Other than honorable discharge?

Huh - I'd always thought "shall" (in legal documents) meant the same as "must". The alternative being "may".

Thus, the differences between "Shall Issue" and "May Issue" states, regarding concealed carry permits.

XD40sc said:

Just because a cop didn't react does not mean it is legal. Perhaps this was a table full of cops that actually support the 2A, and didn't react because there was not anti screaming about a man with a gun. Besides you don't interrupt cops during meal break, nor do I blame them, they want to enjoy their lunch just like the rest of us.

I listen to a scanner from time to time, and have heard dispatchers apologize to cops that they have called to respond to something during their meal break (10-99) and call another unit to respond.

Click to expand...

It's not legal because the cops didn't react, it's legal because the statute was written the way it was written.

REDFIVE48 said:

It's not legal because the cops didn't react, it's legal because the statute was written the way it was written.

Click to expand...

Others (it has been discussed at length on a number of different forums when HB937 passed) interpreted it that OC in an establishment that serves alcohol did not change with the passage of HB937. In fact OC is not referenced at all in HB937

You read it one way, others a different way. Hopefully you will never have the opportunity to discover how a judge interprets it, but if you do, please report back.

http://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Master-Firearms-Publication-August-2014.pdf

Permittees are specifically allowed to carry a concealed handgun in the following areas:
1.

Premises where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed unless the
premises is posted to prohibit the possession or carrying of firearms. Of
course, the permittee may not consume any alcohol while carrying in this
area. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-269.3;​

2.

Premises where a fee is charged for admission unless the premises is
posted to prohibit the possession or carrying of firearms. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
14-269.3;​

Click to expand...

Have you been to a movie, concert, etc. while OC'ing?

jackrockblc said:

Huh - I'd always thought "shall" (in legal documents) meant the same as "must". The alternative being "may".

Thus, the differences between "Shall Issue" and "May Issue" states, regarding concealed carry permits.

Click to expand...

Usually, but not always, "shall" = a mandatory provision so is "should", a derivative of shall
Many court opinions of the words "shall", "may", "should", "must" are out there

You can go to goggle scholar and read the various court opinions until your head explodes ... but it is an excellent examination.

XD40sc said:

Others (it has been discussed at length on a number of different forums when HB937 passed) interpreted it that OC in an establishment that serves alcohol did not change with the passage of HB937. In fact OC is not referenced at all in HB937

You read it one way, others a different way. Hopefully you will never have the opportunity to discover how a judge interprets it, but if you do, please report back.

http://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Master-Firearms-Publication-August-2014.pdf


Have you been to a movie, concert, etc. while OC'ing?

Click to expand...

Have not been to movie while OCing since the theaters are still posted with no weapons signs.

Why do people keep posting items that aren't the text of the law? Even a 5th grader can read what the law says and it DOES NOT say you must be concealed, like it does for parades and funerals.

REDFIVE48 said:

Have not been to movie while OCing since the theaters are still posted with no weapons signs.

Why do people keep posting items that aren't the text of the law? Even a 5th grader can read what the law says and it DOES NOT say you must be concealed, like it does for parades and funerals.

Click to expand...

That would be the Sheriff's association that posted that, you know the organization of the guys with the badges, handcuffs, cage cars and jail cells.

You are not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and no where have "I" attempted to interpret what is actually legal or not, but I will follow the guide lines of the guys with the power of arrest. You want to be a test case, good luck, I don't have the time, the motivation, nor the $$$.

XD40sc said:

That would be the Sheriff's association that posted that, you know the organization of the guys with the badges, handcuffs, cage cars and jail cells.

You are not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and no where have "I" attempted to interpret what is actually legal or not, but I will follow the guide lines of the guys with the power of arrest. You want to be a test case, good luck, I don't have the time, the motivation, nor the $$$.

Click to expand...

You are right, that is the Sheriff's association, the guys who need to be sued to comply with state law, arrest people because they aren't up to speed on law changes, and cost their cities lots of money for making up laws and arresting people for crimes that don't exist. Got ya.

REDFIVE48 said:

You are right, that is the Sheriff's association, the guys who need to be sued to comply with state law, arrest people because they aren't up to speed on law changes, and cost their cities lots of money for making up laws and arresting people for crimes that don't exist. Got ya.

Click to expand...

your concept of "...the guys who need to be sued..." must have mis-read xd's comment regarding the of lack of time, motivation, and especially the concept of $$$.

ipse

solus said:

your concept of "...the guys who need to be sued..." must have mis-read xd's comment regarding the of lack of time, motivation, and especially the concept of $$$.

ipse

Click to expand...

