Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 60

Thread: The proposal

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    It's been a while since I updated you guys on my plan to restore our rights here in North Carolina. So here's the plan,

    First, I'm posting here the proposal for my state representative. I'd love to have your guys input on how to improve it. This is a rough draft, so fire away! I hope to have a final done by the 30th of this month.

    Second, I will post the final proposal here so you can put it on the desks of you reps. and senators. The more we can get to co-sponsor the bill the better to get it out of committee and on the floor.

    Lastly, I will be putting up a website for the bill to spread the word with. Anyone will be able to link to it. With this I hope will spread the word through other sites for hunting, grassroots rights groups, any organizations that would support the 2nd.

    special thanks toDreQo for a great story depicting our current self defense law. Also a very special thanks to duccat51 for outlining the current law so well!


    Please guys and gals, put up some suggestions for improving this proposal, I need all the help Ican get!



    I'm just a bill....sitting here on capitol hill......


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    here is the proposal attached

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    Looks good, except I might remove the scenarios as some could consider the sender a wacko that is dreaming of shooting someone. Please don't get me wrong, I agree 100% with you and know you aren't this type of person, I am simply stating how the anti's I have come in contact with respond to scenarios like these. I also believe you need to mention the need for a true Castle Doctrine Law to be adopted in NC. Use a state like Texas as a example. I will look back to this post for any revisions and will forward them to my reps. I would also contact Grass Roots of NC and ask them for a mailing list and any advice they can provide. 2009 is the year we need to get this through, it may be our last chance for awhile!!

    NCH

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    That was a good story, wasn't it? I also am not sure if the inclusion of the scenarios would be good or bad. It's tough either way you look at it. What you have here is just the rough draft that you and the Representative are going to look at and mold into something else, right?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Right, I need to add something more to the castle doctrine part. Something showing the change in preconditions. I.E. unlawful entry and any othersuggestions you guys have, wording, structure etc.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oak Island, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    80

    Post imported post

    You are in Aberdeen, isn't Jamie Boles your State Rep? He is a good man. Avid outdoorsman, hunter, absolutely 100% Pro 2nd Amendment.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    yup great guy thats why i think we can push it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Huntersville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    231

    Post imported post

    I think this is great, but would it be more advantageous to attack in smaller chunks? I don't know your rep. so maybe a full frontal assault is the best.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    I was thinking about that too. What do you guys think about working on just the castle doctrine and prohibition during a declared state emergency?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    45

    Post imported post

    Looks good

    A guns in emergency bill was introduced last session and died

    It needs to be reintroduced again





  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    Please let me know where you stand on this piece. I am a former Federal LEO and currently the Director of Operations fora local agency with jurisdiction in Johnston and Wake counties.

    I would enjoy the opportunity to work with you, maybe tweak the wording a little to get it in front of the appropriate people and not justa secretary, and sign on the dotted line!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Aberdeen, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Wonderful! I have been so busy I haven't been able to work on it. I've also been researching the home defense law. Your a LEO, do you think the law we have on the books is adequate?

    I'm going to work on it this weekend and post it here, if you want to take a look over it and make some revisions that would be awesome!

    I'm going to cut it down to a "Stand your ground" law and removing the state of emergency no carry law.



  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    First things first. North Carolina is a Castle-Doctrine state. In short, this means that a "Stand-Your-Ground" provision is already in place, and is very laid-back for that matter. In plain English, the law states that you may defend your property, including lethal force, against someone who is trespassing on your property, to the extent that the person is about to, or has already, entered your home in the effort to commit a felony. Several problems arise due to the lack of wording; for example, 'What if you shoot someone as they are fleeing the scene.' To be protected by the law, you must be within the building which is being entered or has been entered; and, there must be a clear attempt to commit a felony. So, in a case where a man shot an intruder in the back, theGrand Jury foundit reasonable to charge him with attempted murder on the basis that a person fleeing the scene was not attempting to commit a felony. In another case concerning this doctrine, a man who ran over a "would-be-thief" with his vehicle,who was in the process of stealing equipment from the garage, was found to have used excessive force and was not protected by the "Stand-Your-Ground" theory based on the fact that your garage is not a part of your "home." Commonly, your home is considered a livable space; and considering most garages do not have adequate plumbing, it cannot legally be considered a livable space. My point in this "rant" is that the law allows you to protect yourself, persons within you home and your property but prevents your from spraying the neighborhood with bullets. In this case, I feel the law is adequate and justified.

