North Dakotans: Action time again!!!


PDA






Nickotym
November 17, 2008, 11:01 PM
Nodaks:

Time has come to ask the state legislators to introduce a bill to remove our public gathering restrictions:


New material is underlined.
A Bill to amend and reenact Section 62.1-02-05

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:

62.1-02-05. Possession of a firearm at a public gathering – Penalty
Application

1. A person who possesses a firearm at a public gathering is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. For the purposes of this section, “public gathering” includes
athletic or sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned parks where hunting is not allowed by proclamation and
publicly owned or operated buildings.

2. This section does not apply to law enforcement officers; members of the armed forces of the United States or national guard, organized reserves, state defense forces, or state guard organizations, when on duty; competitors participating in organized sport shooting events; gun and antique shows; participants using blank cartridge firearms at sporting or theatrical events; any firearms carried in a temporary residence or motor vehicle; students and instructors at hunter safety classes; persons authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the state of North Dakota, according to section 62.1-04-03 of ND Century Code; or private security personnel while on duty.

3. This section does not prevent any political subdivision from enacting an
ordinance which is less restrictive than this section relating to the possession of firearms at a public gathering. Such an ordinance supersedes this section within the jurisdiction of the political subdivision.

Please send this in email or written letter to your state legislators, both senators and representatives. Potential talking points are outlined below. Please be respectful and try to get the point across that we don't feel ND is dangerous, but it is better to have choices for defense. Unfortunately, shortly before most of the incidents in schools and churches, no one ever thought attacks would happen at THEIR school or church.

Another point is that many other states have no such restrictions and have few problems with CCW in the areas that are considered public gatherings in ND.

I will be emailing my legislators in the next few days. Your legislators email and snail mail address can be found at http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/ under Senate or House of Representatives in the sidebar on the left. As soon as committees are set, I will list the most important people to contact. The deadline for introducing bills is essentially Jan 8, after this date noone may introduce more than 5 bills each.


Talking Points:
+Many other states do not have public gathering restrictions
+CCW Permit holders have been through background checks
+Public gathering restrictions have the potential to disrupt daily schedules, in order to stay legal one has to disarm in order to pick up children from school or church activities
+Legal CCW permit holders who can carry most everywhere else are not able to carry legally while attending college classes and activities.
+While ND has had no church or school shootings in recent history, neither had any of the other localities before their incidents (eg.: Virginia Tech, Colorado churches last year, etc.)
+Several church and school shootings were stopped when civilians were able to retrieve their guns from storage and confront the gunman, legally carried pistols could do so much more quickly.

If you enjoyed reading about "North Dakotans: Action time again!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nickotym
November 17, 2008, 11:14 PM
Representatives Porter, Carlisle, Klemin, S. Meyer; Senators Holmberg, Potter were the ones who sponsored the Deadly Force and limitation of liabilty law that passed last session( House Bill 1319) They would be good ones to start with.

Holmberg(R district 17) and Potter(D district 35) were not up for reelection this cycle. Porter(R district 34) and Shirley Meyer(D district 36) got reelected, Carlisle(R district 30) got replaced by another R, Klemin(R district 47) was not up for reelection.

Nickotym
November 18, 2008, 11:39 AM
I emailed my reps, and Porter, Klemin, Dekrey and Holmberg.

Here is the text of what I sent to them.

I respectfully ask all of you to consider introducing the legislation below in support of gun rights in ND. I have written to some of you in past legislative sessions and again come to you for your support.

I do not ask you to introduce this bill out of fear or paranoia, but rather in the interest of expanding our right to keep and bear arms in North Dakota. At present ND law restricts responsible, law abiding North Dakotans from concealed carrying their lawfully owned handguns in what is defined as public gatherings. As you know, public gatherings are defined as "athletic or sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned parks where hunting is not allowed by proclamation and publicly owned or operated buildings." Many other states have no such restrictions and have no incidents with CCW holders carrying in these places. College students who are legal to protect themselves almost everywhere else cannot do so in the place they spend most of their time. Utah has had no issues since they allowed students who have permits to carry at their colleges or universities. In Colorado a couple of years ago, a permit holder was able to wound and stop the man who had killed a couple of people at a church and killed two others earlier that day at another church. I don't think any incidents like this are imminent in North Dakota, but neither did the residents of other states where church and school attacks occurred.

Below is the text of the bill to consider:

New material is underlined.

A Bill to amend and reenact Section 62.1-02-05

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:

62.1-02-05. Possession of a firearm at a public gathering ? Penalty

Application

1. A person who possesses a firearm at a public gathering is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. For the purposes of this section, "public gathering" includes athletic or sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions, political rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned parks where hunting is not allowed by proclamation and publicly owned or operated buildings.

2. This section does not apply to law enforcement officers; members of the armed forces of the United States or national guard, organized reserves, state defense forces, or state guard organizations, when on duty; competitors participating in organized sport shooting events; gun and antique shows; participants using blank cartridge firearms at sporting or theatrical events; any firearms carried in a temporary residence or motor vehicle; students and instructors at hunter safety classes; persons authorized to carry a concealed weapon in the state of North Dakota, according to section 62.1-04-03 of ND Century Code; or private security personnel while on duty.

3. This section does not prevent any political subdivision from enacting an ordinance which is less restrictive than this section relating to the possession of firearms at a public gathering. Such an ordinance supersedes this section within the jurisdiction of the political subdivision.
Thank you for your time,

Nickotym,
My town, ND

Mr. Greg
November 18, 2008, 01:11 PM
Looks great!

The only problem is, without a provision to mandate that schools do not have a right to supersede this law, students at colleges could be punished academically for carrying concealed weapons on campus.

While I would be in favor of such a provision being included in an amendment, I believe that it would be seen as too "radical" to get this bill through, and would prefer that provision to be addressed after this bill would be passed.

We have a meeting of UND SCCC tonight, actually, and I'll make sure this is on the agenda of things to talk about. Good timing! ;)

Nickotym
November 19, 2008, 09:24 AM
Just got an email from Duane DeKrey that he is having a bill drafted. Keep your ears on for more info.

outerlimit
November 21, 2008, 02:47 PM
That is outstanding news!!!!

PlainsmanND
December 7, 2008, 10:29 AM
Im onboard with this. Our sister state MN does not have the public meeting limitations or the alcohol establishment laws. From what I gather in ND if a location sells alcohol you also cannot CCW.


http://web.apps.state.nd.us/hubexplorer/legislativedist/viewer.html
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/60-2007/house/members/district.html

This is what I found for the Fargo area list of representatives and their respective district.

