Tag: Constitution

Guns and North Carolina Senate Bill 50

The North Carolina legislature needs to deeply reflect on Senate Bill 50, calendered for September 22, 2025. Facilitating more guns in the hands of teens does not seem wise or necessary.

If you ever had children you know the challenges of the Terrible Twos and the Teen Years. The Teen Years especially at times seem designed to give parents premature white hair. Yet, the North Carolina Legislature would like to allow 18 and 19 year olds to waltz into a gun shop, purchase a gun, no permit, no training, and carry that gun in whatever manner they please.

North Carolina Senate Bill 50, “Freedom to Carry NC” — sponsored by Senators Danny Britt, Warren Daniel, and Eddie Settle – was filed February 4, 2025. The bill was predictably vetoed by Governor Josh Stein on June 20 and returned to the Legislature. Stein’s veto was overridden by the Senate on July 29. But SB50 seems to have met with some cautious minds in the General Assembly and calendered, for the third time, for September 22, 2025.

Behind SB50 is the US Constitution’s Second Amendment.

Also predictably, Gun Owners of America emphatically responded to the veto of SB50. Here is an excerpt of their press release of July 23.

“We have reached a critical point in the fight for Constitutional Carry in North Carolina. As you know, Senate Bill 50, “Freedom to Carry NC,” successfully passed both the House and Senate this legislative session, a testament to your collective advocacy and the tireless efforts of state groups such as Grass Roots North Carolina.

However, last month anti-gun Governor Josh Stein chose to veto SB 50. This decision is a direct challenge to the fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners across the state.”

Now, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” as stated in our Constitution’s Amendment II, absolutely must not be infringed. This Just Vote No Blog stands by the obvious truth that without the Second Amendment, all other Amendments are meaningless. Our Founders were totally clear that governments can go rogue, and without arms the people have no way to fight back.

Therefore, organizations like the Gun Owners of America are absolutely correct in defending the “fundamental rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

But what’s wrong with this picture?

Over the years, we have gone from rural families who used rifles for hunting and self defense, to an urban society with these statistics:

* About eight-in-ten US. murders in 2023 – 17,927 out of 22,830, or 79% – involved a firearm.

* More than half of all suicides in 2023 – 27,300 out of 49,316, or 55% – also involved a gun.

So, in a valiant effort to deal with this most unfortunate situation laws were passed to ensure that guns were only allowed in the hands of “law abiding” individuals.

Dutifully, North Carolina’s Senate Bill 50 sports a laundry list of folks who cannot own a gun, like felons, fugitives, addicts, mentally incapacitated, dishonorably discharged from the armed forces.

However, in North Carolina gun dealers not federally licensed can freely sell arms without any requirements for purchasers background checks. Their only responsibility is to avoid “knowingly” selling a firearm to anybody who by law cannot have one. Under such circumstances, how SB50 can limit the blessings of gun ownership only to the “law abiding” seems unclear.

Meanwhile a day does not go by without the news reporting someone being shot, fatally or otherwise. Youth remains hotheaded and eager to solve challenges by pressing a trigger. Mothers and fathers lose their children to suicides by firearms.

A balance of facts is needed.

The US has a sizable number of engaged voters, the highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which slows down (obviously not stops given recent events) US military action in US soil. Thus the likelihood of our government going rogue is not high.

Conversely, a report published by the Tampa Bay Times dated February 7, 2024 is much more clear in the likelihood of a youth 18 to 20 harming someone with a gun:

“Crime data in the United States is notoriously incomplete, but experts agreed that general trends from state and FBI data show people ages 18 to 20 — and in many datasets people in their early to mid-20s — are likelier to commit deadly shootings than other age groups.”

The North Carolina legislature needs to do further reflection on Senate Bill 50. Legislators, especially those with children, need to acknowledge that teens have developing – not developed – brains. Legislators also need to acknowledge that they are not being entirely honest placing the laundry list of who cannot have a gun, when North Carolina allows for gun sales without any background checks.

Yes, the Second Amendment is what really keeps the nation’s populace free. And we have more than enough brave law abiding adult citizens to ensure our freedom. Facilitating more guns in the hands of teens does not seem wise or necessary.

Picture:

Memorial for 14 year old Lyric Woods and 17 year old Devin Clark, who on September 17, 2022, were shot to death. Suspect is Issiah Mehki Ross, 17 years old at the time of the murders. New York Post, November 8, 2022.

