Alright good morning I'm Democratic leader Larry Hall and I welcome all of you to the press room here at the general assembly. I appreciate your time and attention. I know it's a busy day and lots of things going on that the people have concern about especially the governors VITOS as well as what's happening with a bill that's been maybe not, sarcastically, but certainly has an interesting name, the second Amendment Affirmation Act. So a lot of the things happen with that bill today, I think you saw that, people of North Carolina as well as their representatives are very much divided on what the contents of this bill are, certainly the sheriffs have been shut out of this process at this point in time and something we have in place that works for North Carolina, is being pushed aside for political or other reasons that don't have a justification and practical application as far as the sheriffs are concerned who are certainly our experts in this area. So, those of you who attended the Rules Committee meeting saw that rules committee actually was split and the chairman had to cast the deciding vote being part of leadership am sure he feel obligated since the bill was moving to do that, but we could certainly could see by the split it was a bipartisan opposition to the contents of this bill and we're certain going to continue forward to try to have it, to stop the bill and have things done in an appropriate manner that will be in compliance with what we know works in North Carolina and to address the real problems we have. The whole question of a second amendment affirmation, that is not what this is again, the citizens of North Carolina should be protected from people who have criminal backgrounds and who might be mentally ill and today's vote will make it easier for a dangerous or an unstable individual to buy a gun, and so, it's as simple as that. Should not be easier for someone who should not have a gun, to buy one and get one and that's what we've done today by passing that Bill at a rule. I personally stand with the sheriffs in this matter and to guidelines and the procedures we have in place right now. I really can't understand and data exception to someone challenging the collaboration of the Seeweps association and probably that they can effectively represent their members, think that really crossed the line and we should have a debate on this, but we so my assumption that be just getting the very expert who is gonna prove this challenges do the help so may have help over here so [xx] and with sheriff's on that matter and I stand with the current procedure we have in place as opposed to taking more control away in making private purchases proliferate North Carolina again as you heard me say before we want live in states where guns are purchased without background checks and then end up showing up at other states at the scenes of crimes and everybody is amiss to understand why that happened. Well were goung further down the road with the provision of this bill. I'll take any questions regarding the gun bill at this time Yes Sir. What's your thought on the guns allowed in legislature bill. I tried to be clear on this I think it's really ridiculous I think I will through the motion in the floor as part of the legislature and all stuff members of conversation that they should be given the course of the appropriate body amour so they can be protected specifically and I think if you go back and check [xx], folks get injured by their own guns, many times, we don't have any safe guns that is in this bill they require people to have anything beyond the minimum level of the point with the gun and have the point that this requirement and to get a certificate for conceal carry and for the gun there is nothing to continue that training and so I think great obsession to that that everybody should be at the walk around with a gun and those are the only people to keep to be protected I think the bill should made safe for everyone we should not have guns and should not qualify with them we cannot keep them safe from other people should not be walking walking around in this bill that for sure it puts us at risk and it puts the public at risk and this is the bill that should be safe when they come make here they should not be required to have on bill in order to feel safe
and certainly that won't make us safe. Yes sir, Miss Lisley did you when you [xx] just very circle I can't tell whether or not you're being sarcastic when you said that you're going to offer motions who provide body armour for [xx] Do I look like I'm not serious? I'm serious Yes Madam. Supporters say that standardizing the background check the background checks would make them stronger, you've heard them saying that. Your thoughts on that whether it would. In theory, if they were all ready standardized it may make them more uniform not necessarily more effective and anything that takes away the independent local information that sheriffs have, that they can use in the process to determine what they know about individuals is suspect and I don't know of anything that show us that that would be more effective in ensuring people who should not have guns, do not have them and don't get them. The sheriff of local is going to have access to more information to people locally than any national database would have and he could pair that along with what he would get from the national database. Yes sir, and then I'll come back. The fact that the bill cleared committee by having to go to the chair for the final vote, do you think that would have, and that was so close, will that have any impact on the floor? Certainly we won't hear the whole carnal that came out of the bill came out of the committee unanimously so we set that aside for sure. I'm sure that the sheriff Association and you had the testimony and committee is continuing to with folks to say this bill as written should not pass. I expected they will throw their full weight behind their position and if this significant changes are made to the bill I don't think it has a chance to pass with that being the case. Yes sir [xx] back up part right? Yes sir. So you've heard the questions posed by majority members repeatedly if that was out. would you support this to ensure association with Winter get answer, we have sound answer that what's the minority? If that specific fortune was changed will there be such an [xx]? Well we still have other items that we specifically object to in the bill, so I'm not again and I have made this general proposition from the time we start giving guns to magistrates to everybody else in the courtroom. If you've ever been into courtroom when a fight is broken out and the mayhem that results you understand and know how dangerous it is to introduce additional weapons into a courtroom especially with people who do not have the training to keep the weapon secure. That is you keep your weapon and so that no one else can get it and we have technology that will allow that they have biometrics on it etc, we don't have that right now and for people again to have weapons and introduce some into that public setting of the courtroom, and not be skilled in maintaining the security of their weapon. we're still opposed to that and we're still opposed to reducing the penalties on people who bring weapons on to private property when they've been clearly notified and it is