okay? nail, instead of entering into a mutual late agreement with those company police, at least to war manage they have the sheriffs. okay, there a lot of different ways to skin this cat, okay. We could have entered into an agreement with them, just this life we're talking about, a mutual late agreement which will manage the [xx] so these are great people that are doing a tough job. That's how we solved in Randolph county and I need some more intensive to do it more that way as you swear in them as the FDC or police officers, but it's solved a problem in Randolph county because as those officers were patrolling the lake, whihc a lot of remote areas they can handle situation with the authority so I don't really say that all the loop law about this bill is permissive, if they don't want to do it don't do it, I don't get Paul Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I think just again that the different new force expressed on the bill the folks would be the expert that the local level have indicated they don't feel there is necessary or need it but certainly it then seen to have the referral after this committee and would here to be a local government matter I would make a recommendation that it be referred to local government should have passed out of this committee. Yes Mr. Chair I recommend that we give a favorable recommendation to the PCS for House Bill 664 unfavorable to the original. You've heard the motion any further discussion of the pay. Now, all those in favor of the bill please raise your hand. Or opposed [xx] does not carry. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman or House Bill 562 Representative Hudson moves that we have the [xx] PCS, all in favor with that motion let me know by saying aye "aye", oppose no the ayes have it. Thank you Mr. Chairman [xx] committee in the house let me go to the public [xx] and thank your for the opportunity that presented itself in our community this morning, I'm going to have stuff go through specific sections of the bill. This morning [xx] before I wanted to say a few file about the seats of legislation. As you know this is the PCS and it looks a little bit different than the original [xx] well we have to talk something about that proofs problematic or sticking point to expose, we really did want to have stakeholders wait in and did so really all along the process receive them before we file the bill. What we did today is that we took some of the other firearms registration [xx] and put them into the gps and so you'll see some familiar language from other bills etcetera. But one of the points that I didn't want to make was, what we've done in this is kind of the next step in what we did three years ago and house bill 937, and that was really bringing kind of the two sides of this issue together and what you'll see is staff will show you there is very comprehensive overhaul on our next background check that I think

play they were four years and we got a lot of input from around the different folks on how to do that, but really making sure that back context are strong and appropriate that we are getting the information doing so in a timely manner ec cetera and then we also have on the other side of that, really making sure that we are protect the Second Amendment rights of our law abiding citizens. They're are a handful of of clarifying section things were think may be already in the law but they are no being followed we want to make sure that the law is being followed from the technical all technical point and the staff will show you but we do think that we have a good comprehensive piece of legislation that really does answer the concerns of making sure that we have the appropriate background check and also making sure that we are doing what is necessary and to protect the [xx] law abiding system turn it over to staff and to take it through take us to the we can let it to thank you Mr, Chairman. Am just going through each section briefly and then if there are more questions about details I'm happy to answer those. Section one of the bill amends the statue that prohibits concealed care weapons and in that statute there are a list of exceptions to that requirement, it's a meaning in existing exceptions for the attorneys and ADA is it currently prohibits them from carrying within a court room, it would remove that prohibiting language and allow them to carry in the same manner that the judges and clerks of courts are allowed to carry. For Sections eight and nine add, certain departments of public safety employees who've been designated by the Secretary of the Department is authorized to carry sealed and none as administrative law judges. The second part of Section one just adds to another list of exceptions that coordinates with the first one. The Department of Public Safety employees and the Ministry of [xxx]. Section 2 of the bill, we have enacted a law that allows a person with a concealed carry permit to have a handgun in their lot to be heaved on [xxx]. This would amend that statute to do three things actually one it would allow the requirement of the vehicle has to saty locked this will allow to get in now the vehicle this actual language would allow to fabricate in you can carry bill on the first day that your sitting on the vehicle as opposed to it having to be on the compartment vehicle so I'm huge to the vehicle and if you're getting ready put on your personal and being ready to get out of here where you've been taking off tour person and put it in the compartment even if that meand momentarily . So that's what the blogger does but it also has some language online so mistakes in 37 that prohibits schools from saying otherwise prohibit schools saying you can't have a concealed hang down in your watch to be able to section three of the bill will add an affirmative to retard the possession of hang on the educational property if the person was authorised to have a handgun and locked the vehicle but because they had a concealed carrier permit and they removed the handgun from the vehicle in response to a threatening situation in which deadly force was testified I