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!
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?