North Carolina proposed a Convention of States – Be wary

Article V Convention of States is a bulwark against federal government abuses. Only problem is it has never been used and nobody knows how it works.

On December 5, 2024, the North Carolina State Legislature passed a Joint Resolution applying to the U.S. Congress for an Article V Convention of States to limit the term of Congressional Leaders.

To those familiar with what a Convention of States is and what pros/cons such a convention carries, kudos. This Just Vote No article is for folks who say, “What are we getting into here?”

So, first off, what is Article V

Article V of the U.S. Constitution is a crucial bulwark against federal government abuses. It gives states and its people the right to amend the Constitution whether the federal government likes it or not. This form of redress has never been used. All 27 Amendments to the Constitution have been placed via another route offered by Article V – Congress proposes, and states ratify. Here is Article V:

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

The language of Article V is purposefully lean.

Our Founders established an experimental way of governing – We the People, on our own or via our elected representatives, decide the nation’s path. Article V guarantees an antidote against federal misconduct but leaves open how states (The People) use it.

It is clear from the language of Article V that applications from 34 states (2/3 of 50 states) are needed for Congress to call for a Convention of States, and that whatever amendments are proposed at such Convention must then be ratified by the legislatures of 38 states (3/4 of 50 states).

Other than that, at present, there is nothing.

We have no precedent for guidance. We have no rules that guarantee what states propose is what delegates will aim for at a Convention. There is nothing about who can be a delegate, or how delegates should be chosen. We have no guidance when or how U.S. Courts can intervene if amendments stray too far from the intentions of our Founders.

It is not even clear when Congress is required to call a Convention of States, since there is disagreement how applications should be counted. Article V says nothing about subjects on applications, nothing on whether applications expire or are forever valid, nothing on how to count or not count rescinded applications.

Even if we all agree to count only applications currently clearly on the table, does Congress count 9 applications for “Term Limits” and 25 to go. Or count 9 for terms limits plus 19 to “Limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials,” so only 6 to go.

Therefore, voters should be wary of assertive self-assured applications.

Here is the wording of Section 1 of the North Carolina application for a Convention of Stares,

“SECTION 1. The legislature of North Carolina hereby makes an application to Congress, as provided by Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America, to call a convention limited to proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States House of Representatives and to set a limit on the number of terms that a person may be elected as a member of the United States Senate.”

Although this language and that of other applications sound completely straight forward, the people can only depend on the good character and promises of Convention delegates.

The chances that promises would be kept or not is anyone’s guess.

Even a cursory search on the Internet for “Convention of States” will yield numerous pros and cons. The pros mostly point out that a Convention is needed to do the job Congress refuses to do, and there should be no fear of a “runaway Convention” given the specificity of Convention applications. The cons simply disagree that any specificity can exist based on the language of Article V, and Congress’ dysfunction can be easily cured by voters at the ballot box.

Both sides can be right, since Article V doesn’t say much! Both sides can try to guess what the Founders intended via the Federalist Papers or other writings, and one guess would be just as good as another.

Both sides often bring up the first and only Constitutional Convention, which convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. The pro side points to the fact that this was a Constitutional Convention, a different animal than a limited Article V Convention of States. The con side sees no difference, based on the language of Article V.

Y’all remember what happened there? That 1787 Convention, attended by George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and other great minds of the time convened to improve the Articles of Confederation which lacked a way that states could operate in concert by a set of rules. As we all know, delegates did not improve the Articles of Confederation but instead wrote a whole new Constitution.

It all sounds a bit too risky. Even if we say the real intent of Convention of States is to scare government into taking action, uncertainties of what happens if a Convention is called remain.

How about the good old ballot box?

The ballot box remains the only sure-fire way that people can control what government does. If voters want a smaller fiscally restrained government, don’t groan and grind teeth when radicals in Congress speak out against increasing spending limits. If voters want terms limits, stop voting for career politicians and support the “citizen statesmen” that our Founders envisioned.

Want to hear the pros/cons first hand?

For those interested in a good collection of pros and cons all in one place, here is a link to a YouTube video called Conference on the Constitutional Convention: Legal Panel. This conference was presented by the Harvard Law School. Five panelists participated in the discussion.

Picture: The Great Seal of North Carolina is embedded in the walkway at the main entrance of the North Carolina State Legislative Building. Around its edge is the state motto, “Esse Quam Videri,” Latin for “To be, rather than to seem.”