Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: State AG implicit statement on open carry?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Alamance county, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    104

    Post imported post

    Just for reference and light reading , I printed a recent (Aug 06) revision of the state AG's guide to NC firearms laws - available here:

    http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

    While lightly paging through it this morning, I happened across the following paragraph. The last two sentences raised my eyebrows, since they appear to pertain to open carry. I personally cannot understand how a visible, securely holstered handgun on a person otherwise conducting themselves in a non-threatening fashion could be construed as being "armed for the purpose of terrifying others". Yet - gotta wonder what exactly Atty. Gen. Cooper is trying to tell us, and perhaps more importantly, on what basis he's doing so:

    --
    6. GOING ARMED TO THE TERROR OF THE PEOPLE

    By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself with any unusual and dangerous weapons, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court has said that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purpose of this offense. Therefore persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.
    --


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    xdfan wrote:
    ...and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court has said that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purpose of this offense. Therefore persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.

    HUH?? What exactly is "go about on public highways"? That first statement seems to meto be referencing"brandishing while in a vehicle" and there are already laws against that. Brandishing is brandishing no matter where you are.

    So that said, the"Therefore persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms." part makes no sense to me whatsoever.

    Was the AG drinking when he wrote this?


  3. #3
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    xdfan wrote:
    Just for reference and light reading , I printed a recent (Aug 06) revision of the state AG's guide to NC firearms laws - available here:

    http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

    While lightly paging through it this morning, I happened across the following paragraph. The last two sentences raised my eyebrows, since they appear to pertain to open carry. I personally cannot understand how a visible, securely holstered handgun on a person otherwise conducting themselves in a non-threatening fashion could be construed as being "armed for the purpose of terrifying others". Yet - gotta wonder what exactly Atty. Gen. Cooper is trying to tell us, and perhaps more importantly, on what basis he's doing so:

    --
    6. GOING ARMED TO THE TERROR OF THE PEOPLE

    By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself with any unusual and dangerous weapons, for the purpose of terrifying others, and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others. The N.C. Supreme Court has said that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purpose of this offense. Therefore persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.
    --
    I don't have the doctrinal term handy, but it I think that the common law of crimes has been abandoned in every US state at this time - anyone have this handy?


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    13

    Post imported post

    I have heard from LEO here that to be convicted of this offense it would have to be proven that you intentionally went armed for the purpose of terrifying others, which is pretty difficult to prove. Its right there in the law, it is one of the criteria. So although I wouldn't be too worried about being convicted of that, an unfriendly LEO could probably charge you with it if he really had it in for you.

    Supposedly the law was originally directed at men who would arm themselves with shotguns and ride in the back of pickup trucks to do mischief to blacks or whatever group it was they didn't like. I guess there was a bit of that going on back in the 50s, etc.

    I think the AG either doesn't know the origin and intention of the law or is just throwing a little of his own scare tactics in there.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Pittsboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    212

    Post imported post

    There are certain criteria that has to be met to get charges with "Going in the terror of the public". To make a long story short, if you are carrying your firearm holstered and going about your every day business, you have nothing to worry about.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •