The proposal

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.

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!

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).

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.

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.

imported post

found it 14-409.40



(f) Nothing contained in this section prohibits municipalities or counties from application of their authority under G.S. 153A‑129, 160A‑189, 14‑269, 14‑269.2, 14‑269.3, 14‑269.4, 14‑277.2, 14‑415.11, 14‑415.23, including prohibiting the possession of firearms in public‑owned buildings, on the grounds or parking areas of those buildings, or in public parks or recreation areas, except nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a person from storing a firearm within a motor vehicle while the vehicle is on these grounds or areas. Nothing contained in this section prohibits municipalities or counties from exercising powers provided by law in declared states of emergency under Article 36A of this Chapter.



Again emphasis mine.

imported post

It's a word doc. you should be able to open it. PM me and I'll send you one in any format you want.

coptf I find some of your writing enlightening. However, one of the thing you suggest deeply disturbs me. Namely, the suggestion that a panel or commission should be created, consisting of a LEO, a judge, and a lawyer to interpret or rewrite the law to make it more clear. These people have a vested interest in using the law to gain more power, and I find the idea contrary to my Freedom.

The Constitution created the separation of powers. It did this so no one branch of government has all the power, and it go's like this.

The legislators write the law.

The judicial interpret it within the guide lines of the Constitution.

LEO's keep the peace and collect offenders.


Now, you want a LEO to decide what our gun laws are going to be? A judge in a obviously corrupt system? A lawyer?

I find the entire concept frighting and it concerns me that someone who seems to promote 2nd Amendment rights would suggest it.

imported post

The reason I say have a Judge, LEO and lawyer invloved is for questioning. As a better way to understandhow they currently read the law. The State Senate is not going to pass a law just because we as citizens want it put in place. They decide every law based on what is in the best interest of the community.

Having a Judge, LEO and lawyer present will help in writing the exact wording needed so the government as a whole is on the same page.

I am not saying have a Judge write it, I am saying ask how they currently read the law and make the necessary changes to better our rights a citizens.

imported post

ChiefJason:

The problem seems to arise when an LEO is free to determine his or her definition of the law. For example, if you live in Garner, you may run into different departments. Garner is in both Wake and Johnston counties, and is patrolled by Garner PD, the applicable county sheriff and the state. Clayton is another town that is patrolled by the Clayton PD and the county. The issue arises where State and county LE tend to be for gun rights and won't give you much trouble. Municipal LE on the other hand seems to be less polite on the subject.

Laws also seem to overlap in some cases, where the state provides an exception, in your example you show that the state exempts rest areas from the no carry laws, however other areas of the NCGS state that is is strictly forbidden, without exception, on any state owned/patrolled orcounty owned/patrolled areas.My main questions is; if you can legally carry in a rest area, but you cannot carry on a highway, then how do you get the gun from a privateestablishment to the rest area without traveling on a highway?

As I stated previously, the state, county and local governments need to all be on the same page. Just because the state says no doesn't mean the county will say no. The laws need to be written at the state level to prevent any confusion, andto create a uniform law state-wide. The law should not change fromtown to town or county to county in matters that concern our legal rights under the constitution. Having a uniform law at the federal level to make all state laws nationwide the same is another story and a harder task.

imported post

Johnston-Wake COPTF wrote:

My main questions is; if you can legally carry in a rest area, but you cannot carry on a highway, then how do you get the gun from a privateestablishment to the rest area without traveling on a highway?

Click to expand...

Snipped

Let the confusion begin. :lol: You said that Wake and Johnston county forbid guns on public roads. Where does the preemption not come into play on that? Your question and mine somewhat fall into the no law comment you made earlier. Obviously it seems to me that you can have a firearm on a highway if it is also allowed in rest areas and municipal parking areas. Of course the obvious is not the specialty of some of our politicians.



LEO may initially get to work under their definition of the law, but it has to hold water with the magistrate and the courts to be binding.



Curins, probably my comp. I'll try again tommorrow, just don't have time now. Back to work.

imported post

OK. Sorry it took me a little bit to find out some specifics.Both counties and 99% of thetowns in Johnston and Wake counties have a law which prohibits guns on public roads, highways, etc... Most of the ordinances for every towncan be found on either amlegal.com or municode.com. In Clayton, it is only illegal to carry during a state of emergency declared by the Mayor (Sections 93.03 & 93.04). In Garner, it is illegal to possess a weapon on any town owned/controlled land or building (Section 18-2). The same ordinance in Garner also applies in Raleigh (Section 13-2010(d)), and Smithfield (Section 11-13(a)). Goldsboro only prohibits concealed weapons on public property (all though the county ordinance does apply), while Holly Springs has no specific regulations on open carry in contradiction with State law.

In regards to preemption, counties and towns may create ordinances that do not ban guns in general, and they may ban guns only on county/town-owned property. There is no uniformity as you can see above. NCGS Sec. 20-4.01(13) defines a highway as "The entire width between property or right‑of‑way lines of every way or place of whatever nature, when any part thereof is open to the use of the public as a matter of right for the purposes of vehicular traffic. The terms "highway" and "street" and their cognates are synonymous."