can to defend themselves from other pursue into the statue that we have except for whether the requirement for that arm. Section four relates to hand guns at the state fair, and this would authorize the commission of agriculture to prohibit the carrying of firearms on the state fairgrounds. only during the state fair, not necessarily the rest of the time and it's over the louder commission of Red Cross to determine whether it's appropriate for that except that they cannot prohibit law enforcement officers from having them and they cannot prohibit anyone from having a handgun in their loft to be able to have a concealed carrier compartment. Section five of the bill dealing with the shooting range protection act under current law, shooting ranges that were established prior to, I'm sorry, it might saved it, I should have. September 1, 1994. it's a correct date. If they were established actually three years prior to September 1994, then they're only subject to the noise ordinances and stuff that were in effect at the time the shooting range was created. Any shooting range that is

not subject to that act does receive protection from subsequent purchases of land near them from liabilities suits but they do not receive protection from complying with any additional on esters that may be adopted by the central county or jurisdiction in which they're located this sections of the bill would provide to any shooting range I think protection in say that basically if you comply with the ordinances that are in effect at the time your shooting range is created if there are subsequent ordinances adopted you do not have to modify your shooting to comply with those additional ordinances so long as there is no change in the use of your shooting range. So if you go from a short range with handguns only to a long range with rifles and stuff then that puts a substantial change and issue will be subject to whatever laws apply but if you brain state the same you don't have to comply with additional ordinances that are adopted after establishment of the range, section one, 1997 that was the day the that [xx] section six of the bill this is a technical change that ensures that the firearm's right to restoration statute that you passed a couple of years ago that any restoration that occurs under that will be recognized by federal law. I won't get too much into [xxx] but there's a federal case that basically says if we provide any exception whatsoever that we have treated felons in a different manner and therefore they don't recognize it well because we put in our statute specifically that they can't have machine guns that's considered an exception. Removing that language does not allow felon to have machine guns the average citizen is prohibitive to having machine guns unless they meet certain federal requirements but when this statute was adopted that was apparently put in there just to be really clear and apparently it's causing some problem with federal interpretational statute and there's presence to whether or not they'll recognise our so this is just a clean up for that. Section 7, would two related things. One, there is statute in section 7 is the statute that provides who must be denied had a permit for a concealed handgun. In sub-section (a) as you'll see on page four there is a list of misdemeanours that if you have a conviction of one of these misdemeanors prohibits and prohibits you permanently from getting if your concealed handgun is found out. Section 7 removes some of those misdemeanors from that list the majority of the ones they removed are class three misdemeanors which are modified the punishment on two years ago to be postrary effect or just a fine only anyway. And it also make any of the remaining misdemeanors only count against you for three years except for domestic violence offences which federal law requires that they have to continue to count against you. Section 8 relates to the signs that private property owners are authorized opposed to prohibit the concealed carrying of handguns on private property. This is establishing some specifics time requirements as to size and type and how large they have to the only way to have to be located and the additional section in section 8 of the existing in cross references to over statute that were brought back to the [xx] to an existing statute so the broke has added section 8a section 9 would authorize the use of a suppressor for hunting or or a short barrel of rifles. Section 10 would reduce the offence of carrying a concealed handgun on private personal property from a class one misdemeanor onto an infraction. Section 11 there is a couple of different things, the first portion of it modifies some of the requirements reporting to Nics, I will just point it out so that it doesn't look like it's so new, in section 11, subsection D any of that news stash on section A is current law from another location but basically it's just making clear what has to be reported to Nic in 48 hours to try and ensure they sit the more information about people being charged with crimes and being bound are usually incompetent and monitary committed the other thing that this section does is it requires pistol

permit applications and handgun permit applications to be provided electronically by the said sheriff, it prohibits the sheriff from requesting additional information for concealed handgun permit applications unless specifically authorized by the state and it does add some additional fingerprint requirements for law enforcement for certain offences such as fingerprints can then be reported to NICs and NICs being the National Instinct Criminal background check system is used for firearm purchases. Section 12 the bill would extend the state value the statute regarding safety value iffirmity from regulation general that already exist and this will add a probation that my local government could not regulate the taxation manufacturer transportation fire arms and also on page 12 into that section would add an actual allow a person to bring an action to declare of relief[sp?] against the local government who violates the