    Now, to answer your question on if I feel the laws are adequate. The simple answer is NO. But, only to the wording. Personally, as a former Staff Sergeant I believe in the constitution and of course the right to bear arms. Before I continue on, I apologize if I seem to be all over the place, but there is no concrete law and therefore no concrete statement to defend the right to bare arms.

    When it comes to Concealed Weapons, I believe the laws are adequate. If you are free from any mental disease, a law abiding citizen and intend to use the firearm for personal protection, your approved. No real loopholes and and the law does not allow for individual interpretation. Open Carry is another story.

    If you would like to keep along, as to my legal references, you may want to review: North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 14, Sections 14-269.2, 14-269.3, 14-269.4,14-277.2; 14-409.40; 14-288.20, 14-288.1(8); Chapter 153A, Section 153A-129; Chapter 160A, Sections 160A-3, 160A-174, 160A-189; Chapter 15, Sections 15-43, 15A-221, 15A-222; North Carolina Constitution, Section 30; and 10 USC 311(a). These are all the laws, both state and Federal, which allow the carry of firearms, in general.

    Federal law allows a State to determine its own firearm laws. The State of North Carolina allows county and municipal agencies to create restrictive firearm laws, however, only the State may out-right ban firearms. Since the State does not ban the carry of firearms openly, you may legally carry a weapon in plain sight anywhere within the state; and your county and town cannot prevent it. The county and town may only limit the size of the weapon, which is generally no shorter that 6" in length. The state specifically bans the concealment of weapons on public land and property, however, there is no actual provision for open carrying. Most of the 100 counties prohibit the carry of firearms, concealed or open, on any public land and property. Many other posts within the forum have discussed carrying a firearm in your car, on let's say the passenger seat. While the gun is not concealed, and therefore meets State law, it technically violates county ordinance. Most county laws specifically prohibit any possession on public property, including highways. Considering your car is being operated on the highway, the possession is technically unlawful. The main issue arrives by the fact that a law enforcement officer only needs reasonable suspicion or probable cause to arrest you for a crime. "I thought" is a valid defense by any law enforcement officer.

    Every town, or at least the county, by ordinance, prohibits the carry of weapons in a public place. Again loose wording. Most people view the "public" as any place where there are people. However, the law considers a gas station, a movie theater, Walmart,for example, as private establishment; thus, you may carry on any property which is not owned, occupied, or under the direction of the state, county or municipality. A few posts discuss Cary and an outright "Arrest on Sight" provision which prevents the carry of firearms, concealed or open,town wide. In Cary, it IS lawful to open carry a firearm, whereas Section 22-51(e)(2) specificallystates that the no firearms clause exempts any person from criminal or civil liability where,"The possession or display of the firearm, or other weapon, was the result of an individual(s) exercising his legitimate right to self defense or the defense of others as allowed by law." The basic loophole is that if a county or municipal ordinance bans a firearm, the State law supersedes and the ordinance becomes invalid.

    The wording is very confusing to the average person. Laws are written by people with law degrees, and unless you have a law degree in your back pocket, you probably won't understand the majority of laws. Even witha dictionary, replace the actual definition of a word within the legal text, and your end result is a string of words that make even less sense than the actual law. In my view, the problem is not with the gun laws within North Carolina, but the wording of laws as a whole. In many instances, there is no provision which allows "play" in the law in a "what-if" scenario.

