A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

Joint | May 7, 2013 | Press Room | Democratic Press

Full MP3 Audio File

Alright folks, good morning. We are going to go ahead and start. we appreciate everybody coming in and we got some issues we want to talk about and certainly the one most expressing on folks ?? this morning is the safety of North Carolinians wherever they go and wherever they are, out of the society in their daily lives. North Carolinians want common sense gun safety legislation and those of you who were here last night saw, the republican majority in leadership here in the state legislature moved in the opposite direction from common sense gun safety. They brought forward the bill that allows guns in bars and there is certainly no ??, we haven't heard anyone in public saying we want guns in bars. Everybody knows alcohol and guns don't mix. It's against the law. And we are creating a situation where we out them together and almost encourage it intentionally. Republic gun bill allows concealed weapons on university and college campuses and virtually every chancellor, security official, police chief, representative from universities and colleges said we do not want these guns on campus. They opposed, they strongly opposed but still the republican leadership decided not to listen to them. Last night we tried to speak up for the majority of our state and 90% of the North Carolinians, the voters support background check and whom we tried to speak up on common sense gun safety legislation and offered amendments for this bill, to keep them off, to keep guns off college campuses and to have universal background checks and even increasing the penalty for drinking while carrying the concealed weapon. We were denied the opportunity to have those amendments heard. They voted in lock state five different times despite an agreement with us before session that they would let these amendments be heard. And you saw those votes are violation of those agreements, violation of the trust of the citizens of North Carolina. We should have an open and honest debate about it. This is going to be the legislation if this passes. We should held the debate in front of the people and have it debate in the chamber and let the members have their say. We all represent our districts, we all came here on the vote of the people but procedural tricks wont save their members from taking a position on these five issues. Their votes last night made their positions clear and they are on the record so these schemes to keep those amendments from being heard at the last minute despite the agreement we had will not trick the people of North Carolina. If they voted to table universal background checks then they voted against universal background checks. If they voted table removing guns from our colleges and university campuses then they voted against removing those guns. And if they voted the table increasing the penalties for those who break the law and put lives in danger then they voted against increasing those penalties and making the North Carolina citizens safer. Now voters are smart enough to see through these tricks, we understand and we know if you table it, you are voting against it and we know that's what happened five times last night and they are aware. They are trying to run from their records and trick the people of North Carolina. We had a chance to adopt common sense gun legislation last night but instead they went the other way instead let's be less responsible, let's be less safe and let's ignore those 90 percent of North Carolinians who favor background checks and 87% of those reported on gun arms. So, it's an over reach on their part, it's certainly a denial of the rights of the North Carolina citizens to have their representative discuss major policy issues like this and certainly the background checks and guns on campus are the things that the public have said they want addressed in this legislation. I want to turn over to Darren Jackson, one of our members from Wake county who have some of the amendments who were even died to be heard last night. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. ??. A lot of people asked me last night that I calm down. That's mad and i tried to explain, I really wasn't mad but disappointed. This is an issue that I don't think is any less important than voter ID. We had a lot of public hearings and ?? heard were

