Armed to Terrify the Public

imported post

Greetings All,

I took the liberty to copy/paste this right from the "NC Gun Laws" pamphlet out by our States Atty, Roy Cooper:


[align=left]By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon, 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 states that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Therefore, persons are cautioned as to the areas they frequent with firearms.[/align]

[align=left]According to my personal Atty, "Intent to terrify", in regards to being armed,would need to be proved. Now, obviously, no one wants the hassle of an arrest or expense of legal fees, so be careful and be smart, however you carry. This is just my atty's opinion, your's may have a different point of view. I feel confident that if some anti-gun left-wing wacko happens to see my holstered XD .45, that does not meet the legal threshold for being "terrified"[/align]


"That Other's May Live"

Dustofff

[align=left][/align]

imported post

Officer: "I say, you there, my good man! Look this scoundrel, with his baby in his arms and his wife at his side, is carrying a dastardly firearm. Are you not terrified of him? No, don't look at the cotton candy in the child's arms, look at that evil, malevonent pistol...just sitting there motionless on his hip. Does that not fill your heart with terror?"






I don't want to type-cast with regional accents

imported post

been in the state 2 years now, and i have yet to see that law applied to anyone that wasnt already committing other crimes.

imported post

There are fourelements of Going Armed to the Terror of the Public:

1) arming one's self with an unusual and dangerous weapon

2) For the purpose of terrifying others

3) goes about on public highways

4) in a manner to cause terror to others.


The only real case-law regarding "going armed to the terror of the public" is State v. Robert S. Huntley (1843).

In it, the NC Supreme Court stated that, yes, a firearm is an "unusual and dangerous weapon", but the simple act of carrying a rifle or handgun is not sufficient to meet the threshold of going armed to the terror of the public.

The defendant in Huntley was armed with a double barrel shotgun looking for a James Ratcliff and was saying loudly enough for others to hear that he was going to kill him.

It is clear that merely openly carrying is not enough (regardless of whether the sheeple get scared), BUT, if you were to get loud, abusive, agitated, etc., then it is reasonable to believe you could be charged with GATTP