While the court may disagree with LE when they make an arrest and send you on your way with an apology of the court, you have now been arrested which stays on your record even though there is no conviction. While it is illegal, most employers will not hire you based on your arrest record (do you really have the time and money to fight the employer?). While you have not broken any law, a LEO can seriously tarnish your record when he/she is open to interpret the law for themselves.

The preemption needs to OUT RIGHT abolished, and the State must enact a law which openly permits the open carry of weapons. The only way to create uniformity is on State-level with an open permission to carry which can not be altered by a county or town. The Second Amendment has no room for play. We have the right to carryunder the constitution, but that is open to interpretation by a judge, and although the Supreme Court will uphold you right, do you have the time and money to appeal it all the way to the top? I know I don't. So, how would you change the law?

imported post

This is the main reason I am checking this stuff out very well before committing to carrying. I think we can agree it is way too confusing. I also amnot very comfortable going about this as a no law equals legal situation. That does leave way too much interpretation for LEO and others. I understand the state of emerency clause, though don't agree with it. I understand the county property, disagree with most of that too. The road ban is curious though. Are not roads considered state property unless they are private, ie subdivisions, industrial parks and such? They are state funded and repaired are they not? Particularly in the case of interstate highways. I personally know that Hickory PD cannot patrol I-40 for the sake of writing speeding tickets. Though it may pass through city limits it is Highway Patrol jurisdiction only, unless they are pursuing someone. Therefore clearly state not city or county property. I would love to see the laws made clearly on a state level that clarified things for OC'ing. I think the main thing to keep in mind is that by initiating this it may set off some ideas on the other side and produce bills that look to try to end OC'ing. Not that this should stop, it just needs to be done quite carefully.



As to the "castle doctrine", though I would like to see it spelled out in favor of defending your home under any circumstance I have a question.



"(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."

" 14‑52. Punishment for burglary.

Burglary in the first degree shall be punishable as a Class D felony, and burglary in the second degree shall be punishable as a Class G felony"

Uhm, you can call me crazy on this one if you like, but the act of breaking into an occupied dwellling is first degree burglary. First degree burglary is a felony. At the point you have someone in your home while you are there they are in the act of committing a felony. It may cost me some lawyer fees, but according to my reading of the law it seems to say that we can use deadly force without seeing a weapon. Albeit in a very roundabout way. Like I said earlier, that would be a good one to clarify though. Thoughts?

Curins, I got it open. Had to DL it to the comp to open. I think it's a good place to start. By no means would I expect that to get printed and sent to Raleigh. For a draft and a place to start the conversation I think it's fine. For the reason of starting the conversation I think I would leave the scenarios in for now. Once the point is made that the law needs to be changed maybe then they could be removed or revised. I really appreciate the time and effort you are putting in to this as well.

imported post

Your interpretation on the law is not totally incorrect, and that is where people get into trouble. People have told me that my interpretation of the law is incorrect, but simply readingONE law does not spell at all the laws regarding a specific topic. With Castle Doctrine, the law states a person must be committing or attempting to commit a felony. Burglary is a felony, so simply attempting to break into your home meets the requirement of deadly force. Some say that you must be in the home during the break in, but that is not spelled out in the law. Law states that you must believe a felony is about to be committed (which if you came home and a man was kicking in your front door, what else would you think) and that we are not obligated to retreat. It also states the neither civil nor criminal charges will be placed against you. That is the exact definition of Castle Doctrine. (Both DrQ and NCHornet may want to fully read the law before they comment).

As for carrying during an emergency situation, you should not be forbidden to carry because there is too much snow on the road (I fail to see how that type of emergency effects guns) and during a threat, riot, etc... that is when you want to protect yourself and the reason the constitution allows us to bare arms (to protect ourselves). Carrying on State/County/Town owned property, I agree with a ban on concealed weapons (i.e. into a court room or a police station) but a no-gun rule into the Town Hall? Seems too excessive.

The state does forbid the carry of firearms (openly or concealed) in very few laws, however does not outright ban open carry. As I have stated before, I agree with you on the fact that if you push the State to make a final decision on Open Carry, it can be a negative effect.

Your note on Hickory PD not being allowed to patrol on I-40 is not totally correct. "NCGS § 160A‑176: Ordinances effective on city property outside limits. Any city ordinance may be made effective on and to property and rights‑of‑way belonging to the city and located outside the corporate limits." Even though I-40 is outside the corporate limits, it does fall within the city limits, so Hickory PD can in-fact enforce ordinances on I-40. Just a little more confusion for you!

Changing the law would be very appropriate now. The State Senate is pro-guns right now with a lot of supporters for the Second Amendment and the right to carry no matter what. I think it is important for people to realize that restrictions will be inevitable. But, those restrictions should be nothing more than licensing. What is the big deal in having a permit to open carry if the permit is automatically granted to you (just a piece of paper to better control serial numbers). And, for those who disagree with me, if you feel that you should not need a license to carry a gun, should you be allowed to drive without a license?

imported post

Completely irrelevant to the discussion but I have to tell you. Hickory PD can write a ticket on I-40 but per Highway Patrol, they will be stopped and arrested. I would love to see how that would play out, but that was the threat. There are established boundaries now where HPD can patrol and where HP can patrol. Obviously HP can patrol Hickory roads but they will not allow HPD to patrol the interstate. It's quite ammusing. My mom works for HPD and has to be aware of these things to keep the officers straight. Plays right into the crazy laws problem. :lol:

imported post

The Bill Proposal has been posted.

