Ok - first off I would suggest you not get TOO deep in the weeds trying to convince this guy. First, it won't happen, and second - were it ever to go to court you always want a few cites in your back pocket to bolster your argument that the other guy hasn't seen and prepared for.....
Next, he is correct regarding Kerner relating to more than just weapons being carried concealed.
However, here is some "food for thought" - just using his own citations against him. I could go digging, and there are a LOT more challenges that could be raised (I raise 2or 3 here).... Hope this helps...
And for the record - I am NOT a lawyer.
Thank you for your reply regarding DCo 46-22. In examining your position based upon the cites provided, I must respectfully disagree with your reading of the decisions due to the following:
In State v Kerner, the Court clearly ruled that regulation of concealed carry falls under the purview of the NC General Assembly. While it does provide for the General Assembly to reasonably regulate carry in accordance with common law standards, nothing in Kerner provides any Municipality the authority to regulate or prohibit the right to carry openly. The Court clearly vests that authority solely with the General Assembly, and the ability to delegate that authority to a Municipality is questionable at best, as the matter is one of State and not local authority. It would be no different than the General Assembly adopting a statute that allows for a Municipality to prohibit or regulate free speech within its boundaries, in violation of the Declaration of Rights, Article 1, sec. 14 of the North Carolina Constitution. It is unlikely that the Court would allow such a statute to stand - and thus the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. 160A-189 is reasonably in question.
Even if we accept that N.C.G.S. 160A-189 passes constitutional muster, the Statute clearly allows prohibition on the DISCHARGE of a firearm only. The Statute states clearly that the Municipality may regulate the display of firearms. At no point does the Statute confer authority to a Municipality to prohibit the open carry of a firearm in any way. Utilizing your own citation, State v Dawson - I would refer you to the following (emphasis added):
"The right to bear arms, which is protected and safeguarded by the Federal and State constitutions, is subject to the authority of the General Assembly, in the exercise of the police power, to regulate; but the regulation must be reasonable and not prohibitive, and must bear a fair relation to the preservation of the public peace and safety." Id. at 579.
Per DCo 46-22, a citizen is prohibited (not regulated) from openly carrying a firearm on city property. Not only does Dawson reinforce that such a prohibition is unconstitutional, but makes it clear that the Court sees clearly the difference between a prohibition of a right and the regulation of a right. If bearing arms on city property can not in any way be done lawfully, then the right is not regulated, but prohibited.
There are multiple other challenges that could be lodged against DCo 46-22 with what I surmise would be a high likelihood of success. However, it is my hope that you will carefully reconsider my request to advise the Council to modify its ordinance, so that such challenges are not needed.