section by adopting a regulation and violation of law. Section 13 of the bill would prohibit health care providers some applications to need or in a written questionnaire whether they have fire arms, and it will also prohibit them from showing  information that they are provided orally by patients regarding fire arms, unless the patient has been adjudicated incompetent because of mental illness, it will provide a $250 fine for been adjudic ated incompetent allows the person to bring action for declaratory in a junction believe against the local government for violation of statute. Representative Martin I believe you had an amendment. Yes Mr. Chair my amendment bill with provision in page two by 36 and 37, which prohibits goods from making decisions about what comes on the property, so this amendment bill can pull out those [xx] I think some of the audience will speak on that. Yes thank you Mr. Chair my name is Tom Winston General Councillor of North Carolina Independent Colleges and Universities. We represent the 36 private colleges and universities in North Carolina and we are strongly in support of Representative Martin's amendment. As you may know private property owners are still able to post their property the statute that make it illegal to have a weapon on, makes a felony school property has an exception in it if it is in a trunk it's not a felony if it's in a trunk. But that does not avrigate[sp?] the private property owners ability to post their property. The two lines that Representative Martin's amendment would strike make it clear that private property owners still would have that right. I kind of feel very strongly that they should as private property owners be able to retain that right. Thank you Thank you for that comment, thank you Representative Manny for bringing this stuff for discussion. I would ask for members to oppose the amendment, we have all ready established that schools and universities can have this and basically what we are doing is that we are protecting the second members rights of [xx] I mean the law abiding citizens and they are either restricting it I'm allowing it to keep it under a locked compartment of the vehicle. So we would ask that you keep the lock the way that it is and in a post [xx]. Thank you. Representative Stamberg[sp?] Yes sir, I got a couple of questions that may lead your men to the amendment but Judge this bill, I guess, should be addressed to you. Does this bill allow a concealed carry holder to leave the scene of immediate danger, let's just say that there's something going on in the campus, go back to the car, retrieve his weapon and then return to the scene of the melee, whatever is going on? Let me take you to the

specific section there is in, on page two Section 3, line 38-43, it provides for an appartment of defence,  to prosecute another section if there's if there's a threatening situation, there's a justified use of a deadly force to protect themselves or others there's is and then it does provides for an apartment of defence to remove the weapon from the vehicle. Follow up when I received my Concealed Carry Weapon's training, I went through instructions to leave the danger, get away from the danger, and there's a portion of the concealed weapon training that deals with the active shooter scenario because I know campus police they have that training. Some of what you're asking I think may be a little bit outside the scope of specifically what they are saying I'm going to go specifically to the section if you are in the middle of a threatening situation and that it provides an affirmative defense [xx] from the vehicle. But that is an exception hopefully in and day out of can filter what's going on through the campus they are either dropping someone up or picking someone up getting out of the product themselves and leaving the white bananas for their protection on their right human from that facility and it is going to be remaining in that in the car, in the locked vehicle but it is only it's kind of legalistically issue is that we have these weapons for our protection and our self defense, and if we leave it so that, you can now have that weapon in your car for your protection, self defense but don't take it out. If you're in a threatening situation that's what this section aims to protect I had a number of telephone calls from presence of private universities about not wanting guns on their campus including white points and I believe [xx] Is there any more discussion regarding the amendment? If no, all in favour of the amendment let them all be saying aye. Aye. Oppose no. The ayes have it the ayes have it. Questions regarding [xx] [xx] some questions [xx] the bill allow a DA [xx] in the court room and I'm just wondering what the reasoning behind that was that everybody sure well a few reasons this was brought to our attention by some ADAs and people that are in the district attorney  that are in this situation. If we sit in mind with judges and court support who are already permitted to do that, that we want to make sure that they have the same dependability to do that. [xx] [xx] Is the district in, if the district attorney in will say that will be a no. it's the NDA in the district in Wade county to her assistant, you're not allowed to [xx] I do not believe them Representative McNeil.   I've got a couple of questions I know in the original bill it sort to prohibit the case to commence in the PCS is the only change to the pistol-permitting system in the state now is that they have to be done electronically or is it still. To your point, the repeal that puts the permit process from the original bill, that is out. But yes, in that language they have [xx] to it. Section 11. Thank you. Where does, it doesn't one application is surplus, such application must be provided by the Sheriff electronically [xx] extra. Okay, have your [xx] yes, please I think they were concerned that we'll give the sheriffs enough time to be able to do that electronically, but anyway some of might be set off to do those, some of them might not. And then I also have