Go to: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum41/21971.htmlfor the discussion.

Go to: http://www.ncopc.org/site/2009/campaigns.htmlfor the Bill Proposal.

imported post

Some body needs to do some home work on what Castle Doctrine really is. True Castle doctrine states that ANYWHERE you are located, your car, your place of employment etc. you are able to defend as if you were in your own home. Simply copying and pasting NC law regarding if you are in your home is not even close to being the same as Castle Doctrine Law!! I am not going to argue this with you. I simply plead those that are new to CC and the laws of NC to do your own homework on the subject and don't trust any instructor, or anything you read on the net, including from me. For they and I won't be there when they throw you in jail.

Here is a explanation of Castle Doctrine:

[size=[size=2]A Castle Doctrine (also known as a Castle Law or a Defense of Habitation Law) is an American legal concept derived from English Common Law, which designates one’s place of residence (or, in some states, any place legally occupied, such as one’s car or place of work) as a place in which one enjoys protection from illegal trespassing and violent attack. It then goes on to give a person the legal right to use deadly force to defend that place (his/her “castle”), and/or any other innocent persons legally inside it, from violent attack or an intrusion which may lead to violent attack. In a legal context, therefore, use of deadly force which actually results in death may be defended as justifiable homicide under the Castle Doctrine. [/size]


][/size][size=SOURCE:
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine]Castle Doctrine in the US][/size][/url]

[size=][/size]

[size=Here is a link for more info!! Let me also say that True Castle Doctrine means you are exempt from prosecution after the fact.][/size]

[size=[url=http://texasfred.net/archives/1319]http://texasfred.net/archives/1319[/url]][/size]

[size=Some states put their own twist on Castle Doctrine, but that doesn't mean it is true Castle Doctrine law. Saying that NC has Castle Doctrine is 100% false and misleading. We did try to get it passed and it doed in commitee, hopefully somebody will pick it up in 2009. Here is another post about it on another forum.][/size]

[size=[url=http://www.usacarry.com/forums/north-carolina-discussion-firearm-news/964-its-official-castle-doctrine-law-nc.html]http://www.usacarry.com/forums/north-carolina-discussion-firearm-news/964-its-official-castle-doctrine-law-nc.html[/url]][/size]

[size=][/size]

imported post

And just in case you still think we have True Castle Doctrine in NC I suggest you read this.

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=226



We all need to do whatever we can to get NC laws changed and introduce TRUE CD, in NC. Contact your local rep's and please join Grass Roots of NC. and do your part to get these laws changed.



NCH

imported post

I must first apologize for the delay. We are experiencing some difficulties, and I am sure my webmaster will be working through the night to fix the errors. While the "Home Page" is inaccessible, all other pages are not affected and all links still operate properly.

That said, the link to the Bill Proposal Package is located at:




[align=center]http://www.ncopc.org/site/2009/campaigns.html[/align]


[align=left]Aside from an initial welcome letter by yours truly, there are 8 links to the various pages. Please understand that the pages are written in the format as required by the State Senate. Changes to the statutes are indicated by [/align]


[align=left] (1) a strike-through for sections to be removed from the statute; and
(2) an underline for the sections to be enacted in the statutes.[/align]

[align=left]Please remember that is easier to amend a statute than it is to create a new law. The basic gist of the amendments is to allow the open carry of firearms in the same means as you can for concealed carry. For those of you concerned with restaurants, parades, funerals, etc... I have not left you out. Those specific laws allow concealed carry with a permit, and my noted amendments include the same rights for open carry.[/align]


[align=left]As for those of you interested in carry during a state of emergency, is currently under review, having been proposed by Representatives Cleveland, Hilton and More, and supported by 19 other Senate members. The Amendment which will allow firearms carry during states of emergency has passed by Senate vote and is currently awaiting Judicial approval. So, I did not include those amendments in the Bill proposal.[/align]


[align=left]If you have any questions, a link to my e-mail is located at the bottom right of the page. A link to the Support Letter can be found at thh top right corner of the page. There, you will find the Support Letter that can be signed and returned to me. Physical signatures are need for the Bill Proposal Package. Believe it or not, supporters who electronically support a proposal are NOT included in any proposal package as they are not recognized as LEGAL SUPPORT!!![/align]


[align=left]Please ask friends, family and neighbors to visit the link above and get involved. The more signature the better. If this is something you truly believe in, GET INVOLVED. Don't mumble words on a website or around your kitchen table. If you want the law changed, support this cause. PROVE IT!!!
[/align]

imported post

update?

imported post

The up-date is that we have over 150 signatures so far. If you have not signed the Support Letter, please go to http://www.ncopc.org/site/2009/my-rights-nc.html.

The proposal will be earmarked for the disbursement then middle of this month.