The N.C. House Commerce & Economic Development Committee approved a pair of bills last week that have received a good deal of public attention, according to N.C. Newsline.
House Bill 133, “NC Farmland and Military Protection Act” – sponsored by Reps. Jennifer Balkcom (R-Henderson), Neal Jackson (R-Randolph), Jeff Zenger (R-Forsyth) and John Bell (R-Goldsboro) – would ban “adversarial” foreign governments from purchasing, acquiring or leasing agricultural land in North Carolina.
The restrictions would also apply to land situated within a 75-mile radius of a military installation – a number influenced by national defense recommendations, Balkcom said – such as Fort Bragg near Fayetteville.
The measure comes at the same time that international tensions have been on the rise amid the Trump administration’s tariffs on foreign trade partners. HB 133 defines “adversarial” foreign governments as the ones subject to the U.S. State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations, according to the bill text, but does not explicitly outline the nations.
Its counterpart in the upper chamber, Senate Bill 394, “Prohibit Foreign Ownership of NC Land,” passed the Senate Agriculture, Energy & Environment Committee last week and specifies the “adversarial” governments as China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.
Rep. Phil Sheperd (R-Onslow) asked if the bill had anything to do with legislation in previous years aimed toward reimbursing farmers for the purchase of their land. Balkcom responded that the bill is more of a preventative measure; instead of incentivizing farmers to sell their land, it targets foreign groups and bars them from purchasing the property.
Rep. Jay Adams (R-Catawba) brought up the legality and constitutionality of preventing a landowner from selling their property to a ready, willing buyer.
“Private property rights are crucial here, but so is national security,” Balkcom responded. “This bill doesn’t impact private buyers or U.S. companies. It applies only to entities controlled by foreign governments designated an adversary from our own federal agency.”
The bill now heads to the House Rules Committee, where it deserves thoughtful consideration. Personal property rights are an important principle to uphold.
The committee also approved House Bill 301, “Social Media Protections for Minors Under 16.” According to a legislative staff summary, the bill would, among other things:
- Prohibit social media platforms from allowing minors under age 14 to create an account.
- Prohibit social media platforms from allowing 14- and 15-year-olds to create an account without parental consent.
- Require social media platforms to use age verification to verify the age of account holders.
- Authorize the U.S. Department of Justice to bring an action for unfair and deceptive trade practices against a social medial platform that violates these provisions and collect a civil penalty of up to $50,000 per violation.
- Authorize a civil action on behalf of a minor account holder and an award of up to $10,000 in damages.
HB 301 also moves to the House Rules Committee for further discussion. Considering the challenges children face via social media, we wholeheartedly endorse this proposal. Kids need to just stay kids, and out of the mind-numbing and overly critical digital world, for as long as possible.
– Publisher David Brown