UPDATE-Voter ID requirement passes Senate

April 1st, 2011 by Legislative Update Categories: Interesting, Elections, House Session 2011-2012, Senate Session 2011-2012 2 Responses
UPDATE-Voter ID requirement passes Senate

Over protests that they would effectively disenfranchise thousands of voters, the state Senate Wednesday night passed a bill that would require voters to show a photo ID.

The bill passed along party lines 31-19. It now goes back to the House for agreement on minor changes.

Meanwhile a House committee passed a bill that includes sweeping changes in election law, including eliminating Sunday early voting and same-day registration.

Read more


The Wilmington StarNews Online is reporting that Republicans are wilting on a voter ID law under pressure from Democrats and the Legislative Black Caucus who say the current bill as written would discourage blacks, students and the elderly from voting. Under the new bill—which is still in draft stage—voters will be able to present one of seven photo identification cards or their non-photo voter registration card.

The way the voter registration card would work would be by comparing the signature at the polls with the signature on the original voter registration form. These signatures would be scanned from the official document and two poll workers would have to agree that the signatures match. If one or both workers think the signatures do not match, then the person will still be allowed to vote a provisional ballot.

What are the problems here? Let me count the ways. Seeing as how the majority of poll workers are liberal Democrats, I doubt many people will be turned down for voting. Also, what will it cost the state to not only scan and store these signatures, but to train poll workers to compare signatures? Considering that handwriting analysis is widely questioned for its accuracy, how to we expect lay people to be good and fair judges?

All of these problems can be solved with a simple photo identification card. No special training is required, and no additional cost to the state is required unless we choose to help individuals obtain photo identification cards. Call your representative and senator today and tell them we want photo identification ALONE for voter ID.

First ‘Castle Doctrine’ hearing Thursday

February 17th, 2011 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Hot Topics, 2nd Amendment, House Session 2011-2012, Senate Session 2011-2012, Uncategorized One Response
First ‘Castle Doctrine’ hearing Thursday

What are differences of Castle Doctrine bills under consideration?

Three “Castle Doctrine” bills to reinforce the right to self defense have thus far been filed in the North Carolina General Assembly, the most recent of which was introduced on Monday. In contrast to previous legislative sessions, November election results predispose the current legislature to pass some form of the proposed law. The big question for North Carolinians is what version will pass.

Depending on varying definitions, “stand-your-ground” laws have been adopted by at least thirteen states. A larger number of states have “castle laws” whose more limited scope stipulates no duty to retreat when attacked in the home, such as North Carolina’s § 14-51.1. “Castle Doctrine” bills being introduced across the country generally include both.

But as the GRNC Castle Doctrine Feature Summary depicts, not all Castle Doctrine laws are created equal. Some states offer few protections outside the home. With the state finally ready to pass something, North Carolinians should become versed on what does or does not make an effective law.


On February 4, the NRA issued an alert backing SB 34, sponsored by Senators Andrew BrockDoug Bergerand Kathy Harrington. While the pro-gun sponsors have the best of intentions, SB 34 and its companion bill, HB 52, (Reps. Tim SpearBill Owensand Jim Crawford) are dangerously flawed.

SB 34 and HB 52 are substantially similar to SB 928, which passed the Senate in the last session but was killed in the House when Rep. Deborah Rossand former Rep. Hugh Holliman. (Holliman was defeated largely through the efforts of Grass Roots North Carolina in the last election after denying SB 928 a committee hearing. Significantly, Rep. Rayne Brown, who defeated Holliman, is one of the primary sponsors of GRNC-backed HB 74 above.)

The problem is that SB 928 passed the gun-hostile Senate in a greatly weakened fashion: Although Edition 1of the bill offered victims protection both inside and outside the home, including in motor vehicles, the amended Edition 2offered protection only within the home, meaning it offered little beyond what currently exists under § 14-51.1.