22 Wesley R. Belter
13 Kim Koppelman
27 Lee Myxter & Randy Boehning
41 Al Carlson
46 Kathy Hawken
11 Mary Ekstrom
21 Jasper Schneider
45 Rick Berg
44 Donald L. Clark

Heraclid
December 7, 2008, 02:47 PM
Not likely, but anyone familiar with Wishek, ND?

mwsfarm
December 15, 2008, 10:17 PM
Nickotym

hope you don't mind me cutting and pasting from your post, I just sent an email to Rep Skarphol and Rep Rust from District 2, asking them to introduce or co-sponsor this. I alluded that i had heard that Rep DeKrey was going to draft a bill on this, any updates?

also emailing buddies and asking them to contact their Senators and Reps.

took me a while to find your post, had been thinking about doing it today.

thanks for your work, hope we can get it passed.

mark

Communism_is_cool
December 16, 2008, 11:34 AM
22 Wesley R. Belter
13 Kim Koppelman
27 Lee Myxter & Randy Boehning
41 Al Carlson
46 Kathy Hawken
11 Mary Ekstrom
21 Jasper Schneider
45 Rick Berg
44 Donald L. Clark

Now I have a new list of who to focus my North Dakotan efforts on, thanks much.

Communism_is_cool
December 16, 2008, 11:35 AM
My bad, I'm sorry for dubbl posting.

MT GUNNY
December 16, 2008, 12:12 PM
I went to a Three gun Match in ND once, Great time had lots of fun. If there is any thing a Montanan can do let me know.

Nickotym
December 16, 2008, 03:01 PM
Not likely, but anyone familiar with Wishek, ND?

Good livestock auction down there.

Still waiting for the session to start. Will let everyone know when to contact reps. Can't hurt to do so now, but mention that Dekrey may be introducing it.

PlainsmanND
December 29, 2008, 07:46 PM
Nick any updates on the draft of the Bill?

PlainsmanND
December 29, 2008, 07:56 PM
I should correct my post but it seems I cant edit.

District 22 Senate
Gary A. Lee

District 22 House
Wesley R. Belter
Vonnie Pietsch

Here is a map from the ND site for the Fargo area.
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/58-2003/maps-new-district/far.pdf

Representatives
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/house/members/district.html

Senate
http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/senate/members/district.html

Nickotym
December 30, 2008, 11:55 AM
Just waiting to hear from Dekrey. Will probably be no action until legislature actually starts on Jan 6,2009.

MT GUNNY
December 30, 2008, 12:35 PM
The Paragraph listed as #1 , is a direct response to the DOI lifting Regs on federal Parks. I hope you guys are successful

Nickotym
January 5, 2009, 10:53 AM
I will be checking the state legislature site tomorrow and will let all know when we have a bill number. At that time it will be appropriate to write or call your legislators to ask them to cosponsor.

Nickotym
January 6, 2009, 03:02 PM
Nothing today, they just had the state of the state address. I will check back tomorrow.

Nickotym
January 7, 2009, 12:03 PM
I got an email from Duane DeKrey today stating the bill is drafted, but not submitted yet. It would probably be a good time to start asking your ND House representatives to cosponsor this bill when DeKrey does introduce it. Please start emailing them or talking to them. Use something similar to my letter above with an indication that DeKrey is planning to introduce this.

Your representatives can be found here http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/house/members/.

Mr. Greg
January 9, 2009, 01:50 PM
Great news, and I thank you for all of your work on this, Thomas!

We'll be having our first UND SCCC Meeting of the semester on January 20th, and this will be the first item on our agenda. Let's get this passed!

Mr. Greg
January 12, 2009, 08:58 PM
DeKrey's bill is live!

ND Legislature Page:http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-actions/ba1348.html

Full Text of Bill (Downloadable PDF): http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/bill-text/JBGK0100.pdf


----------------------- Page 1-----------------------

90626.0100

Sixty-first

Legislative Assembly HOUSE BILL NO. 1348

of North Dakota

Introduced by

Representatives DeKrey, Damschen, Uglem, Weisz

Senators Lyson, Wanzek

1 A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact sections 62.1-02-04 and 62.1-02-05 of the North

2 Dakota Century Code, relating to the possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon by a person

3 licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

5 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 62.1-02-04 of the North Dakota Century Code is

6 amended and reenacted as follows:

7 62.1-02-04. Possession of firearm or dangerous weapon in liquor establishment

8 or gaming site prohibited - Penalty - Exceptions. Any person An individual who enters or

9 remains in that part of the establishment that is set aside for the retail sale in an establishment

10 engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages or used as a gaming site while in the

11 possession of a firearm or dangerous weapon is guilty of a class A misdemeanor. This section

12 does not apply to:

13 1. A law enforcement officer.

14 2. The proprietor.

15 3. The proprietor's employee.

16 4. A designee of the proprietor when the designee is displaying an unloaded firearm

17 or dangerous weapon as a prize or sale item in a raffle or auction.

18 5. Private security personnel while on duty for the purpose of delivering or receiving

19 moneys used at the liquor establishment or gaming site.

20 6. An individual licensed under 62.1-04-03 unless in that part of an establishment

21 engaged in the retail on sale of alcoholic beverages.



22 SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota Century Code is

23 amended and reenacted as follows:

24 62.1-02-05. Possession of a firearm at a public gathering - Penalty - Application.

Page No. 1 90626.0100
----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

Sixty-first

Legislative Assembly

1 1. A person who possesses a firearm at a public gathering is guilty of a class B

2 misdemeanor. For the purpose of this section, "public gathering" includes athletic

3 or sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions,

4 political rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned

5 parks where hunting is not allowed by proclamation and publicly owned or

6 operated buildings.

7 2. This section does not apply to law enforcement officers; members of the armed

8 forces of the United States or national guard, organized reserves, state defense

9 forces, or state guard organizations, when on duty; competitors participating in

10 organized sport shooting events; gun and antique shows; participants using blank

11 cartridge firearms at sporting or theatrical events; any firearms carried in a

12 temporary residence or motor vehicle; students and instructors at hunter safety

13 classes; or private security personnel while on duty. In addition, a municipal court

14 judge licensed to practice law in this state, a district court judge, and a retired North

15 Dakota law enforcement officer are exempt from the prohibition and penalty in

16 subsection 1 if the individual is otherwise licensed to carry a firearm under section

17 62.1-04-03 and maintains the same level of firearms proficiency as is required by

18 the peace officers standards and training board for law enforcement officers. A

19 local law enforcement agency shall issue a certificate of compliance under this

20 section to an individual who is proficient.