80% of the public thinks we should do this, we should hear this. Well here's an issue with background checks. We have 90% of the public, I believe it's over 90%, the U.S. Senate even considered it. But we're not allowed to even debate it. A little bit of the history of the bill is this provision about restaurant ?? was in another bill earlier in the session. Had a Committee hearing scheduled, had a lot of people show up, testify and speak about it that day, the restaurant provision was pulled out. Those people were not allowed to speak and so then this bill was re-calendared. Unfortunately the people who showed up on that particular morning were only the proponents of the bill. They got to spend an hour and 20 minutes of the Committee hearing talking about the bill and then we were forced, I was forced, to try to run as many amendments as I could before time was called. Background check was one of the amendments I had submitted. I had given it to the Committee Chair the day before, I told the Committee Chair that I had put the amendments not in just any old order but in the order of controversy, ones that I thought were less controversial to the one that I thought would take the longest debate which was the background check. Wasn't allowed to have a vote on it. Thought we might at least have an honest debate on the House floor last night. Very disappointed that we didn't. I don't expect that we'll get to have that debate again today. I think that's a shame. Whether you're for the bill or you're against the bill I think everybody ought to have a chance to debate the bill and be heard, especially from the feedback that I've received from constituents over the last few days about the educational property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to briefly emphasize the fact that what happened last night, denying those five amendments to be heard, was a denial of the process of the House, it's a denial of the rights of the people of North Carolina. They elected not just Republican members but they elected Democratic members as well and we reflect their desires, their concerns, and you've seen the poll numbers, you've seen what has happened in the past when we denied the folks the right to have representation and now we see it again. So we don't know what's going to happen today. We had an agreement yesterday that those five amendments would be heard and we asked about it last Thursday. We were assured again yesterday before Session that those five amendments could be heard and we had agreed that we would not object on third on the condition that those five amendments get heard. As you saw it transpired last night, none of the five were allowed to be heard based on rulings from the Chair and then the motion to table those amendments. So again, they voted against those amendments, they voted to table them and not consider them, they voted to deny the people of North Carolina their right to have an open and fair discussion about an issue that's important to them. Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Leader. Representative Hall. I want to say just to underscore what Representative Hall has just said. We presented these amendments in good faith. Last week we indicated to the House Leadership that we had five amendments, that we would be happy to present three on one day, two on the other. They went back and forth and finally said last night that we should run all five last night. It is really incomprehensible that we would be told by the leadership, by the House leadership, that we can run our amendments without their adding oh by the way we will be tabling all five of them. To me it undermines, totally undermines, any notions of transparency. That has been a word much touted by the Republican Leadership. This is anything but transparent. It undermines the opportunity of the people of North Carolina to see where their representatives stand and we had Representative Insko with her amendment about safe storage of guns, Representative Jackson's ?? regarding safety in restaurants, Representative Alma Adams tried to put in the very important amendment with respect to the college campuses. As we all know, President Ross and the Chancellor of each of the 16 campuses, campus police forces, have all asked for this to come out of the bill. It's just really, really incomprehensible to me that we cannot get an up or down vote on something where the President of the University of North Carolina has asked this be reconsidered. I think that the contrast that Representative Jackson drew to the voter i.d. bill is important. I have always applauded Representative Lewis, David Lewis, for his willingness to have

Tough nuts, send a message and strong safety is not that under consideration to the DS-footed--this is the data bank that was the fifth in the deputy of a tremendous effort that much of the dissipation was that you just mentioned, cannot but the Manson and seven screws, for the people of this, after the need for this make you can do that with a questions and comments as of today could commit a felony and sometimes as high as 90% believe we should have the background checks so goes the weasel machine that these have a good bet that covered in the diplomat, give them a percentage discussed this is something that we can do this is something that should be done with background checks and even the question of those off campus we've had a statement from barley is only university campuses and we could have added this to us,(SPEAKER CHANGES) for despite assurances that we would have an opportunity to do these issues, again like unsuitable for the Woodall and two this house to the respected people have of the house of representatives and deal with the great issues and this would leave a question you should consider the size of the discussions were with the speaker and the old rules to users of living here longer-term ?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) Stephen king people ever-present layer of them are fine where knowingly and analysts say the majority of them can send a shiver its way home from a year on a-half, very long, tedious income they have happened a long time ago when they buy it is very evenly divided it was a favorite, and five men knew her novels chairman of Richard Martin, by letting the interesting thing about this news from you clearly have the votes to whenever you want a lively and today he just said Harkes believes something to get hats and sell, lying there has been a clear majority we can clear until ready to get what you want generally there has been more gracious nest in respect to the process and ┬Čother people that following that could be used by the SEC is that same bed number of motion to table or basically good number of plants and people minutes were refused to be given an opportunity third and sat in the state arrested as a studio for weeks: you nothing is done that for this specific issue but in general, republican, said this again the same as saying that the dismantling bellman we will even do with the ideas of any Health Care,(SPEAKER CHANGES) we wanted me to explain with two alternative comedy is only alternative proposal as would like to shed two down and stop even defamation come into the record will come into the public for the discussion so would it we live in the concern that this won't be a good political move, and as a pinch it was identified as such a thing we see us live from ??.....