By contrast, HB 74, filed by Representatives Mark HiltonShirley RandlemanGeorge Cleveland, and Rayne Brown, offers significantly greater protection than SB 34/HB 52. Not only would it offer protection against violent crime in motor vehicles and elsewhere outside the home, but also better protection against civil and criminal liability.


The first bill to get a hearing will be SB 34, which will be heard by the Senate Judiciary II Committee on February 17. Grass Roots North Carolina is promoting amending the bill via a “Proposed Committee Substitute” to change its language to reflect the stronger HB 74. GRNC suggests interested parties contact all members of the committee to encourage adoption of the HB 74 language.


Although state laws vary widely, the best offer some version of the following:

Stand your ground
This provision states that if faced with a reasonable threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, you have no duty to retreat before using deadly force. The most comprehensive laws stipulate no duty to retreat both in the home and abroad, typically anyplace you have a legal right to be. While HB 74 ads a new § 14-471 with the “no duty to retreat” provision, neither SB 34 nor HB 52 contain any reference to the measure, presumably because it already exists within the home via § 14-51.1.

Presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm
Absent a castle law, even if someone breaks into your occupied dwelling you must prove you had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm before responding with deadly force. Under the “presumption” portion of Castle Doctrine, when an attacker unlawfully and forcibly enters a home or (preferably) a dwelling, he is presumed by the law to present a “reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm,” freeing the victim from proving it.

In HB 74, a new section § 14-472 includes the measure both for dwellings and occupied vehicles. The far weaker SB 34/HB 52 say only that the attacker to a home – and only a home – is “presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence,” neither of which even justify the use of deadly force under § 14-51.1, meaning that once again, the bills offer nothing beyond current law.

Protection against kidnapping
Like many state laws, HB 74 creates the presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm if the attacker has removed or is attempting to remove another, against his or her will, from a residence or occupied vehicle. Exceptions are made if the person against whom defensive force is used is the parent or lawful guardian of the one being removed. SB 34 / HB 52 offers essentially the same language but again, only to the invasion of a dwelling, not an occupied vehicle.

Protection against malicious prosecution
Some state laws offer immunity for prosecution for justifiable use of deadly force, as do SB 34 and HB 52. HB 74 goes a step further, however, and matches South Carolina law by prohibiting law enforcement agencies from arresting a defender unless there is probable cause to believe the force used was unlawful.

Protection against civil suits
While SB 34 and HB 52 match a number of state laws in giving defenders immunity from civil action (such as by the attacker or his survivors), HB 74 mirrors South Carolina in allowing a lawful defender to recoup legal costs from the plaintiffs who filed the suit.


While SB 928 might have been the best bill attainable in the last, gun-hostile session of the legislature, you have worked hard to produce a pro-gun majority this year in both chambers, and you deserve better.

By Paul Valone


republished with permission

State Dems Go After Cell Phones While Driving

February 10th, 2011 by WendyW Categories: Featured, House Session 2011-2012 One Response
State Dems Go After Cell Phones While Driving

HOUSE BILL 31: Unlawful to Use Mobile Phones While Driving

Two State Democrats have introduced and co sponsored a bill prohibiting the use of cell phones while a car is in motion.

“Offense.  – Except as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall operate a motor vehicle on a public street or highway or public vehicular area while using a mobile telephone or any additional technology associated with a mobile telephone while the vehicle is in motion.”tian xiao cheng

Lets forget going after the texting while driving issue, or mandating hands free devices, they’re going for the jugular! I agree in a perfect world, responsible driving requires undivided attention, and cell phones do have the potential to distract people. However, my kids distract me more while I am driving than my phone does. Not to mention, a person can drive perfectly safe with a hands free device. This bill goes too far. Do we all agree on this?

Representative Garland Pierce (D-Hoke, Robeson, Scotland) and Representative Charles Graham (D-Robeson), our state is facing much bigger issues that affect us much more than this. All this bill looks like is a means to collect additional money in a cash strapped state. How disappointing that instead of working to balance our budget, you appear to be looking for additional ways to take our money away.