21 3. This section does not apply to an individual licensed to carry a firearm under

22 section 62.1-04-03 unless that individual is on the real property comprising a public

23 or nonpublic elementary, middle, or high school.

24 4. This section does not prevent any political subdivision from enacting an ordinance

25 which is less restrictive than this section relating to the possession of firearms at a

26 public gathering. Such an ordinance supersedes this section within the jurisdiction

27 of the political subdivision.

Page No. 2 90626.0100



To be completely honest...I can't understand the legalese in the first Amendment, pertaining to liquor establishments. It seems like the law & Amendment reads "Here's the law, here's a new exception, but the exception has an stipulation to it...which seems to void the new exception altogether."

Of course, the second Amendment in the bill is exactly what we were looking for! I particularly like the language excluding the primary and secondary schools, as it shows we are willing to compromise (I'd say it was a "common sense" compromise, but I hate how that's become the leading gun-control buzz phrase).

EVERYONE needs to contact their representatives and make sure they get this bill through! This will be UND SCCC's main focus during the school year, and I'll be contacting everyone I know to get enough people behind this!

Nickotym
January 13, 2009, 12:26 PM
Thanks for the heads up Greg. Everyone start talking to their reps asking them to support this.
Refer to Bill 1348 and ask them to cosponsor and support this bill.

Nickotym
January 15, 2009, 11:07 AM
Getting a little press, the ball is rolling.

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/01/15/news/local/174049.txt


Bill loosens concealed weapons law


Jan 15, 2009 - 04:05:27 CST
By BRIAN DUGGAN
Bismarck Tribune
North Dakotans with concealed weapon permits could be able to take their guns to public gatherings and buildings such as political rallies and universities if a bill successfully passes through the Legislature this session.

The current law prohibits all dangerous weapons from gaming establishments, public gatherings such as sporting events and publicly owned buildings and parks. The new bill would change that, with the exception of elementary and secondary schools and areas where liquor is sold.

Rep. Duane DeKrey, R-Pettibone, introduced a bill that relaxes the restrictions on concealed weapons. Five other lawmakers are sponsoring the bill.

"What better place to take a gun and shoot up a place than a college campus because nobody has a weapon because we said they can't have a weapon," DeKrey said, referring to the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting that left 32 people dead.

Pat Seaworth, general counsel for the State Board of Higher Education, said the board has not taken an official position on the legislation yet, adding that if the bill's intent is to bring guns onto college campuses, then it could conflict with campus polices already in place.

"The Board of Higher Education, under the constitution, has the authority to adopt rules governing such matters on college and university campuses," Seaworth said. "And most, if not all, of our institutions have adopted policies regarding weapons on campuses."

The idea to loosen concealed weapon restrictions stems from a Cooperstown chiropractor who contacted lawmakers about submitting the bill.

"North Dakotans are no more dangerous in a church, park or college campus than they are walking down the street," said Thomas Nicolai, 36, who asked that the bill be introduced. "Unfortunately, people who would seek to do harm to others in these areas do not respect the law."

He said the bill's intent is to allow people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons to public gatherings such as church functions and concerts as well as university campuses.

The bill has been forwarded to the Government and Veteran Affairs Committee. No hearing date is scheduled.

Lawmakers also will mull another bill that would allow guns in publicly owned parks where hunting is not allowed.

Rep. Karen Karls, R-Bismarck, who is sponsoring the bill, said the U.S. Interior Department is already loosening policies that restrict weapons in national parks.

The bill has been referred to the Political Subdivisions Committee. No hearing date is scheduled.

The measures are HB1348 and HB1389.

(Reach reporter Brian Duggan at 223-8482 or brian.duggan@bismarcktribune.com.)

HB1389 would remove parks from the public gathering restrictions.

mwsfarm
January 15, 2009, 07:36 PM
HB 1348 was also the main topic today on the Joel Heitcamp show, really sounded to me like Joel was in favor of it passing. DeKrey was interviewed, lots of calls, almost all were positive. I did not catch the whole show, but a lot of the discussion that I did hear centered on the public distaste for open-carry.

Nickotym
January 16, 2009, 10:17 AM
Thanks for the news mws, that is great!

Mr. Greg
January 16, 2009, 03:37 PM
I'm about to be on air on the show now...

Mr. Greg
January 16, 2009, 03:44 PM
Talked for a few minutes in support of the bill, was good to hear that not many people are speaking out against it from Heitkamp, but I'm sure the news of the bill hasn't spread much yet.

biscuit82
January 20, 2009, 12:39 AM
Maybe i read it wrong, But lookslike a slick enough anti guner has a loophole no exemption for public gun range

Nickotym
January 20, 2009, 03:42 PM
if you refer to the public building part, that has been our law for many years. This law will allow CCW holders to carry in public buildings. Noone is trying to get a loophole against public gun ranges.

mwsfarm
January 21, 2009, 10:40 PM
Is scheduled for committee hearing........01/30/09
08:30 AM, Government and Veterans Affairs

Nickotym
January 22, 2009, 11:38 AM
Thank you mws for the update.

Mr. Greg
January 23, 2009, 11:16 AM
Wish I could make it out there next Friday, but I have a ton of classes (plus work) on Friday, and the drive from Grand Forks to Bismarck is a long one (especially if I'd have to get up and drive early enough to make the committee meeting!). I plan to get out there to testify in front of the House if needed to, though. :)

Also, tune in to Rob Port's Say Anything Radio this Sunday at 8PM on AM 1100 "The Flag" out of Fargo, if you can, as I am scheduled to be a guest on it, talking about the bill. If you won't be near a radio, you can stream the station from it's website: http://www.am1100.tv

Nickotym
January 30, 2009, 03:17 PM
Hearing was today, I think it went pretty well. I will post info here as soon as the actions page has been updated.

Mr. Greg
January 30, 2009, 06:41 PM
I think it went very well. I was surprised (and worried, at first) that the committee did not ask you or I any questions, but then grilled the opposition on many baseless points that they made.

Hoping for a Do Pass...

Nickotym
January 31, 2009, 10:27 PM
They did not vote on Friday, they will probably not vote on it until 2-5-09 when the committee gets together. This gives us time to comment on it.

Those of you who are backing this up in comments in the local papers, keep it up you are all doing a great job.

Thanks to those of you who testified at the hearing.

