News from the South - North Carolina News Feed
Gun bills in NC General Assembly are drawing concern, criticism
RALEIGH — Juliet Rosa, a survivor of domestic violence and UNC-Chapel Hill student, is “a little bit overwhelmed” by this session’s plethora of gun bills, which include so-called constitutional carry legislation, sentence enhancements for crimes involving firearms and a measure proposing North Carolina as a Second Amendment sanctuary state.
If North Carolina lawmakers pass these bills, Rosa may just pack her bags and leave.
Gun bills aren’t novel in North Carolina, but there weren’t too many major changes until 2023. That’s when lawmakers narrowly repealed a century-old pistol purchase permit requirement over Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto, said state Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford.
[Subscribe for FREE to Carolina Public Press’ alerts and weekend roundup newsletters]
This year, several Republican lawmakers want to continue the trend and allow North Carolinians to carry hidden handguns without a permit, too. While they’re at it, they plan to lower the minimum age to carry from 21 to 18.
If signed into law, North Carolinians would no longer have to take an eight-hour gun safety course, provide a local sheriff a set of fingerprints or demonstrate an ability to shoot a gun before being allowed to carry a concealed weapon.
Stronger gun rights bills have progressed this session despite public and private opposition. Relative quiet from law enforcement groups, lobbying pressure and national politics may be to blame.
The fate of these bills, following a likely veto from Gov. Josh Stein, is uncertain.
But over a dozen Democrat amendments and bills seeking to add safety measures to these bills have failed, hinting at a possible rerun of the pistol permit playbook, which involved strategic absences to give Republicans enough votes to override vetoes on their own.
From pistol permit to constitutional carry
On March 29, 2023, Harrison said Democratic state Reps. Cecil Brockman and Michael Wray “made themselves absent” for a key vote — the veto override of Senate Bill 41, which repealed the requirement to get a pistol-purchase permit from a sheriff before buying or transferring a firearm.
Without their votes, the state House was able to override Cooper’s veto with only Republican support.
“It was very frustrating for us to watch that happen,” Harrison said.
The National Rifle Association and a group called Grassroots North Carolina had been lobbying for the bill’s passage for years. Before 2023, they always hit a roadblock, Harrison said. North Carolina’s sheriff and law enforcement agencies would reliably push back, and lawmakers would heed their warnings.
But in recent years, that obstacle disappeared. The sheriff’s association became more partisan along urban-rural lines and law enforcement got quieter, Harrison recounted.
She’s worried history might repeat itself with this session’s gun legislation.
Under the gun
Between 2022 and 2023, only four states experienced an increase in gun sales: Illinois, New Hampshire and Florida had minimal increases of 1 to 5%.
North Carolina, however, had a 112% increase — by far the biggest surge, according to one analysis. That increase can be traced back to the pistol purchase permit law.
Everytown for Gun Safety policy expert Sam Levy sees that as a sign of what’s to come.
Everytown for Gun Safety is a nonprofit representing gun violence survivors. Last election cycle, they made over $7 million in political contributions and almost cracked the top 100 of contributors nationwide, according to Open Secrets. That included a $500,000 donation to the North Carolina Democratic Leadership fund.
“There’s no question in my mind that repealing the concealed-carry permit will have a similar sort of result, which is a huge spike in the number of guns being carried in public in North Carolina,” he said.
Chet Effler, the president of the North Carolina Fraternal Order of Police, told Carolina Public Press in a statement that the organization hadn’t reviewed or researched the session’s gun bills. Instead, Effler said the focus was on “law enforcement specific bills” for now.
Wake County Sheriff Willie Rowe said in a statement that his office is actively monitoring this legislation and “will continue to work with lawmakers to advocate for policies that prioritize the well-being of our community and law enforcement officers.”
Orange County Sheriff Charles Blackwood said he has a rule: Don’t talk about bills until they become law. He doesn’t want to endorse something that may change into something entirely different.
But public safety officers’ relative silence hasn’t stopped lawmakers from speaking on their behalf.
Mecklenburg Democratic state Sen. Mujtaba Mohammed, for one, is convinced that removing concealed-carry permit requirements will make it harder for police to do their jobs, since those carrying weapons may or may not have much training or experience with guns.
“You’re going to kill police officers with this bill,” Mohammed said during a March committee meeting.
Republican state Sen. Danny Earl Britt Jr., the bill’s sponsor, replied that no law enforcement agency had come forward with that concern.
