Why doesn't this make gunshows/competitions/shooting-related events illegal in NC?

Doble Troble · Dec 8, 2012

14‑269.3. Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269;
(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;
(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and
(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event. (1977, c. 1016, s. 1; 1981, c. 412, s. 4, c. 747, s. 66; 1993, c. 539, s. 165; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

I'm confronting an issue where this statute is causing some to conclude that carry, concealed or open at any match or event that charges a fee to participate is a misdemeanor.

Section b3 seems to allow sponsors to permit carry, but some point-out the "and" between b3 and b4 which would make "permission" only applicable to "hired security".

With this interpretation any event that charges a fee: gunshows, matches, instructional shooting events are apparently illegal.

Has anyone else been confronted with this? Is there case law supporting a reasonable interpretation? Any opinions?

Thanks!

carolina guy · Dec 8, 2012

Doble Troble said:
14‑269.3. Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269;
(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;
(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and
(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event. (1977, c. 1016, s. 1; 1981, c. 412, s. 4, c. 747, s. 66; 1993, c. 539, s. 165; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

I'm confronting an issue where this statute is causing some to conclude that carry, concealed or open at any match or event that charges a fee to participate is a misdemeanor.

Section b3 seems to allow sponsors to permit carry, but some point-out the "and" between b3 and b4 which would make "permission" only applicable to "hired security".

With this interpretation any event that charges a fee: gunshows, matches, instructional shooting events are apparently illegal.

Has anyone else been confronted with this? Is there case law supporting a reasonable interpretation? Any opinions?

Thanks!

I think it falls under:

§ 14‑409.40. Statewide uniformity of local regulation.
...
(d) No county or municipality, by zoning or other ordinance, shall regulate in any manner firearms shows with regulations more stringent than those applying to shows of other types of items.

It also brings up the question that I have had for a while, and never got a satisfactory answer, nor found one either:

a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Just exactly what is the definition of "assembly" in North Carolina. It would seem that the general definition of assembly would be a "[/FONT]A group of persons gathered together for a common reason, as for a legislative, religious, educational, or social purpose[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]" ie. watching a movie or a concert.

It would be VERY hard to say that the people going into a gun and knife show are there for a "common purpose. Some are there to buy, some sell, some trade, some tire kick, some buy belts/holsters/war [/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]memorabilia[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]/etc. Basically, everyone is doing their own thing and as long as alcohol is not sold AND consumed, firearms are good to go.

Just my $0.02 ... if anyone has some good solid information, I would love to get it!

[/FONT]

NC-Heel · Dec 8, 2012

I think the "and" is confusing to people as they interpret it to mean there are 2 conditions for compliance. Here it seems to convey in addition to. It seems to be referring to one group of people then another group of people. It is all about context. I would guess the 4th subsection was added at a later date than the 3rd and whoever wrote the bill inadvertently added the word "and" when it was not needed. It makes no sense to define the people in number 3 if they also have to meet the criteria in number 4. Lastly the use of the semicolon before the word "and" is usually used to mark a boundary between two statements to separate them. I believe that is its purpose here.

skidmark · Dec 8, 2012

See page 10 at http://www.in.gov/legislative/files/PART1.PDF According to http://www.ncsl.org/legislative-staff/lsss/bill-drafting-manuals.aspx NC does not have a legislative style manual.

Based on the above, the NC Legislature meant that all of the conditions must exist. Based on guesstimate of what the Legislature was trying to say, they should have used the word "or".

The way to settle a question like this is to look at case law - how have the courts interpreted the intent of the NC Legislature?

Welcome to the wonderful world of figuring out just what law means - which is often the opposite of what you thought it meant if all you did was read the legislation.

stay safe.

WalkingWolf · Dec 8, 2012

Doble Troble said:
14‑269.3. Carrying weapons into assemblies and establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry any gun, rifle, or pistol into any assembly where a fee has been charged for admission thereto, or into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(b) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) A person exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269;
(2) The owner or lessee of the premises or business establishment;
(3) A person participating in the event, if he is carrying a gun, rifle, or pistol with the permission of the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event; and
(4) A person registered or hired as a security guard by the owner, lessee, or person or organization sponsoring the event. (1977, c. 1016, s. 1; 1981, c. 412, s. 4, c. 747, s. 66; 1993, c. 539, s. 165; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

I'm confronting an issue where this statute is causing some to conclude that carry, concealed or open at any match or event that charges a fee to participate is a misdemeanor.

Section b3 seems to allow sponsors to permit carry, but some point-out the "and" between b3 and b4 which would make "permission" only applicable to "hired security".

With this interpretation any event that charges a fee: gunshows, matches, instructional shooting events are apparently illegal.

Has anyone else been confronted with this? Is there case law supporting a reasonable interpretation? Any opinions?

Thanks!

Even though some numpty added the word and the subsections obviously are separate because they are two subsections, or it would have been in one subsection. It would be like saying I like chocolate ice cream and. I like strawberry. It does not mean I have to have them both at the same time. Or where "alcohol is sold and consumed" Is in one statement and intended to linked.

Doble Troble · Dec 8, 2012

Is anyone aware of any case law on this?

It seems that someone must have been ensnared in this at some point...

Does anyone know of any cases?

cricketdad · Dec 8, 2012

Doble Troble said:
It seems that someone must have been ensnared in this at some point...

Does anyone know of any cases?

Doble Troble · Dec 8, 2012

cricketdad; do you mean "no" as in there is no case law, or "no" that the "and" doesn't mean that you have to have "permission" and at the same time be hired security?

I hate frickin' laws.

I suppose it's time for me to order that book....

cricketdad · Dec 8, 2012

Doble Troble said:
cricketdad; do you mean "no" as in there is no case law, or "no" that the "and" doesn't mean that you have to have "permission" and at the same time be hired security?

I hate frickin' laws.

I suppose it's time for me to order that book....

Your question was about case law, answer no.

Wait until the 4th edition comes out.

Why doesn't this make gunshows/competitions/shooting-related events illegal in NC?

Doble Troble

Regular Member

carolina guy

Regular Member

NC-Heel

Regular Member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

Doble Troble

Regular Member

cricketdad

Regular Member

Doble Troble

Regular Member

cricketdad

Regular Member