North Dakotans: Action time again!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
That's Awesome!

I hope they update the website soon- will be checking it often.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Another avenue is that the whole house could reject the amendments and keep the original bill, but I don't see that happening.
 
Frankly I am not sure what action is needed at present. The present version is a gain, but just barely, over the old status.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Very confusing wording...


No kidding.

:scrutiny:

I e-mailed my representatives for an explanation. No answer yet
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Engrossed HB 1348

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
correction

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?
 
bwhntng said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pesti, I have gotten fairly quick response from her regarding this. I believe she is strongly in our corner on this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
North Dakotans: CCW changes in upcoming legislature
Replies
19
Views
874
Nickotym
N
N
  • Locked
North Dakotans: Relax Carry Restrictions
Replies
3
Views
399
Nickotym
N
N
  • Locked
North Dakotans - Initiative measure petition to remove public gathering restriction
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Nickotym
N
N
  • Locked
Relax ND resrictions to CCW permit!
2
Replies
36
Views
1K
Nickotym
N
H
  • Locked
"Public Gatherings" CCW off limits in GA?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Mike J
M
Back
Top