Didn't misread it, just so curious as to why this community, who is so against asking the police to tell them what is legal, would quote a police document as gospel. Especially when it is clearly not what the actual law says. Didn't think we asked for permission around here, we abide by the law as written (or understood in common law application).

XD40sc said:

That would be the Sheriff's association that posted that, you know the organization of the guys with the badges, handcuffs, cage cars and jail cells.

You are not a lawyer, I am not a lawyer, and no where have "I" attempted to interpret what is actually legal or not, but I will follow the guide lines of the guys with the power of arrest. You want to be a test case, good luck, I don't have the time, the motivation, nor the $$$.

Click to expand...

As I reread the quote above from you it really makes me love your quote on the other thread :
"Oh, and never ask a cop, they don't know the law, but most of them think they do, and they will always have an 'opinion' which they think is the law." - XD40sc
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...ence-reports&p=2114390&viewfull=1#post2114390

ELS from Miltary...

WalkingWolf said:

Other than honorable is not a dishonorable discharge, it could be for many reasons. A dishonorable discharge results from a court martial, unless the soldier pleads guilty, it is the same as a felony. I may be off but I believe after so many years you can get a less than honorable changed to a honorable.

Just be honest, at worst you will be out 90 dollars.

Click to expand...

just came across this and hope someone will be able to answer this. I have an ELS, Entry Level Separation from 31 years ago. Does this mean I cannot get a CCW????

Entry Level Separation (ELS)
If an individual leaves the military before completing at least 180 days of service, they receive an entry level separation status. This type of military discharge can happen for a variety of reasons (medical, administrative, etc.) and is neither good or bad, though in many cases, service of less than 180 may prevent some people from being classified as a veteran for state and federal military benefits.

bobin704 said:

just came across this and hope someone will be able to answer this. I have an ELS, Entry Level Separation from 31 years ago. Does this mean I cannot get a CCW????

Entry Level Separation (ELS)
If an individual leaves the military before completing at least 180 days of service, they receive an entry level separation status. This type of military discharge can happen for a variety of reasons (medical, administrative, etc.) and is neither good or bad, though in many cases, service of less than 180 may prevent some people from being classified as a veteran for state and federal military benefits.

Click to expand...

Check with an attorney, but a separation is not a honorable or dishonorable discharge. I am not even sure it is considered a discharge. I believe it was used a lot during the draft, when they found out for one reason or another a draftee was not qualified. They usually found that out in the first few weeks.

ELS is what they give you to make sure you do not qualify for VA or medical benefits.

Separation is, or is not, discharge from military service, depending on the context. http://girightshotline.org/en/milit...ance-and-conduct-discharge-entry-level-separa - mostly because less-than-final discharges carry a service obligation (usually inactive reserve). ELS is "So long, don't let the door bump you on the way out, and don't come back looking for a job."

Discharges are reviewed at http://girightshotline.org/en/milit...navy-air-force-marines-coast-guard-discharges

Since the criteria for being disqualified for a CCW is usually spelled out in the law establishing the CCW, look there to see if ELS is listed as a disqualifier. If you are stuck in one of the few places that still determines "good character" as a suitability factor, demand that the issuing agency document how they determined your ELS is proof - in the legal, courtroom sense of that word - less that good character and thus of unsuitability.

I've never seen an ELS that was issued for conduct reasons actually say it was for misconduct. At worst it is "unsuitability for military service and the convenience of the Armed Forces/branch."

stay safe.

You're fine to receive a CCW with ELS. Disqualification of CCW usually has to do with punitive discharges, Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) and Dishonorable. All the others, Honorable, ELS, General and Other Than Honorable (OTH) are administrative discharges. The administrative discharges are used to classify benefits and reenlistment. ELS, general and OTH usually do not designate honorable or dishonorable. Since these are administrative discharges the reasons vary greatly and no guilt is proven. I have a general discharge due to an injury that occurred prior to my enlistment that I failed to disclose. I was able to pass the PT tests but could not complete long runs. When I went for MRI's to figure out what was wrong with my knee the doctors discovered the injuries. It was obvious it did not happen while in service and my unit commander, a captain, decided to punish me and give me a General Discharge with Uncharacterized Service. If I didn't accept that and sought General under Honorable Conditions or any other classification he was going to seek a Fraudulent Enlistment charge. Being young I took the discharge rather than speaking to JAG.