    To give you an example, let me stray away from gun laws for a moment, with a perfect example. North Carolina General Statute, Section 51-4 states, "When the degree of kinship is estimated with a view to ascertain the right of kinspeople to marry, the half‑blood shall be counted as the whole‑blood: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to invalidate any marriage heretofore contracted in case where by counting the half‑blood as the whole‑blood the persons contracting such marriage would be nearer of kin than first cousins; but in every such case the kinship shall be ascertained by counting relations of the half‑blood as being only half so near kin as those of the same degree of the whole‑blood." If you read the law as it is written, you may marry your second cousin but not your first cousin, unless your fist cousin is related through marriage, which would make that specific cousin "half-blood", however every "half-blood" cousin is to be considered"full-blood" under this law. See what I mean? Now if you and your wife are legally married in the state of North Carolina, and your mother lawfully marries her father, the marriage between you and your wife becomes illegal and thus you can no longer be married to your wife; who is now your sister by virtue of law. Unfortunately, the gun laws we now have are written in the same fashion.

    So what do we do to clear up the laws? Many people have created groups to bring new legislation to the table. A couple of thoughts here. The military "don't ask, don't tell" policy may refer to homosexuals within the armed forces, but we can also apply it to gun laws to the theory that if something is not "out in the open" then don't question it. If a law does not exist preventing you from doing something, then why create an uprising about it. While I fully support a persons right to free speech and public demonstration, why would anyone draw attention to the lack of a law. The lack of a law is in its own right a permission. In my personal opinion, you should fight a law that is active and enforced, not a law which does not exist. In the case of a lack of open carry laws in North Carolina, forcing the legislature to create a law may back-fire. When there is no law present, the creation of a law to address the specific concern may actually make the act you wish to be legal become illegal. In the matter of current laws, I do feel the Concealed Weapons laws are appropriately written and are justified. My only issue, to wording, is the common-law of "Going Armed to the Terror of the People" where it becomes illegal to commit an act that creates fear in any one person. This charge in itself has never been punished in this state, however, people are arrested for it. The reason it does not hold weight, it isthe courts ruling (and I am putting this into plain English) that a person may, for business or amusement, carry a weapon, so long as the weapon is not used in any crime and is not wielded about or used in a manner to create fear. The court upholds the right to carry a weapon that is not concealed from plain sight, so long as you do not touch the weapon while in public, unless you are defending yourself or another person from a felony. As the law is written, it prohibits the display of a firearm if any one person is frightened by the display of the firearm. However, the actual definition of "terror" is the violent or destructive act in order to intimidate or cause a state of intense fear.

    To end this novel, my main thoughts are that there is an apparent need to strengthen the wording of the laws and limit any alternate theories. The need to limit a law enforcement officers ability to twist the letter of the law also needs to be reviewed and put into plain English what act IS and IS NOT enforceable by the police. Again, my personal opinion, is that the law should be written to read that a law enforcement officer may arrest a person who is concealing a weapon and does not posses a valid Concealed Weapon Permit, but may not arrest or detain a person who is carrying a weapon in plain sight. The definitions of where a weapon can be carried must also be specifically worded. My suggestion would be to form a "Advisory Board" which has at least one law enforcement officer and one judge or lawyer.

    One last thought, and citing the exact laws would take me forever, the loophole to this entire mess is simple. Private Protective Service laws allow a person to obtain and carry a weapon in plain view, and such person is not required to posses a license if he or she does not charge a fee. Basically, get a Federal Tax Identification Number, create a one page Article of Incorporation which states you are assembling for the purpose of protecting the public for FREE, file it with your County Clerk and your free to go!

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    <-- Acting stupid. Sorry about that. (edited well after the fact).

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    First, all cites are specifically stated, I gave the entire list. Paragraph 4 says, "If you would like to keep along, as to my legal references, you may want to review: North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 14, Sections 14-269.2, 14-269.3, 14-269.4, 14-277.2; 14-409.40; 14-288.20, 14-288.1(8); Chapter 153A, Section 153A-129; Chapter 160A, Sections 160A-3, 160A-174, 160A-189; Chapter 15, Sections 15-43, 15A-221, 15A-222; North Carolina Constitution, Section 30; and 10 USC 311(a). These are all the laws, both state and Federal, which allow the carry of firearms, in general." But, if you would like more:

    NCGS 14-269.4 strictly prohibits the carry of firearms on any state owned property, including rest areas or rest stops along highways.