Email all committee members, especially if they are for your district and let them know your thoughts.

Their email addresses can be found by going here (http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/house/members/) and looking for them by district or name.

Ask them to give a DO PASS without any amendments so that campuses don't get removed from the bill.

Government and Veterans Affairs - Meets Thursday and Friday
(R) Bette B. Grande - Chairman dist 41
(R) Randy Boehning - Vice Chairman dist 27
(D) Bill Amerman dist 26
(D) Tom Conklin dist 4
(D) Stacey Dahl dist 42
(D) Glen Froseth dist 6
(R) Karen Karls dist 35
(R) Jim Kasper dist 46
(R) Lisa Meier dist 32
(R) Michael R. Nathe dist 30
(D) Jasper J. Schneider dist 21
(D) Lonny Winrich dist 18
(D) Lisa Wolf dist 3

PS: I got an email this evening from a House member who said most do not check their voicemail through the legislative message center and email is better.

Shung
February 1, 2009, 10:31 PM
heard about you on guntalk guys ! keep up the good work !

bwhntng
February 2, 2009, 12:45 AM
I tried to bring this to everyone's attention by calling GunTalk today but found out someone beat me to the punch! What matters is that the word got out the Red River Valley. I have sent an email to my senator and representatives and asked them to support the bill and urge their fellow legislators to do the same. I will be contacting a few people I know to contact their legislators too. I plan to keep in touch. Keep up the good work!

bwhntng
February 2, 2009, 07:22 PM
I considered the story to be very one sided and negative towards our goal. I was dissapointed. WDAY said the hearing had more people against the bill than for it. The coments from one officer were particularly disturbing. Log on to WDAY and click the 6pm story but you will have to do it before monday of next week.

Nickotym
February 2, 2009, 11:35 PM
Got to agree with bowhunting, the story was not very favorable to CCWers.

I will be sending a comment to them tomorrow to correct their statement that bars will be allowed under the bill. It restricts carry in places where "on sale" of alcohol is occuring, in other words bars. Offsale alcohol sales points will be allowed, in other words liquor stores or "package" stores.

Several (really all) of the comments from Thoreson and Boyer are exaggerations. Particularly what Boyer said about "plac(ing) deadly fire on anyone with a weapon." Hope he is ready for lawsuits when they shoot an off-duty cop, let alone a CCW holder. This is an issue of training.

Unfortunately, the comments about more against than in favor are true if you count only those who were present. If you count the emailed testimony, it was only one more against than for I think.

Practically all of their statements can be debunked by looking at http://www.concealedcampus.org/arguments.htm in just a few seconds.

As several have pointed out, they are using purely emotional arguments. I believe the legislators will listen to facts and reason over emotion and rhetoric.

Nickotym
February 3, 2009, 01:41 PM
Here is a letter I sent to the editors of The Forum, Grand Forks Herald, and Bismarck Tribune as well as the newsdesk at WDAY. We will see if any print it. I am posting it here so we can call them out if they change it.


WDAY, Thoreson and Boyer not telling whole story on CCW


On their 2-2-09 6 PM newscast WDAY erred in saying HB1348 would allow “guns in bars.” HB 1348 will only allow guns in establishments that are OFF-SALE, in other words, liquor stores or “package stores.” Amendment 1 of HB 1348 specifically excludes “on sale of alcoholic beverages” from the places a concealed weapon permit holder can legally carry a sidearm.

During the newscast, Thoreson and Boyer throw out several emotionally based issues that cannot go unchallenged. They also inadvertently point out a flaw with their own current training.

NDSU security chief Ray Boyer states that they are trained to “place deadly fire on anybody with a weapon.” Even under current laws, this kind of training leads to “friendly-fire” deaths of off-duty police officers. In a state that has issued in excess of 10,000 concealed weapons permits, police should be trained to find out who is who before shooting. By assuming that campus police would shoot first and ask questions later, Boyer is either not properly preparing his officers or just not giving them enough credit.

Boyer insists that a shooting would never take place on a campus but still asks who would be liable if a permit holder shoots in an emergency situation. Current law already lays out when a person can or cannot be held liable. Perhaps he needs to research the laws he is sworn to uphold.

Cass County Chief Deputy Jim Thoreson makes a comment that permit holders are likely to have their guns stolen from them. Is this currently happening in areas of North Dakota where we are allowed to carry? If it is, I sure haven’t heard about it. Maybe that is due to the fact that concealed carry weapons are not visible, the very definition of concealed. If someone doesn’t know it’s there, how can they steal it?

Both Mr. Boyer and Mr. Thoreson indicate they feel that more guns in more hands “will make everyone less safe.” If this were true, why is North Dakota ranked as one of the safest places in the US every year? Is there not a dramatic proliferation of guns throughout our state? When has there ever been an example of a concealed weapons permit holder accidentally or intentionally harming themselves or another individual? While there are threats to personal safety in the state of North Dakota, concealed weapons are not one of them. Annual crime statistics show that rape and murder are.

Perhaps the most telling quote from either of these men was made as Thoreson asked, ”What is the real need for it?” This country was not built around the idea that we need to justify a right, it was built around the idea that a great need must be shown before denying a right. In this case we don’t need to guess what might happen. The individuals that already exercise the right to carry a concealed weapon in ND as well as those who legally carry concealed weapons on college campuses in other states have proven unequivocally that the lawful possession of a concealed weapon does not endanger innocent people.




I removed personal info so they don't come dredging up stuff from here in the past. Don't want to make it too easy for them to pull up old comments and take them out of context.

pesticidal
February 3, 2009, 04:25 PM
I've written my legislators in support of the bill, and gotten a positive response back from one so far.

WDAY always runs negative newscasting. I found that out personally when they ran a story on our proposed indoor shooting range. There were only two vocal opponents at the meeting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGUtGCJLws8

Nickotym
February 3, 2009, 04:59 PM
They must have been short on opposition, they keep showing the same lady against it saying almost the same thing.

How are things coming for the range lately?

I would love a place to shoot when visiting Fargo.

digdeep74
February 3, 2009, 05:49 PM
i love this thread its a great way to stay in tune with your states 2nd rights .great work guys hoping things go well for all you guys in north dakota.
patriots in action:cool:

Nickotym
February 4, 2009, 10:44 AM
Nothing on the online versions of the newspapers as far as I can see. Boyer did make some comments about the NDSU security plan, but he didn't take time to address CCW.