a follow up question on section 14 of the 90 days to issue a seal I know, unless the process has changed, when the sheriff office takes the original application and all that, they send that information to the state bureau of investigation. And then I have to wait for the state bureau of investigation to actually send the car back, which is the what you would say, and I guess the sheriff's office gets it they call the concealed person that has applied and they come up and then they get your car. So I was just wondering if there's any leeway in here, if the [xx] gets behind and if they can't get that card back in 90 days, if there's any consideration of that. I think the purpose behind the section specifically was not because of that issue, I think it was the opposite of that issue that they were not turning these things around in the appropriate amount of time even when they had the ability to do so. So I think the concern is less on the side, the extreme of it, of what you're talking about than on the other end of the extreme. Just want to raise that concern that you're holding the sheriff to a standard if they ask me, I don't give the cards back to them on time. Mr. Chair there's already a requirement that they have to issue or deny within 45 days of receipt of all the items, including the mental health history, whch says basically, they have to make a final termination within 90 days regardless whether or not they got a mental record, because it's apparently the issue the mental health records have taken forever yes, just a question of just bill create any immunity for state officials from suit and damages that will result from an incident I don't believe so. I'm wondering would you be amenable to an amendment that would reduce the toy claim from $1million dollars to zero? I think we can talk about that offline, but if the it might have been something that, sure It might have been contract can lay on on this as well I think that there might be something that if working on before will develop the comittee certainly hope that we do that. We can certainly talk about that. Thank you. Rep. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a question for Susan about Director so if a sheriff has reason to believe that a person had been committed in California [xx] and orders the records from California and did not receive them within 90 days, he or she would be forced to go ahead and grant the permit. Well he wouldn't be forced to grant it, but he couldn't deny it unless there was a stated reason to deny it. Would you be more specific? There is obviously a new statute in the bill and I can't remember if it is [xx] 14 is 415.12, has a limb[sp?] I think you need to go somewhere else that you can look at it, just form the bondage. That says during the process they cannot deny it. They shall issue the permit if it qualifies under the following criteria, so they have to be a citizen, they have to be 21, they they cannot suffer from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun. They have to complete the approved firearm's training class and they cannot be disqualified from subsection B and then subsection B is allowed to possess or retain [xxx] in the law not under indictment, fulfilling  they have not been convicted of the felony unless the [xx] is one of the accepted [xx] trade practices they're not a fugitive from justice, they're not an home owner [xx] with marijuana alcohol at the present etc they are not currently adjudicated by the approve to the jury care and then let's see, they had not been discharged from the arms forces other than horrible, they had not been found guilty of certain misdemeanors. they don't have a clerical judgement for instance that may disqualify them, they're not free on bond for something pending that will prohibit them from getting a particular permit and they had not been convicted of an impair dropping exams within three years prior to the application.

So there's a list of things that they can denial and it's one of those that was the only possible thing if they feel they could met the criteria for denying without that record then yes they would have to grant. There is a statute that require standards they find out that there are criteria for which you should be denied then they would have to revoke it. So if they didn't got that record in and three weeks later and it did prove that [xx] Representative Martin Thank you Sir, A question on the bill sponsor regarding additional page 13 of the bill line 35, 39, the way I read this division is [xx] if we split the bondage of the doctor have a questionaire tgive a hand patient, and the question I think my question is the relationship between the doctor and the patient. George Cleveland of Onslow County is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman we are now getting in between a doctor and a patient relationship the whether a patient owns weapons, likes weapons, dislikes weapons or anything in that nature, has nothing to do with the medical decision or a medical relationship between a doctor and his patients most psychiatrist maybe if he's laying on a couch then maybe there's a problem. But if medical doctor, I've been asked that question in my response is it's none of your damn business. I don't see, well I know why it's being done, but there's no medical relationship between the ownership of guns and the patient relationship. Were you on the South Folk one day? No but I don't like it. Representative Martin. Thank you Mr. Chair meeting as what the bill says restricting that questions the doctor can ask their patient and I don't know why we want to insert state government there any sort of patient could follow the [xx] Cleveland and say it's none of your business If I may You may This there's a problem that has cropped up, and I'm surprised you have not gotten any emails from your constituents concerning it. I have gotten many, others have also. I'll go back to what I said before. There's no medical reason for a doctor who's treating you for anklotonnon[sp?] to know whether you have weapons in your home or not Representative Hall[sp?] Thank you Mr. Chairman and I do wan to follow up on that question because there is a reason to see health care provider and I guess I want to know does that mean the middle health care provider or just happen only be a doctor whose providing physical treatment, because they say if someone is counseling you for suicide, depression etcetera, name one that have a legitimate reason in the discussion and treatment to know whether or not you can do a harm to yourself or others o I would wonder health care providers, in that definition if you look above that lock 23 to 34 defines a health care provider it does on lines 32 include psychiatry in psychology, there is an exception for both the written questionnaire and verbal that if the patient has been legitimate that you can pror because without that the education of the policy the psycharatrist follow up follow up. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I would certainly hope that as we look at this more again should this bill be moved that be addressed people who are subject to taking certain drugs on the market where they have a side effect of potential suicidal tendencies as well as people who are getting therapy having that question asked for the safety of themselves as well as their family members. That certainly seems that, that should not be prohibitive in those type situations. One or two goes out to another section of the Bill and it comes back to the arming of our court personnel in this instance, and I think that's another question of having more people in the court room who have weapons who may or may not be trained in close quarter combat with those weapons may not be physically able to protect the weapon and ensure no

one takes it from them and then we have a court room full of people with potential violence tendencies. We seem to be bringing guns to what's going to be a massive gun fight should one get loosed. So I think we are going the wrong way on that section of the Bill I certainly propose bringing more bills into the court room in the hands of people who may mean well but are not properly trained to use nor protect those weapons and end up creating more danger to those folks who are in the courtroom and in the courthouse Representative Jack we're going voting in a few minutes in telling in how much he admired the kids from  what happened that day unless the child says, I have to do that with the doctor recommended some things. The  that wasn't going to help,  that wasn't going to help Mr chair the statute only prohibits a written questionnaire it does not prohibit any on e from asking anything verbally. It does govern confidentiality of anything they obtained verbally, but it doesn't prohibit from asking verbally just prohibits a written questionnaire or any other written type of questions so there's no prohibition against a psychiatrist asking verbally, is this an issue they just can't give everybody blanket uniform questionnaire if that's a routine question to ask Follow up. But if they did give a written questionnaire that would be something they'd be subject to earn and File and disciplinary action Representative Martin and Stanbak Devizon Thank you in refference to Jacklines point, we are going to verbally I think on the point of the psychiatrist is they proceed with threats and are allowed to make disclosures to law enforcement agencies but the way I read this provision is do we still allow law enforcement agencies that the [xx] that they will be prohibited from missing [xx] it's a verbal question but that's firearm in their home or possession so they could disclose the person wish or intend to do something be prohibitive disclosed in the fact that person so that is the [xx]. I want to be sure the doctor can ask orally anything he wants he just can't do it [xx] questionnaire yeah Representative Bird, [xx] security before [xx] and this [xx] were given a likeability [xx] question [xx] yes now is the time. Thanks Mr. Chair, I think that the other [xx] and rule that make a motion [xx] opposed to me except they county [xx] to do as roll them to a committee thanks chief. You heard the motion, all in favor of the motion raise your hand. All opposed, and the bill carries. Thank you very much. We have one more bill I got one more bill, restore and proper justice act. and as the PCS, Representative Robinson moves that we had a PCS before. All in the favor let the number say an aye, "Aye" Representative [xx] will take over this. Alright, we have [xx] Speak on the bill Before I do, I want to the let staff go with the bill it's not a very long bill. It's not so complicated Section one

of the bill clarifies that [xx] [xx] the financial state emergency enact coputer bill will be performing change Representative [xx] Anyone form the public wishing to speak on this bill to the committee? that's the bill to beat. Alright further Representative Paul Thank you Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question on the sponsor won't stay at it. Go ahead. He and I noticed that we are the doctor out of this in saying people with lesser qualifications will be allowed to satisfy a requirement and few weeks ago I was these people going to be able to replace the doctors expertise and experience in this actual situation I don't think the procedure has an answer. I don't think the procedure is that difficult which is, to give someone an injection in the vein if you go to a [xx] you will find someone taking blood other than the doctor and be a doctor there to pronounce the person dead after the execution takes place but that's the reason, it's not to submit any administrative fact of it's hurting them. [xx] to a thing Yes sir your honour. Mr. Chairman thank you I also have some concerns about this bill, as it relates to a doctor not being present we read in the paper from time to time of those states who are still using capital punishment botched, botched euthanasia if you want to call it that. And I just I don't know, this is kind of troubling to me. This is a, this is something that, really disturbed me deeply, and I've had a lot of calls about this. I mean, I don't treat anybody's life lightly, not even the convict to