“I firmly believe that good people with guns stop bad people with guns,” Britt said.
Current law states that to obtain a mandatory concealed-carry permit, a person must complete an application under oath at a sheriff’s office, provide two full sets of fingerprints, complete an approved handgun safety course, allow a local sheriff access to records about an applicant’s mental health or capacity and pay an $80 fee. North Carolinians have to be 21 or older to get a permit.
The training requirement to obtain a permit involves a Saturday morning and afternoon and firing the weapon roughly 20 to 30 times, Britt said.
“We’re not talking about a robust training program that people go through,” he said. “The training aspect is minimal, at most, and the idea that you have to go through that process we believe goes against everything in the Second Amendment.”
Both the Senate and House versions of the constitutional carry bill are in the House, waiting for the Rules Committee to take further action.
Is the Second Amendment limited?
In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in the D.C. v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects individuals’ rights to keep and bear arms for self-defense and other lawful uses, Campbell University constitutional law professor Gregory Wallace said.
But it didn’t grant an absolute right.
Nobody could carry any type of firearm, anywhere at any time. Certain people, like convicted felons, couldn’t have a firearm. Certain places, like courthouses and schools, were off-limits. So were military-style weapons too dangerous for civilians. And the court made space for reasonable restrictions on buying and selling firearms.
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a New York law that would have made gun owners provide a special reason to carry a concealed firearm in public. The majority opinion stated that for a gun restriction to be permissible, there has to be a historical parallel. The government has to prove that the law is consistent with the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulations, Wallace said.
“It’s not just black and white,” he said. “It’s a bit complicated.”
Levy said Everytown for Gun Safety’s work is about striking a balance between respecting the right to carry guns and public safety. That balance is often found in responsibility, and understanding the risks and rules surrounding gun ownership, he added.
Democrats have filed dozens of gun-related bills and amendments this session attempting to strike that balance.
They include bills that would make it a crime to leave a firearm in an unlocked, unattended vehicle, require gun owners to report loss or theft of their firearm to local law enforcement within 24 hours and establish “protective orders” to temporarily remove guns from people if they are a danger to themselves or others.
But in the North Carolina legislature, giving a little may be seen as a slippery slope.
None of these Democrat-led efforts have gotten much traction.
“I think there are folks in the Republican caucus who think maybe this isn’t a great idea to have 18-year-olds running around with no training carrying concealed weapons,” Harrison said. “I myself have heard from gun shop owners who are opposed to the bill, even though it makes more business for them, because they think it’s dangerous.”
Brian Sisson, owner of The Range in Ballantyne, is one of those owners. Sisson has noticed delays in getting concealed-carry permits, but he doesn’t think the solution is removing the requirement. Instead, he suggested getting permits “out of the sheriff’s hands” and allowing instructors to run background checks after applicants pass the training course.
“I have concerns that you’re potentially going to have individuals out there who are carrying firearms who don’t know what the law is,” Sisson said.
‘Idiotic and dangerous’
In August 2023, UNC-Chapel Hill went on lockdown for hours. The university’s alert system notified students of an active shooter, who it was later revealed had killed a professor.
The experience pushed Rosa to get involved with Students Demand Action. But Rosa and her peers mostly saw an increase in police presence on campus, which didn’t make them feel more at ease.
“We didn’t really see much meaningful change occur after that to make the campus safer,” Rosa said.
Students Demand Action asked UNC-Chapel Hill to create a translation option for the university alert system after discovering some Spanish-speaking employees worked through lockdown, not realizing they were in danger. The school has been slow to act, Rosa said.
Now, Rosa is seeing the same kind of behavior from the North Carolina legislature, which won’t give Democratic amendments — which include safe firearm storage requirements, extreme risk protection orders and gun-free zones at voting sites, domestic violence and homeless shelters and health care facilities — much attention.
“I know that the issue of gun violence, just from a policy standpoint, can be pretty complex and contentious, but the idea that these permitless carry bills like (Senate Bill 50 and House Bill 5) are the solutions is pretty idiotic and dangerous,” Rosa said.
Survey says
Public opinion on removing concealed-carry permit requirements is fairly low, according to a March survey of about 600 likely voters.
A Cygnal survey found that 56% of respondents did not want North Carolina to allow permitless carry. An additional 17% would allow it, but with some restrictions.