Nickotym
February 5, 2009, 11:13 AM
Tribune wouldn't print it as it wasn't addressed only to them. Will have to see if the others respond. May have to resend to the Tribune alone.

outerlimit
February 5, 2009, 02:57 PM
Are they voting on this today or next week?

pesticidal
February 5, 2009, 09:15 PM
They must have been short on opposition, they keep showing the same lady against it saying almost the same thing.

How are things coming for the range lately?

I would love a place to shoot when visiting Fargo.
__________________
Nickotym

She was a nutcase, for sure, but there was one other lady that was crazy, too. After explaining the HEPA filtration that would take out 99.97% of all particles under 3 microns, she asked; "What are you going to do to protect us from the other .03%?"
:scrutiny:


We're planning on breaking ground when the ground thaws, hope to be open in October. We could still use donations, though. The Urban Plains center really hurt the non-profits like us trying to get some of the big bucks.

Nickotym
February 6, 2009, 10:47 AM
I figured they would have voted yesterday when they had time set aside for committee work. The state website doesn't show any activity on it since the hearing. I will have to do a little digging and see what they are up to.

Nickotym
February 6, 2009, 02:00 PM
sounds like the committee is dsoing some amendments. Hopefully they are favorable. will let you know when I hear more.

Nickotym
February 13, 2009, 01:21 AM
I got word this evening that HB 1348 got a DO PASS recommendation from the committee today, but it was amended. I have not had a chance to read the amendments as the state site is not updated yet.

mwsfarm
February 14, 2009, 12:26 PM
That's Awesome!

I hope they update the website soon- will be checking it often.

mwsfarm
February 15, 2009, 01:24 PM
Bismarck Tribune editorial against:
http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2009/02/15/news/opinion/editorials/176687.txt

Nickotym
February 16, 2009, 09:49 AM
Anxiously waiting for the state page to be updated so we can view these amendments.

Nickotym
February 16, 2009, 05:20 PM
Finally got hold of the bill with the amendment. Frankly I think they butchered it and will have to see if we can get some of the parts taken out put back in the senate. They totally took out the portion about on sale of liquor establishments. And totally took out any expansion of rights except the protections for students to keep guns in campus apartments and in parking spaces (presumably in cars).

Here is the new version with the change highlighted in red:

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT. Section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota Century Code is
amended and reenacted as follows:
62.1-02-05. Possession of a firearm at a public gathering - Penalty - Application.
1. A person who possesses a firearm at a public gathering is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor. For the purpose of this section, "public gathering" includes athletic
or sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions,
political rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned
parks where hunting is not allowed by proclamation and publicly owned or
operated buildings.
2. This section does not apply to law enforcement officers; members of the armed
forces of the United States or national guard, organized reserves, state defense
forces, or state guard organizations, when on duty; competitors participating in
organized sport shooting events; gun and antique shows; participants using blank
cartridge firearms at sporting or theatrical events; any firearms carried in a
temporary residence or motor vehicle; students and instructors at hunter safety
classes; or private security personnel while on duty. In addition, a municipal court
judge licensed to practice law in this state, a district court judge, and a retired North
Dakota law enforcement officer are exempt from the prohibition and penalty in
subsection 1 if the individual is otherwise licensed to carry a firearm under section
62.1-04-03 and maintains the same level of firearms proficiency as is required by
the peace officers standards and training board for law enforcement officers. A
local law enforcement agency shall issue a certificate of compliance under this
section to an individual who is proficient.
3. This section does not apply to an individual licensed to carry a firearm under section 62.1-04-03 when that individual is on the real property comprising a state or private institution of higher education and that individual is on real property that is a dwelling unit or that unit's related parking and shared space. In addition, this section does not apply to an individual with a valid general game license issued by this state or who has successfully completed hunter education in this state or any other state or province, when that individual is on the real property, comprising a state or private institution of higher education and that individual is on the real property that is a dwelling unit or that unit's related parking and shared space. As used in this subsection, dwelling unit does not include a dormitory.
4. This section does not prevent any political subdivision from enacting an ordinance
which is less restrictive than this section relating to the possession of firearms at a
public gathering. Such an ordinance supersedes this section within the jurisdiction
of the political subdivision.

Nickotym
February 16, 2009, 05:22 PM
Another avenue is that the whole house could reject the amendments and keep the original bill, but I don't see that happening.

Nickotym
February 16, 2009, 05:29 PM
Frankly I am not sure what action is needed at present. The present version is a gain, but just barely, over the old status.

Nickotym
February 16, 2009, 05:31 PM
If only some of the "and"s in the red part were "or"s it would make a big difference.

Nickotym
February 16, 2009, 05:39 PM
Can't really amend at the house level to remove the bad amendments. Will have to see if the will is there to fix it on the senate side, if it makes it there.

Unfortunately with the state site not being updated, we have been left in the dark on this for too long. Hopefully it doesn't die on the House floor.

Mr. Greg
February 16, 2009, 06:18 PM
Very confusing wording...

If I understand it correctly, it throws out pretty much EVERYTHING this bill hopes to do except for allowing carry in college apartments. [Whoops, looking back, I see you noted this Tom...I kinda skipped straight to the passage...heh]. I can't believe they threw everything else in the "public gatherings" restrictions clause out. I can only hope the Senate will deal better with it than this, it's a huge disappointment.

outerlimit
February 16, 2009, 06:20 PM
The Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to ban bottle rockets, even though the polls were about 90% against a bottle rocket ban, so nothing surprises me anymore.

Nickotym
February 16, 2009, 07:13 PM
The house just voted to accept the amendment. The final passage vote is tomorrow. Keep asking your reps to pass it as amended in hopes that it can be fixed on the senate side. If it doesn't get fixed we can ask for it to be killed or accept it as amended.

Nickotym
February 17, 2009, 11:19 AM
Keep on your reps, today. Email them all if possible. I have a feeling it is going to go down in flames, but keep trying to we can't try any more.

pesticidal
February 17, 2009, 12:07 PM
Very confusing wording...


No kidding.

:scrutiny:

I e-mailed my representatives for an explanation. No answer yet

outerlimit
February 17, 2009, 12:32 PM
It IS very strange wording. From what I can gather from the amended version, with a CCP or with a hunters safety certificate, (for some reason they decided to include hunter's safety graduates) you still cannot carry on a college campus. However it looks like the carry in public parks 'not designated hunting', state buildings and at public gatherings wording is still there, so those provisions still look to be intact.

I'm not really sure about all that, but that's just what I gather, without going over it more thoroughly and academically.