    NCGS 14-269.3 strictly prohibits the carry of firearms into or on the property of any establishment where a beverage is sold and consumed (this includes bars but not a gas station).

    NCGS 14-269.2 strictly prohibits the carry of firearms into or on the property of an educational facility.

    NCGS 14-288.20 strictly prohibits the carry of firearms at any protest, demonstration or meeting of 3 or more people.

    NCGS 14-277.2 strictly prohibits the carry of firearms at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or demonstration upon any private health care facility or upon any public place owned or under the control of the State or any of its political subdivisions.

    NCGS 14-409.40 limits the rights of the individual county or municipal law enforcement authority to enact ordinances contrary to the State law; and such ordinances set by the county or municipality are only binding upon employees (not citizens).

    NCGS 153A-129 allows a county or municipality to enact firearm discharge ordinances and also regulate the display of firearms on the public roads, sidewalks, alleys, or other public property.

    Now in both Johnston and Wake counties, firearms are strictly forbidden on public roads, sidewalks, alleys, or other public property. The last time I checked, 440 was a public road and soare 210, 40, 70 and every road in the state.

    Maybe, if you actually read what I wrote, you would have seen the paragraph stating each STATE FIREARM LAW. As to your note on education, you have proved my point that people do not understand what they read. And, if you are going to quote me, get it right. I never said they wouldn't understand no matter how hard they try. Now you are just putting words in my mouth.

    As for incest, if you read my notation that I was going off base, and that my use of the statute backs my comment of the law being written in a manner that is difficult to understand, you would have taken the point; instead, you misread and proved my point that you have not the first clue about North Carolina Law.

    Instead of asking someone else to set me straight, tell me where I am off base. With a college degree, well versed in law, psychology and sociology, being a former Federal LEO and acting as the Director of Operations for a county wide agency, I happen to feel my knowledge and research of the law far outweighs yours. Tell me where, EXACTLY, am I wrong. Come on, set me straight!


  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Huntersville, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    231

    Post imported post

    perhaps this debate should move to another room, because the thread is about NC guns laws that need to be changed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    Well, that is the discussion. The laws in effect need to be altered, and specific laws regarding Open Carry need to be set in place. Why don't people read before they comment?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Resto Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    186

    Post imported post

    Very educational, to say the least. I feel this is the proper place for this topic.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    ... Johnston-Wake ...

    Thanks for being so concerned . Just picked up my CCW and found this forum .

    It is great knowing that there are people such as yourself with the knowledge

    needed to protect our rights .

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    37

    Post imported post

    I just read your first sentence and stopped NC DOES NOT HAVE CASTLE DOCTRINE!!! Period!!! We do not have to retreat, but true Castle Doctrine removes us from any type of prosecution, civil cases as well. That is a HUGE DIFFERENCE to NC state law!!! Show me where that is in NC law!! I think you need to brush up on what Castle Doctrine really is. Castle doctrine also allows one to use lethal force to protect property, we don't have this in NC, we have to prove we were in fear of our life, and any other person placed in our position would feel the same. This is very difficult if the perp doesn't present a weapon. Under true Castle Doctrine the perp doesn't have to produce a weapon, all he has to say is he wants your car!! Texas has true Castle Doctrine also called " Make My day Law". I didn't bother reading the rest of your reply, but please be very careful about passing bad information on a public forum. For all members in question don't believe anything you read on any internet forum, always look up the law for yourself!!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    North Carolina is a "Castle Doctrine" state, and is defined by the North Carolina General Statute as a Defesne of Habitation; which reads:

    Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.



    I really wish people would research the law before they tell me what is and isn't true! The law specifically permits the use of force, including deadly force, to protect your property.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    And, to give specifics, I just broke out the official North Carolina General Statutes as issued as a part of my training. The facts are this:

    The 2005 Senate session reviwed Senate Bill 1915 during the active session. The bill was passed, and NCGS Section 14-18.1 was repealled. Section 14-18.1 was recodified as 14-18.10 and was effected on May 25, 2006. The new law reads:

    "§ 14‑18.10. Use of force in defense of person; immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for use of justifiable force.