Former Republican majority leader Paul Stam said groups like Grassroots North Carolina tried to put pressure on him to pass gun rights legislation, once calling him and two of his peers “the three weasels” and vowing to “exact retribution” on them for a vote the group didn’t like. It was an empty threat at the time, and the real power was the National Rifle Association, Stam said.
But in 2021, the NRA filed for bankruptcy and hasn’t contributed to North Carolina legislative races since 2022, according to campaign finance records.
“I’m sure the constitutional carry thing is coming from lobbyists, but I don’t really know who they are,” Stam said.
State Rep. Tracy Clark, D-Guilford, has noticed some mail from smaller gun rights groups that say they are tracking her voting record, but nothing too serious.
“I do think that this is a very small minority of Second Amendment rights legislators,” she said.
She thinks the NRA still has somewhat of a hold on some lawmakers. Clark’s a Second Amendment supporter; her husband is a gun owner. She isn’t trying to take anyone’s guns; she wants to prevent future gun violence. But while she’s tried to meet Republicans from that angle, she’s had little success.
But that inability to hold a productive conversation across the aisle could change as the NRA diminishes, Clark said.
“It’s breaking through that barrier to make them realize that it doesn’t have to be all or nothing,” she said.
Other gun bills
The North Carolina Firearms Coalition sent an email to supporters last week about a recent bill: The Second Amendment Protection Act.
The measure would bar state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal restrictions on gun rights.
“We don’t know who’ll sit in the White House after Trump,” the email read. “We don’t know when the next anti-gun tyrant will seize power. That’s why we must strike NOW and pass the Second Amendment Protection Act in North Carolina — before it’s too late!”
If enacted, North Carolina would be a Second Amendment sanctuary state, similar to cities that don’t enforce federal immigration law.
Clark was thrilled when she saw the title of Republican Rep. Jennifer Balkcom’s bill: The Gun Violence Prevention Act.
She was less enthused when she read it.
The bill enhances sentences for possessing, brandishing or discharging a firearm while attempting or committing a felony. Several other bills under consideration this session also increase punishments for crimes involving guns.
“It had nothing to do with prevention,” Clark said. “So the title was a misnomer, and it was actually the same title of a bill Pricey (Harrison) and others have been filing for prior years of actual preventative measures.”
During a committee hearing, Balkcom said her bill would target repeat offenders and create “stronger accountability.”
Research shows sentence enhancements don’t work to deter gun violence, said Levy, the Everytown for Gun Safety policy expert. But talking about the need to be “tougher on criminals” and “lock them up” are common refrains from people who “don’t want to have real conversations” about the issue, he said.
“It’s a distraction,” Levy said. “It’s not a real solution.”
This article first appeared on Carolina Public Press and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The post Gun bills in NC General Assembly are drawing concern, criticism appeared first on carolinapublicpress.org
News from the South - North Carolina News Feed
‘Our Wave’ Co-founder on support spaces for sexual assault survivors
SUMMARY: In recognition of Sexual Assault Awareness Month, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein announced a new sexual assault cold case unit to support survivors, with trauma-informed investigators dedicated to solving cases. Co-founder of Rwave, Brendan Michaelelsson, shared how their platform provides safe, anonymous spaces for survivors to share their stories and access resources. Since its launch in 2018, Rwave has helped survivors from 67 countries and all 50 U.S. states. Michaelelsson emphasized the importance of confidential platforms and suggested creating cultures of respect and safety in various environments. Rwave encourages volunteers and allies to get involved through their website.

April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. ‘Our Wave’ Co-founder and CTO Brendan Michaelsen joined ABC11 to talk building support spaces for survivors and other resources.
Download: https://abc11.com/apps/
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ABC11/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/abc11_wtvd/
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@abc11_wtvd
TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@abc11_eyewitnessnews
News from the South - North Carolina News Feed
Juvenile offenders often denied parole in NC prisons even as adults
A decade after a federal judge ordered North Carolina to adopt a plan to give juvenile offenders serving life sentences a “meaningful opportunity” for parole, a lawsuit making its way through the court system says the state has failed to follow through.
Earlier this month a judge denied the state’s motion to dismiss the suit, which was filed in 2023, noting “concerning” accounts of omitted and false information in plaintiff Brett Abrams’ parole file.
Abrams, 56, is serving a life sentence for murder at the minimum security prison in Hillsborough. He leaves prison five days a week to work a full-time job at a meat packing plant. In his 40 years of incarceration, he’s accrued 11 infractions, the last being in 2005.