It appears a separate bill was introduced, House Bill 44, that states the mandate of hands free devices. It was Referred to committee named Commerce and Job Development Subcommittee on Science and Technology, if favorable, Transportation, if favorable, Finance on 02/08/2011…

House Resolution 34: State’s Right to Claim Sovereignty

February 10th, 2011 by scarlett Categories: Hot Topics, House Session 2011-2012 One Response
House Resolution 34: State’s Right to Claim Sovereignty
4 Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as
5 follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it
6 to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people;” and
7 Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being
8 that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and
9 Whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the
10 federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and
11 Whereas, today, in 2011, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal
12 government; and
13 Whereas, many federal mandates are directly in violation of the Tenth Amendment
14 to the Constitution of the United States; and
15 Whereas, Section 4 of Article IV of the Constitution of the United States says, “The
16 United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government,” and
17 the Ninth Amendment states that  “The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights, shall
18 not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;” and
19 Whereas, the United States Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States, 112
20 S. Ct. 2408 (1992), that Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory
21 processes of the states; and
22 Whereas, a number of proposals from previous administrations and some now
23 pending from the present administration and from Congress may further violate the
24 Constitution of the United States; Now, therefore,
25 Be it resolved by the House of Representatives:

26 SECTION 1. The North Carolina House of Representatives supports the State’s

27 right to claim sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

28 over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government or reserved to

29 the people by the Constitution of the United States.

30 SECTION 2. The North Carolina House of Representatives urges the federal

31 government, as the agent of the State, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that

32 are beyond the scope of any constitutionally delegated powers.

33 SECTION 3. The North Carolina House of Representatives further urges that

34 compulsory federal legislation which directs states to comply under threat of civil or criminal

35 penalties or sanctions or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding be prohibited

36 or repealed.

1 SECTION 4. The Principal Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to

2 the President of the United States, the President of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the

3 United States House of Representatives, and each member of the North Carolina Congressional

4 Delegation.

5 SECTION 5. This resolution is effective upon adoption.


Short and Sweet! This resolution’s status at the time of posting was ‘Ref To Com On Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House on 02/07/2011’.
Thank you to Representative George Cleveland (R-Onslow); Representative Carolyn Justice (R-New Hanover, Pender) and Representative Glen Bradley (R-Franklin, Halifax, Nash) for being the primary sponsors of this bill! Check to see if YOUR representative is a co-sponsor, and if they are not, email them and ask why that is so!

HB11: No Postsecondary Education/Illegal Aliens

January 29th, 2011 by WendyW Categories: Hot Topics, Education, House Session 2011-2012, Immigration 7 Responses
HB11: No Postsecondary Education/Illegal Aliens

NC House Representative George Cleveland (District 14, Onslow County) introduced a bill Thursday that would prohibit illegal aliens from attending North Carolina’s community college and universities. (This bill is on the calendar Monday, January 31.) You might remember the state community colleges board voting last year to admit illegal immigrants to classrooms if they graduated from a U.S. high school, pay out-of-state tuition and did not displace a citizen. This bill would reverse that.  Read the entire bill for yourself. All one and almost-a- half pages of it.

So there’s a large debate surrounding this topic. Opponents of this bill would say it’s not fair for students who had no say so in to their legal status because it is their parents who made the decision to emigrate here illegally and put them in our school system. What do you believe is the best way to solve that issue?


– Wendy
Find me on Facebook and Twitter

Be sure to shoot Representative Cleveland an email thanking him for introducing this bill at George.Cleveland@ncleg.net!

Co Sponsors of this bill are: L. Brown;  Current;  Frye;  Guice;  Hager;  Iler;  Ingle;  JonesJordan;  Langdon;  McGee;

Sanderson;  Torbett;