From what I've been reading and hearing lately, it looks like higher ed might not get their raise this session because of their constant and nutty tuition rate increases, so maybe the legislators figured they had to throw them a bone.

Nickotym
February 17, 2009, 01:10 PM
No, everything got taken out except what is in red. That is the only change to current law. With the revised form of this bill ONLY carry in campus apartments and their parking areas are changed.


i will update later this afternoon, but one of the House leaders told me that DeKrey had to pull out as carrier due to pressure from other sources and she was not hopeful for passage.

Nickotym
February 17, 2009, 01:11 PM
HB 1389 which changes the law to allow carry in state and national parks is good to go however and will probably pass without opposition.

Nickotym
February 17, 2009, 01:13 PM
It might have been a political no no, but I sent an email to every house member a few minutes ago. One respondent talked about how just because we were law abiding when we went through the background check doesn't mean we will stay that way. He is voting against it on these grounds. Guess what letter was behind his name.

bwhntng
February 17, 2009, 03:51 PM
My take on the amendments is that paragraph one lists where people without a CWP cannot take a firearm. Apparently that doesn't apply to other dangerous weapons. Paragraph three says it is okay to take a firearm to public gathering if you have a CWP. Paragraph three restricts the campus carry to dwelling units and cars in campus parking and not in class rooms or other buildings. I also noted that paragraph three has no mention of elementary, middle, or high school which means that we would be able to carry in and around those buildings.

So this would be better than the current law but certainly not where it should be if you read Article 1, Section 1 of the ND constitution. So Higher Ed will be gun ban for the most part.

ND Constitution, Article 1, Section 1:
All individuals… have certain inalienable rights, among which are… defending life and liberty…and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state,… which shall not be infringed.

Nickotym
February 17, 2009, 04:03 PM
No, bwhntng, I am afraid you are mistaken. If only you were correct, it would be great.

Paragraph 3 lets you carry at what is currently considered a public gathering only when that occurs at on campus apartments or their associated parking areas. The change from regular color to red just denotes the changes, it does not start a new sentence.

The watered down bill does not remove any areas we can currently carry, but it only benefits students who want to keep and carry a gun at their on campus apartment.

Nickotym
February 17, 2009, 04:21 PM
They are done working on bills for the day. vote will be held in next few days.

bwhntng
February 17, 2009, 09:56 PM
After looking at it again I have to agree with you. That being the case we really do need to see the amendments to the bill removed. Who is our champion in the House if DeKrey has pulled out?

Nickotym
February 17, 2009, 10:09 PM
After looking at it again I have to agree with you. That being the case we really do need to see the amendments to the bill removed. Who is our champion in the House if DeKrey has pulled out?

I believe Grande will be presenting the bill tomorrow. If we can get enough people to tell their reps to vote on do pass on it, we may have a chance to change it in the senate. I emailed Lyson and Wanzek who will sponsor it in the senate. Will have to see what happens with the vote tomorrow. In the meantime, email your reps.

pesticidal
February 18, 2009, 10:11 AM
Bette lives just a few doors down from me, yet she has not responded to my e-mails.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 11:25 AM
Pesti, I have gotten fairly quick response from her regarding this. I believe she is strongly in our corner on this.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 04:34 PM
The mutilated form of 1348 is coming for a vote within a short time. I will post results. and play by play of any debate.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 05:08 PM
The bill passed 48yeas-46nays!!!

I will put some of the debate up a little later.

Now if only we can improve it in the senate.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 05:32 PM
OK, done listening to the debate on 1351 and 1389, both of which passed.

I will be paraphrasing greatly, but here is the substance of what happened during the debate on 1348. My audio feed kept cutting out as well, I will put ellipses where it did that.

Grande: the bill was amended down considerably, it only applies to college apartments and parking areas, does not apply to dorms, sororities and fraternities.

Froseth: not comfortable, not any safer, bring gun on campus not safe. lots of gray areas in current law.
only testimony in support was UND SCCC and 2 other individuals. My comments: WE NEED MORE IN SUPPORT AT SENATE HEARING, ESP IF WE WANT TO TRY TO GET MORE PUBLIC GATHERING RESTRICTIONS REMOVED BY AMENDING THE BILL!!!
Opposition was student organizations, NDSU chief of police, Cass county deputy. He got several emails from ND higher ed, Wahpeton SCS, ND state housing officer association etc. Said it would be hard to manage provisions. stated how some apartments have children, concerned about safety of grandchildren My comments: I am concerned about the safety of my children, that is why I chose to carry concealed. These folks assume that guns and children are a magical combination where the gun will jump out of your holster and attack the innocent children.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 05:39 PM
Debate continued:

Dahl: ( think S Dahl my audio cut out) Spoke in favor, colleges can still make rules.

Ruby: CCW are law abiding, the law abiding are harmed most by restrictions when not allowed to carry

Sukut: sound cut out ... wanted to relay some comments from Lynn Aaberg at Williston college she dind't want her kids to have to deal with concealed weapons at school. ... audio cut out... the may cause more problems than it solves

Mueller: wanted to empahsize some points, referenced "West" (sic) Virginia Tech, don't want that to happen here My comments: Then let us protect ourselves. Bill doesn't say what a concealed weapon is, could be a AK47oooh, an evil AK
When I was on campus, pressure, roommate conflicts, alcohol all lead to bad decisions, shouldn't be a gun accessible. Vote no.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 06:03 PM
More debate:

Pinkerton: his son attended UND, at that time they had policies where guns could be stored, can't store weapons at present

Grande: My comments: I wish I was in her district, I would vote for her in a heartbeat for this and her other stances on issues dear to me.People with a CCW are law abiding, upstanding citizens, to get a permit she had to get fingerprinted, BCI background check, If yo vote against this you say law abiding shouldn't be able to have guns, but bad guys can. The language the universities had trouble with (she said the univeristies excuses) have been removed. Bill allows you to protect yourself where you are living. As far as hunting, you can store your hunting rifles at your apartment if you have completed hunter's safety. We are talking about the law abiding here. My comments: She was speaking from the heart, you could tell she is passionate about this.

Kaldor: Can I ask Grande a question? Are there any prohibitions for a college to allow guns on campus at present? My comments: I think he meant "can any colleges allow guns at present with current law?"

Grande: they can't allow them now, but even with this new law a college could still make their own policy.

Kaldor: I am unclear. They can allow them now, but they must be in a central repository. I can see the desire for allowing protection, but this is not the right direction.

...audio cut out...

Ammerman (sp): Mentioned the NDSCS at Wahpeton incident this feb where a student had unloaded guns in his car ( rifle and a handgun) Also last november a student was seen walking out of a dorm with a "45" loaded with hollowpoints and one in the chamber. The guy was illegal, but he put a lot of emphasis on being hollowpoints and one in chamber, he should have asked the cop who told him this how he carries. for self defense, hollowpoints and one in chamber is best.

audio kept cutting out....

made a big deal that the student at NDSCS this feb had an AK47, those evil AKs again

Schmidt: made some comments, but my sound cut out... What concerns me is this does not permit any ....My comments: I think he made some question about the pre-emption clause at the end of the bill which is old law.

Boehning: ? for Amerman - Did the students expelled at NDSCS have permits?

Amerman: Not sure, it is under appeal, the guy with the 45 ws allowed back at school, but can't live on campus, the guy in feb is under appeal.

Boehning: lost sound again, the server must have been swamped. Something about In both instances

Amerman: One had a loaded 45, the other had a pistol and rifle.

Boehning: There is no boogeyman in this bill, CCW holders are living in apartments, law enforcement allowed them to get permits. Criminals don't have permits.

No further discussion, vote was held, 48 yeas, 46 nays, HB 1348 passed.

psyopspec
February 18, 2009, 07:37 PM
I also noted that paragraph three has no mention of elementary, middle, or high school which means that we would be able to carry in and around those buildings.

DO NOT CARRY ONTO K-12 SCHOOL GROUNDS. ND law doesn't address it, but federal law makes it a no-no. Get caught doing this, and you will be arrested and prosecuted.

Nickotym, thanks for all the work you put into this. I'm sad to see they gutted the bill.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 08:01 PM
I was wrong on what Psyopspec quoted from me in his last post.

DO NOT CARRY ONTO K-12 SCHOOL GROUNDS. ND law doesn't address it, but federal law makes it a no-no. Get caught doing this, and you will be arrested and prosecuted.



You are correct psyopspec, however, if ND law did allow it fed law would too.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/922(q).html
(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects
interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school
zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a
political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an
individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify
that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) that is—
(I) not loaded; and
(II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered into between a school in the school zone and the
individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining
access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school
authorities.



For the foreseeable future though, K-12 carry will be a no-no in ND.

Nickotym
February 18, 2009, 08:06 PM
Anyone local that catches newscasts or newspaper articles please pm me on them.

outerlimit
February 19, 2009, 09:37 AM
I think the original version could have passed without being amended if the college campus part was left out. We have a lot of 'it takes a village' nanny state types in higher ed that will always raise a stink about stuff like this.

Nickotym
February 19, 2009, 12:07 PM
Here is the list of how the reps voted on the bill. There were 3 Ds who voted for it and several Rs who voted against it.

SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILL
HB 1348: A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota
Century Code, relating to the possession of a firearm at a public gathering.
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the amended bill, which has been read, and has
committee recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 48 YEAS,
46 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 0 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.
YEAS: Bellew; Belter; Berg; Boe; Boehning; Brandenburg; Carlson; Dahl; Damschen; DeKrey;
Delzer; Dosch; Frantsvog; Froelich; Grande; Headland; Karls; Kasper; Kelsch, R.;
Kelsh, J.; Kempenich; Kerzman; Klein; Klemin; Koppelman; Kreidt; Kretschmar;
Meier, L.; Meyer, S.; Nathe; Nelson; Pietsch; Pollert; Porter; Ruby; Rust; Schatz;
Schneider; Skarphol; Svedjan; Thoreson; Uglem; Vigesaa; Wald; Weiler; Weisz;
Wrangham; Speaker Monson
NAYS: Amerman; Boucher; Clark; Conklin; Conrad; Delmore; Drovdal; Ekstrom; Froseth;
Glassheim; Griffin; Gruchalla; Hanson; Hatlestad; Hawken; Heller; Hofstad; Holman;
Hunskor; Johnson, D.; Johnson, N.; Kaldor; Keiser; Kelsh, S.; Kilichowski; Kingsbury;
Kroeber; Martinson; Metcalf; Mock; Mueller; Myxter; Nottestad; Onstad; Pinkerton;
Potter; Schmidt; Sukut; Thorpe; Vig; Wall; Wieland; Williams; Winrich; Wolf; Zaiser

psyopspec
February 19, 2009, 08:24 PM
John Wall was my high school journalism teacher for three years, and Clark Williams was my high school principal during the same time. Upstanding gentlemen for the most part, but too bad they voted the way they did. I'll try to find out why next time I see either of them.

Nickotym
February 19, 2009, 11:48 PM
Glad to have you back on board at least in spirit even though you no longer live in ND, psyopspec.

Nickotym
February 20, 2009, 01:01 PM
start sending this out, adapting by adding your name and town in ND or where you are from if you would visit ND.

Sample email to send to senators on HB 1348:


Dear Senator __________:
The original version of House Bill 1348 would have been a landmark step for North Dakota citizens who wish to legally protect themselves and their families. Currently, the estimated 13,000 to 15,000 North Dakotans that possess a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) cannot utilize said permit in many places. All CCW permit holders would benefit from a uniform standard of CCW eligibility throughout the state. Law abiding citizens would no longer have to forgo the most efficient means of protecting themselves and their families while in a church, college, public park, or other publicly owned property.

Despite this bill clearly being about the rights of CCW permit holders, not just college students, the local media outlets turned this into a debate solely about the rights of CCW permit holders who are college students, and the amended version of HB 1348 reflects that. Eliminated completely from the bill are ANY AND ALL provisions that benefit CCW permit holders who happen to NOT reside in a college apartment in the state of North Dakota. Essentially, members of the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee, due to pressure from people affiliated with North Dakota Higher Education, amended the bill so that it solely affects college students and faculty. While the repealing of the ban on firearms in college apartments (such as the one enacted by UND in the summer of 2008) is certainly a victory, House Bill 1348 no longer affects the majority of CCW permit holders in North Dakota. Moreover, the bill does not at all impact the constituents who worked in conjunction with Representative DeKrey to author the bill prior to the legislative session.
North Dakota gun owners, especially CCW permit holders, are among some of the most law-abiding citizens in all of this great country. Crime rates amongst CCW permit holders nationally are much lower than those of the general public and in many places even lower than crime rates among police officers. Additionally, several members of North Dakota’s legislative body possess CCW permits. I urge you to cease the criminalization of law-abiding North Dakotans that wish to protect themselves and their families.
I would like to ask that you amend HB 1348 to return it to its initial purpose and maintain the protections offered to college students by the amended version passed by the House of Representatives.
Sincerely,

___________________

Nickotym
February 20, 2009, 01:09 PM
I've listed it before in the thread, but contact info for the senators can be found at http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/61-2009/senate/members/


thanks all

pesticidal
February 20, 2009, 01:46 PM
Letter sent. Thanks.