On paper, he seems like a great candidate for parole. But the four-person commission that has sole discretion over parole decisions in North Carolina has denied him every time since he first became eligible in 1993.
Abrams has undergone two parole reviews since the state implemented its new process for juvenile offenders — colloquially known as the “Hayden Plan” for the case Hayden v. Keller that spurred its creation.
However, he continues to be denied his freedom.
A brutal killing
In 1983, Abrams stabbed and killed his 20-year old neighbor at her parents’ home after she confronted him for secretly watching her sunbathe. Abrams was 14 at the time of the slaying, and at 15 he was charged as an adult and sentenced to life imprisonment after pleading guilty to second-degree murder.
Depositions from Abrams’ lawsuit revealed his parole file had omitted crucial information that might have helped with his release. It also contained inaccurate information, including that he had an open homicide case against him for the 1982 death of his brother. In reality, the Iredell County Sheriffs’ Office had ruled the death an accident and closed the case.
“We saw in his profile pretty significant, very material mistakes that included misleading information, lies, things that were simply not true which we believe are so significant that it’s a sort of evidence in itself that the system is broken,” Abrams’ attorney, Jake Sussman, told Carolina Public Press.
And despite Abrams seeking psychological counseling and treatment based on the recommendation of the Parole Commission in 2018, those records were not included in his 2020 review.
“One would assume accurate and comprehensive summaries with relevant information would be essential where commissioners vote on more than 100 cases a day,” Judge Richard Myers wrote in his April 2 ruling.
The court cannot reverse the decisions made by the state’s Parole Commission, meaning the legality of Abrams’ continued incarceration is not being questioned. But Myers determined it is “within this court’s purview to review for Eighth Amendment violations,” as proven in Hayden v. Keller.
“What we’ve asked the judge to do is to find that the current system is unconstitutional as it applies to Mr. Abrams, and therefore as it would apply to all of the juvenile offenders, and develop a plan to actually have a review process that works,” Sussman said.
Juvenile offenders at mercy of the system
Decades of judicial rulings have given states plenty of discretion over how to handle the parole process.
North Carolina’s system has changed several times, and starting in 1994 the state eliminated parole altogether in favor of a different system called “structured sentencing,” which sets a minimum sentence and allows the Parole Commission to set the terms of release for felons once they reach that mark.
Those imprisoned prior to 1994 are still subject to the state’s older system, which Sussman described as a “constitutional mess,” particularly for juvenile offenders.
Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions from the 2010s — Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama — resulted in monumental changes for people serving life sentences due to crimes they committed as juveniles. In those rulings, the Supreme Court severely limited states’ abilities to administer life sentences without parole to juvenile offenders, deciding that such actions constituted “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment.
The logic behind that ruling is that juvenile offenders are more likely to respond to rehabilitation and reform compared to people imprisoned for crimes they committed later in life.
“Research in the area of brain development shows that the brain is not fully developed until about age 25,” explained Erin Fitzgerald, a professor at Elon University who specializes in juvenile justice. “This lack of development makes juveniles more impulsive, susceptible to peer pressure and unable to fully appreciate the consequences of their actions. However, it also makes them more malleable and capable of rehabilitation.”
Justice for juvenile offenders
The Hayden Plan at the center of Abrams’ lawsuit was born out of the precedent set by the Graham and Miller cases.
In 2010, a North Carolina inmate serving a life sentence for sexual assaults he committed as a teenager in the 1980s sued the Parole Commission for not giving him a fair chance to make his case for release.
His name was Shaun Hayden.
Every year after becoming eligible for parole, Hayden would receive the same letter from the commission saying that he had been denied parole, despite never having interacted with them in any way or being notified that he was up for review.
“He didn’t think that was fair, and he was correct,” said Ben Finholt, who was one of Hayden’s attorneys in his lawsuit against the commission. “It was a sham parole system where (the commission) never talked to anyone. They just review documents every year, and if not much changes, then you just get denied every year without them ever talking to you.”
A District Court ruled in Hayden’s favor, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Florida. The state lost its appeal and in 2018 was directed to implement a new plan for handling parole review for juvenile offenders.
That plan guaranteed juvenile offenders a 30-minute video conference with one of the commissioners, a specialized case analyst and, in the case of denial, a letter detailing why the inmate was denied parole and recommendations for future reviews.
New parole plan, old issues
The new plan hasn’t exactly led to substantive changes, however.