    (a) For purposes of this section, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

    (b) A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to G.S.14‑51.1.

    (c) A person who uses force as permitted in subsection (b) of this section is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (b) of this section, but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. The court shall award reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in this subsection."

    Section 14-51.1 reads:


    "§ 14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

    (a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

    (b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

    (c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)"

    These two laws specifically make North Carolinaa Castel Doctrine State as of May 25, 2006. Thanks for playing!

  23. #23
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    Any lawyer or NC CHP instructor will tell you that NC's "castle doctrine" only allows the occupant to use deadly force in two specific scenarios. Either the occupant is in immediate fear of losing life or limb, or the assailant is in the process of breaking into the house with the intent to commit a felony. They show you videos at the CHP courses that depict a criminal attempting to force a sliding glass door open. The video states that, if the criminal is in the process of opening the door, you can use deadly force to stop him. However, if the criminal is already through the door and in your house when you find him, you can only shoot him if he threatens you with deadly force.

    Like NCHornet said, a true Castle Doctrine would make it legal to shoot an intruder at any point, since the very act of breaking into a dwelling is a threat in and of itself. NC's laws also do nothing to protect the home owner from prosecution, including civil, after the fact. A true Castle Doctrine would fix that as well.

    I think you've completely missed the point of this thread. The point is that there are a whole bunch of ridiculous laws in NC that make it near impossible for a law-abiding citizen to go about his day-to-day life without being subjected to "no protectionzones". We're talking about places like establishmentsthat serve alcohol or charge admission, parades and funeral processions, random "public properties", schools, and anywhere some idiot feels like posting a sign, to name a few.

    <-- More acting stupid. Sorry about that. (edited well after the fact).

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Raleigh Area, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    85

    Post imported post

    OK. So according to the AG's OfficeI am correct, but obviously you know more than the AG. And, again, you have proved my point. I am actually against the current laws, and feel they need to be changed. Again, you have out done yourself on proving you are incapable of coherently reading a paragraph. You ask for spcific laws and then tell me I am long winded. Interesting.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    14‑269.4. Weapons on State property and in courthouses.
    It shall be unlawful for any person to possess, or carry, whether openly or concealed, any deadly weapon, not used solely for instructional or officially sanctioned ceremonial purposes in the State Capitol Building, the Executive Mansion, the Western Residence of the Governor, or on the grounds of any of these buildings, and in any building housing any court of the General Court of Justice. If a court is housed in a building containing nonpublic uses in addition to the court, then this prohibition shall apply only to that portion of the building used for court purposes while the building is being used for court purposes.

    This section shall not apply to:

    (1) Repealed by S.L. 1997‑238, s. 3, effective June 27, 1997,

    (1a) A person exempted by the provisions of G.S. 14‑269(b),

    (2) through (4) Repealed by S.L. 1997‑238, s. 3, effective June 27, 1997,

    (4a) Any person in a building housing a court of the General Court of Justice in possession of a weapon for evidentiary purposes, to deliver it to a law‑enforcement agency, or for purposes of registration,

    (4b) Any district court judge or superior court judge who carries or possesses a concealed handgun in a building housing a court of the General Court of Justice if the judge is in the building to discharge his or her official duties and the judge has a concealed handgun permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter or considered valid under G.S. 14‑415.24,

    (4c) Firearms in a courthouse, carried by detention officers employed by and authorized by the sheriff to carry firearms,

    (5) State‑owned rest areas, rest stops along the highways, and State‑owned hunting and fishing reservations.

    Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1981, c. 646; 1987, c. 820, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 166; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c); 1997‑238, s. 3; 2007‑412, s. 1; 2007‑474, s.



    emphasis mine.

    COPTF Thoughts on that since you mentioned carrying at rest areas in illegal. The NC site is now giving me problems so I cannot find the specific info I want. But my question is why would NC feel that they should allow me to keep my weapon in my car at restricted city and county offices if I should not have it on the roadways? Curious. BTW, I wish I could read the initial proposal, but cannot get it open right now.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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