the person who's been convicted of the crime, who's been sentenced to death. I think the way that is to be handled needs to be with digninty in respect and I believe we need to take every single precaution to ensure that it is. And by removing a doctor which is the way this is been done forever, by removing a doctor to me just seems to be pushing the envelop just a little bit has an increase in the risk a little bit, I am not going to be able to support this bill this such state has had capital punishment for many years, we've not had an executionist state since 2007 and the reason for that is because of the provisions in the law. Other states have decided that they had capital punishment also in those people who want to run a bill to abolish capital punishment can do so but at this time we have it and this is a way for us to carry out what the law already is by which we cannot carry out [xxx]to Representative Carl. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I do want to make sure we are addressing and I guess the purpose of this bill is to restart state executions and one of the questions that I'm concerned about is, we are changing the standard rule making procedures that allows for folks to certainly since the last

execution the state had, methods of execution as well as those drugs and the compounds they've used have changed and again going back to representative [xx] comment we've seen over and over problems where especially if we are taking the doctor out of the whole situation out of the rule making process and out of the actual execution procedure we've seen over and over cases where even with doctors present it's been difficult to make sure because of the drug compound and other things that are fully known to make sure the executions happen in a matter for the person who is being executed as our laws and our constitution would require and I'm very concerned that now by who is tagging in the rule making procedure and the quest of all this drugs out here as far as their effect and their effectiveness how that changes the process and then at the end of the day then their no safe guards to ensure we get the proper drugs and that the procedure is proper as regards to public and we take doctor's advice in the process. So I'm concerned we are not really forward as far as having execution of the [xx] intended will be forward creating more litigation for the state and more problems for the start up and all the folks window being in this situations I've seeing these box executions expect for now they are going to be seen here in North Carolina. Can I respond, First of all I have been that it was not the doctors. The doctors were not the problem. In other box execution it was the fact that they used medicine or whatever drug they had incorrectly. Secondly, as far as the rule making process is concerned now that Miss Churchill mention that I don't think they're subject to is as it is if you could respond. I [xx] all departments so I believe they are currently exempted from the rule making process. You got a question regarding the bill. Yes Mr. Chairman my final question we've talked about, and I do think that as we go in first of all is just a notice we go back and examine some of the batch execution in other states and part of the problem was with medical personnel not being able to probably administer the drugs on the compound, the other parts of the problem being the thrills in compound didn't work as intended for a lot of different reasons but we are still concerned about what's happening here in North Carolina and what's going to happen with this effort to resume it maybe that we need to have the public more involved than this because the question really is do we have a draw compound, is the public appeal confident about since we're executing people in their name, it does work effectiveky and do we have the procedure in place to make sure that happens, and based on what these other states have done, it seems the answer to that, now that that question right now is no we don't have that and we're taking away safe doors it will appears that will be in place to help with the procedure. Is there such a compound in North Carolina has now the fact it's able to administer. Somebody from the department here to answer that question. We can get to an answer on that representative Paul, I know from my understanding the issues that have come up concerning some of what Representative Sternberg[sp?] said that the issue of the medical proprietor is in the fact that they have had a difficult task in obtaining some of the drugs obtaining them through the drugs being disclosed is what's being used and obviously some of these drug companies not wanting their names used for those purposes so they had a stock. They were using drugs that were probably older that were not in their condition that they should have, that's what issues were in some of those box executions that had nothing to do with a medical provider, it was simply the fact that they were not able to obtain a new version of the drug they were trying to use, with the drugs not being able

to disclose where they are coming from, the provider of those and some of these other provisions that could be put in place, it would help to make sure that, to get the most up to date drugs up to proper stuffing in place so that they can perform this execution to proper level. Representative Jackson. and I take the stock has to prescribe or drugs that can be done by these other people Follow up Follow up personal thoughts composed of whatever I asked. I know that entering the CA will have the sane ability to stop her. bring a paramedic here to explain the bill again on the law. No further comments from committee members we have the motion They really gave there bill is table report, committee substitute in favor as to the original Representative Dominic has moved that we give the bill 774 in favor of report, unfavorable as to the original. Those in favor will say aye, Aye. Those opposed no, No The ayes do have it. passed. This committee is likely to meet again tomorrow at our usual time. Which is? 12.30