Finholt, who now serves as Abrams’ attorney for his parole review (separate from the lawsuit that Sussman is handling), has had a firsthand account of the Hayden Plan’s shortcomings.
“The parole case analyst in Brett’s case admitted under oath that she did not consider the advocacy letter that I wrote for Brett in 2020, that it was not part of the record and that she had made no changes to her process based on the fact that the person being considered for parole was a juvenile,” he said. “That is explicitly contrary to (the Hayden court’s) holding that people who were kids at the time of the crime are entitled constitutionally to a different process.”
That was one of the reasons Myers, the judge in Abrams’ lawsuit, denied the state’s motion to dismiss the suit.
However, Myers also wrote that it is “still unclear” based on the facts of the case whether the commissioners would have changed their decision on Abrams if the information in his file had been completely accurate.
He declined to rule in favor of either party and ordered more discovery on the matter. When that is completed in June, he may issue a final ruling or set a trial date.
Sussman said that if Abrams wins this lawsuit, he would advocate for a decision-making process that is less arbitrary, such as a rubric or points-based system.
Finholt has also advocated for such a change, and he said it makes sense regardless of people’s opinions regarding parole.
“My personal feeling, based on my long professional experience, is that most of the folks who are up for parole would do just fine outside of prison,” he said. “However, even if you’re a person who disagrees with me on that front, you should still dislike the current process because it’s not informed by any evidence or any data.
“If you’re the kind of person who thinks that most folks should stay inside, you should also be horrified by the fact that these release decisions are being made essentially on people’s guts.”
This article first appeared on Carolina Public Press and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The post Arrest of Wisconsin judge ‘escalation’ in Trump-judiciary conflict, Democrats warn appeared first on tennesseelookout.com
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
The content presents a case focused on the rights of juvenile offenders, specifically in relation to parole decisions. The emphasis on rehabilitation, fairness in parole processes, and concerns over the accuracy and fairness of the system reflects a more progressive, or center-left, perspective. It advocates for juvenile offenders’ opportunity for parole based on their potential for reform, which aligns with broader left-leaning views on criminal justice reform and the belief in rehabilitation over punitive measures. The inclusion of legal cases like Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama suggests an alignment with the idea of justice for juvenile offenders in line with constitutional protections. While the tone is not overtly political, the framing of the issues reflects concerns typically associated with progressive criminal justice reform.
News from the South - North Carolina News Feed
Mental health pros worry about possible cuts to 988 hotline funding
SUMMARY: Mental health professionals express concern over potential cuts to the 988 suicide prevention hotline, particularly for LGBTQ+ youth. A leaked budget draft reveals the Trump administration’s proposal to eliminate funding for specialized services. Since its launch in July 2022, the hotline has answered over 219,000 calls, with rising demand for mental health services noted by professionals like Shawn Thomas. The North Carolina Department of Health emphasizes that federal funding is crucial for timely call responses and effective service delivery. Advocates are alarmed, warning that losing this resource would significantly impact vulnerable populations.

Mental health professionals say the 988 hotline is an invaluable resource, and any cuts would affect the strides being made in the state to meet growing demand.
Story: https://abc11.com/post/mental-health-professionals-worry-possible-cuts-988-suicide-hotline-funding/16248556/
Download: https://abc11.com/apps/
Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ABC11/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/abc11_wtvd/
Threads: https://www.threads.net/@abc11_wtvd
TIKTOK: https://www.tiktok.com/@abc11_eyewitnessnews
-
News from the South - Alabama News Feed6 days ago
Prayer Vigil Held for Ronald Dumas Jr., Family Continues to Pray for His Return | April 21, 2025 | N
-
News from the South - Missouri News Feed1 day ago
Missouri lawmakers on the cusp of legalizing housing discrimination
-
News from the South - Florida News Feed5 days ago
Trump touts manufacturing while undercutting state efforts to help factories
-
Mississippi Today6 days ago
‘Trainwreck on the horizon’: The costly pains of Mississippi’s small water and sewer systems
-
News from the South - Texas News Feed6 days ago
Meteorologist Chita Craft is tracking a Severe Thunderstorm Warning that's in effect now
-
News from the South - Arkansas News Feed7 days ago
As country grows more polarized, America needs unity, the ‘Oklahoma Standard,’ Bill Clinton says
-
News from the South - Florida News Feed5 days ago
Federal report due on Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina’s path to recognition as a tribal nation
-
News from the South - Virginia News Feed6 days ago
Taking video of military bases using drones could be outlawed | Virginia