NDGeek
February 23, 2009, 08:07 PM
psyopspec

Remind me give you a severe beating next time you come back for not telling me about this thread.

On a side note, Mr. Bulgaria said you wanted him to buy your .50. Sick of it already?

pesticidal

Geez, only in ND. You live just a few houses down from Rep. Grande? I live 3 houses away from her. I sent you a PM.

Nickotym
February 26, 2009, 08:21 PM
HB 1348 has been assigned to the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee in the Senate. They meet Thursday and Friday. The members are:
(R) Dick Dever - Chairman
(R) Dave Oehlke - Vice Chairman
(R) Dwight Cook
(R) Robert M. Horne
(R) Carolyn Nelson

There is no hearing scheduled for 1348 next week. Hopefully I can give more than 1 weeks notice before the hearing.

Nickotym
February 26, 2009, 09:11 PM
Here is the amended text of the bill as we would like to see it:


A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the possession of a firearm at a public gathering.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT. Section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota Century Code is amended and reenacted as follows:
1. A person who possesses a firearm at a public gathering is guilty of a class B
misdemeanor. For the purpose of this section, "public gathering" includes athletic
or sporting events, schools or school functions, churches or church functions,
political rallies or functions, musical concerts, and individuals in publicly owned
parks where hunting is not allowed by proclamation and publicly owned or
operated buildings.

2. This section does not apply to law enforcement officers; members of the armed
forces of the United States or national guard, organized reserves, state defense
forces, or state guard organizations, when on duty; competitors participating in
organized sport shooting events; gun and antique shows; participants using blank
cartridge firearms at sporting or theatrical events; any firearms carried in a
temporary residence or motor vehicle; students and instructors at hunter safety
classes; or private security personnel while on duty. In addition, a municipal court
judge licensed to practice law in this state, a district court judge, and a retired North
Dakota law enforcement officer are exempt from the prohibition and penalty in
subsection 1 if the individual is otherwise licensed to carry a firearm under section
62.1-04-03 and maintains the same level of firearms proficiency as is required by
the peace officers standards and training board for law enforcement officers. A
local law enforcement agency shall issue a certificate of compliance under this
section to an individual who is proficient.

3. This section does not apply to an individual licensed to carry a firearm under
section 62.1-04-03 unless that individual is on the real property comprising a public
or nonpublic elementary, middle, high school, college or university.

4. This section does not apply to an individual licensed to carry a firearm under section 62.1-04-03 when that individual is on the real property comprising a state or private institution of higher education and that individual is on real property that is a dwelling unit or that unit's related parking and shared space. In addition, this section does not apply to an individual with a valid general game license issued by this state or who has successfully completed hunter education in this state or any other state or province, when that individual is on the real property, comprising a state or private institution of higher education and that individual is on the real property that is a dwelling unit or that unit's related parking and shared space. As used in this subsection, dwelling unit does not include a dormitory.


5. This section does not prevent any political subdivision from enacting an ordinance
which is less restrictive than this section relating to the possession of firearms at a
public gathering. Such an ordinance supersedes this section within the jurisdiction
of the political subdivision.

NDGeek
February 26, 2009, 09:23 PM
Did you submit this to anyone in the Senate as an amendment?

Nickotym
February 26, 2009, 11:43 PM
I submitted it to Lyson and Wanzek who are the sponsors of the bill on the senate side.

Thanks for checking.

Nickotym
March 5, 2009, 10:39 PM
Just saw on the state legislature site that a hearing has been scheduled for 3-12-09 at 2:00 PM in the Government and Veterans Affairs Committee. We need to have as many people as possible there in support of the bill. We need to let them know we want it to be restored to its initial intent with the amendments I presented to Lyson and Wanzek and keep the protections offered by the House amendment. Please get this message to as many people as you can.



Please PM me if you can make it to the hearing. The more the merrier.

Nickotym
March 5, 2009, 10:50 PM
Right now it is scheduled for the Missouri River Room. Let's get enough people there that they have to move it to a bigger room.

Nickotym
March 12, 2009, 09:31 PM
Senate Hearing was today. I will give a synopsis tomorrow.

Nickotym
March 16, 2009, 05:52 PM
Still waiting to hear what the committee decided. Keep emailing the senators on the committee if you haven't yet. Last time a lot of the "testimony" was sent in after the fact by our opposition.

Nickotym
April 10, 2009, 10:37 AM
Just caught the very tail end of the senate floor debate and vote on 1348. We got 23 votews for and 23 votes against. Unfortunately a tie doesn't get a re-vote, it means the bill failed.

I will put up the names of those who voted for it as soon as they are available so folks can send out thank you notes to them for supporting us. I will be sending a Thank you to all the senators and representatives who supported this bill and would ask you to do the same.

Nickotym
April 11, 2009, 10:59 AM
Here is how the vote went, please contact those who voted for it to thank them for their vote.

SECOND READING OF HOUSE BILL
HB 1348: A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact section 62.1-02-05 of the North Dakota
Century Code, relating to the possession of a firearm at a public gathering.
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the bill, which has been read, and has committee
recommendation of DO NOT PASS, the roll was called and there were 23 YEAS, 23 NAYS,
0 EXCUSED, 1 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

YEAS: Bowman; Christmann; Cook; Dever; Erbele; Hogue; Kilzer; Klein; Krauter; Lee, G.;
Lyson; Miller; Nething; Nodland; O'Connell; Olafson; Potter; Schneider; Stenehjem;
Triplett; Wanzek; Wardner; Warner

NAYS: Anderson; Andrist; Bakke; Behm; Dotzenrod; Fiebiger; Fischer; Flakoll; Freborg;
Grindberg; Heckaman; Holmberg; Horne; Krebsbach; Lee, J.; Lindaas; Mathern;
Nelson; Oehlke; Pomeroy; Robinson; Seymour; Taylor
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Marcellais

Engrossed HB 1348 lost.
*******************

langenc
April 16, 2009, 09:09 PM
Do elected officials have 'town hall' meetings in your state.

Visit one if so and tell them what you want them to do--you are the employeer, remember. Emails are good-face to face-many times more.

If you enjoyed reading about "North Dakotans: Action time again!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!