specified you should not do that they get to reduce to it won't help any significant affect that post to property owner really under threat at coercion or intimidation so we're still opposed to those forces of the bill as well. Yes ma'm. Is there a way, I mean because I understand that currently this appropriate along the next chat only is what happens when you are good a better lesson to it that what the digital permit comes at. Is there a way to have a next check for fine and private sales? I think we'd have to have a system put in place to give the private gun sellers access to the system board to have some experienced with then they be involved, where they will have to go to a gun dealer federal authorized gun dealer have the cheque to run or even the sheriff department have to run but again if you see those require as to have them in the system as opposed to being outside of the system and again North Carolina is notorious for having guns that chop up the states and seems the client and certainly there will be both in North Carolina Yalm Hedem refer to a strong man purchases but it is the major problem the gun barons is major problem and I think this bill just put some more guns of the streets on the hands of people who should not potentially have them. Away, what you are just saying that we have a bunch of guns of the scale that kind already and we will be able to to out. We do and we have a lot of info does this public purchases that end up in other states as well and some means of commerce where the trade the guns for drugs or whether the transaction might be and
this allows even more of the private sales entities. Any more question on gun bill? I want to talk and weekly about the government details and I think the schedule will only use is going to be to address both of those details today I think the gun bill will be tomorrow probably on second of third tomorrow and so most of the energy being concentrated or Senate bill two magistrate refusal for civil ceremonies thank you track the votes previously in the house I believe that the government should be appealed we will work with her to make sure it is appealed thank you for I think the business community has said, they don't want to come to a state that denies the citizens the full rights and participation. And so my hope and my opinion is, that the Governor's retail on that will be of help. Any questions on property protection act Representative Hall Yes sir. You said that you're hearing that that is senate bill two the detail arise is coming up I know it's on the calendar are you hearing it's actually going to come up today? Have you seen the votes that's an issue that's been this hotly contested and out in the public eye so much that's so close, we're talking about nearly one or two people could make the difference here Well, this is one of those situations, and we've heard it before, if you don't like for the constitution says. Pass along all the [xx] illegal, and if you don't what the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the state attorney general says as an opinion and create a law unless you go hire outside council and then when you're outside council loses in court you still don't like that you come back and try to create another law impact people's civil rights so we've seen this before. We started out on doing it on voting now we are over here to civil ceremonies for marriage I think I see a theme or a pattern developing but certainly we should not be engaging in this type of conduct this issue is done were looking at rear view mirror if we are not careful were going to run into something and this is not the way to go. OK anyone else? property protection act we know earlier in the legislature we passed legislation to try to protect our senior citizens mentally ill the most vulnerable against mistreatment in the institutions they are in ad caused emotions since we pay to some degree for that health care and the services they receive, for us to now turn around and say we're making it more difficult for people to report that and document that and ensure our system works and fulfill the promise we made and providing that service as employees of the government I think is a closed question now, but certainly the governor understands the hypocritical nature of saying lets protect you but let's tie the hands of people people who would be protecting you. The question I heard someone raise about, whether or not there will be theft to trade secrets or other things, clearly we have those statutes on the books, they're already there, if you have a legitimate ability to provide the proof, the courts are there, available for you to take that action. If there's anything illegal regarding illegal conduct or anything taken from your premises, once again the theft and embezzlement statutes are there, those items can be addressed. So, this was a bill that was not needed we understand a lot of forces that play this is political institution but again this is one that may be sustain but certainly the tired looked to be the those folks who want this special protection so to speak will denial of citizen rights to report crimes and document and the governor's veto may be over turned, any question? Yes ma'am. You talked about forces at play and focus at what these special protections, can you expound a little bit more. Who do you think is behind this pressure[sp?]? I will say it this way we are in a competitive society and market forces in commerce are certainly always at play if everybody wants to have an advantage. We've made it our particular initiative during the last four years to take away inspection and enforcement authority regarding all kind of things that were put in place to protect the citizens. That has not been enough, in many instances, some of these businesses in some of these industries want to go even further and prevent the citizens who work there
who may be at risk for their safety from being able to report and effectively take action in this matter. And so again you can see the trend if you look at the broader picture take way enforcement capability and inspection[sp?] capability and then when its left to the citizens to save us from ourselves then we say we'll create a chilling effect as well. So, I think we've gone out of balance and certainly I hope that the government [xx] will sustain on this one. I think imparallel for sure yes sir There are identical asset, [xx] who has looked to this bill and says that we my mistake he didn't see a problem with it is it just members of opinion within the coccus about the senatorial aspects of this bill? Well, I think that if you survey 120 members, you'll probably get to some varied degree different views on this bill, this pretty comprehensive bill but again my position is that we have laws in place should that kind of be actionable and you can meet that propodence of the evidence then the laws are already in place and the enforcement mechanisms are there I think this is over key, this is over the top and really not necessary and I think to say is on the trade secrets or some other bill is that, I don't think is justified and again, it keeps the private citizens from being able to take action on things they see to be improper, at the same time we've taken our ability as a state to inspect and enforce anyone else? Okay. Thank you very much. Hope you'll have a great day.