Using our First Amendment Rights to support our Second...

imported post

We do have case law after 1830 that establishes the charge, so I don't think one will get very far arguing that the common law is not valid in North Carolina. State v. Robert S. Huntley establishes the case law:

The argument is, that the offence of riding or going about armed with unusual and dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, was created by the statute of Northampton, 2 Edward III, ch. 3, and that, whether this statute was or was not formerly in force in this State, it certainly has not been since the first of January, 1838, at which day it is declared in the Revised Statutes, ch. 1, sec. 2, that the statutes of England or Great Britain shall cease to be of force and effect here.We have been accustomed to believe, that the statute referred to did not create this offence, but provided only special penalties and modes of proceeding for its more effectual suppression, and of the correctness of this belief we can see no reason to doubt. All the elementary writers, who give us any information on the subject, concur in this representation, nor is there to be found in them, as far as we are aware of, a dictum or intimation to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Indeed, if those acts be deemed by the common law crimes and misdemeanors, which are in violation of the public rights and of the duties owing to the community in its social capacity, it is difficult to imagine any which more unequivocally deserve to be so considered than the acts charged upon this defendant. They attack directly that public order and sense of security, which it is one of the first objects of the common (p.422)law, and ought to be of the law of all regulated societies to preserve inviolate--and they lead almost necessarily to actual violence. Nor can it for a moment be supposed that such acts are less mischievous here or less the proper subjects of legal reprehension, than they were in the country of our ancestors.

Click to expand...

I would personally leave out the case law all together. I say just inform them of your intent and the legality of it and leave it at that. You aren't required to prove that you are correct, they are required to prove you wrong.

imported post

CarryOpen,

I understand your position, but I think it's time that we, as 2A activists, stop being on the "defensive" with our government, and start approaching this situation in a more proactive way.

Why sit around, waiting to become a "test case"? Sure, we know we're right, but a lot of citizens and LEO's either don't know or don't care about the law. The way I see it, using the Public Forum to enter this "Educational Material" into the public record serves multiple purposes:

1) it lets local government and LEA's know that we KNOW our rights and the law, and we are NOT willing to let them infringe upon our rights, and are willing and prepared to use the "force of law" to back up our position,

2) Other citizens, who attend such meetings or read the minutes of these meetings will see the TRUTH of the law, and that only helps us out,

3) it puts local governments and LEA's in a situation where any sort of harassment of lawful OC is legally INEXCUSABLE because they have, in their own records, proof of who I am, what I'm lawfully intending to do, and the case law, and State and Federal Statutes that protect this activity against harassment. In other words, they have been put "on notice", and WILL be held accountable if they breech my rights, or ignore their oaths to "uphold the law"...

Pussy-footing around the issue isn't going to accomplish anything except to draw attention to an activity that some LEO's would LOVE to have the chance to harass someone about. By giving them a mountain of information that supports our position, they are put in a position that makes any sort of "color of law" harassment completely inexcusable, and undeniably actionable on the Federal level...

We need to stop thinking that our government and LEA's are genuinely interested in preserving our freedoms, and start meeting them on their own turf, with reams and reams of paperwork. The only thing bureaucracies understand is "the bottom line", and once they realise that unlawful harassment of OC will negatively impact their coffers through Federal Civil Rights suits, things might begin to change.

Look at every other "civil rights" movement of the last 100 years in the USA. The suffrage movement, civil rights for minorities, etc., all started to REALLY get traction when the government realised that continued denial of rights to these groups would put them in the position where they had to pay out settlements and damages. Money talks with these people, and the LAST thing they want it to hear the sound of "their" money saying "bye bye" as it gets handed over to someone in a situation these officials could have avoided by simply following their own laws.

We need to SERIOUSLY reconsider how we are engaging the system. The anti's are EXPERT at this--they know how to manipulate the law and "interpretations" of the law to achieve their goals. We need to start approaching 2A rights in a similar manner. If we understand the Law, and our system of government, it's not difficult to use it to our advantage. It just takes a little research, some charismatic persuasion, and the irrefutable documentation as provided by our State and Federal Statutes and Case Law.

I simply want to move our position off the defensive, and put the government and LEA's on the defensive. They are public SERVANTS, and we need to remind them of that fact occasionally. We need to let them know that there are specific laws that govern their actions as well as ours, and that we, as law-abiding, vigilant citizens WILL hold them accountable for their actions, and WILL hold them to proper and lawful standards of conduct.

If they want to try and make excuses for their continued unlawful actions and attitudes, then let THAT be a matter of public record as well. I welcome any public official to state on the public record that they fully INTEND to violate my rights for a lawful action on my part. That's just one more staple in a potential Federal Civil Rights case against them, if it ever comes to that...

I'm just taking a more proactive stance. I am a strong believer in preemptive preparation. If we set up the situation to where we NEVER have to actually engage the "opponent" in the first place, we've already won, and decisively.

I don't want to be a "test case". But if some local government wants to volunteer to be a "test case" by violating my rights AFTER they've been put on notice, I'll be more than happy to testify against them for the Federal Prosecutors when the Civil Rights trial comes up--on their dime, of course...

imported post

CarryOpen,

Actually the Huntley ruling established that Open Carry is COMPLETELY LAWFUL. It did NOT support the GAttTotP common law violation. To quote "Huntley" in support of GAttTotP is like quoting "Heller" in support of a handgun ban...

You left out the most important part of the Huntley ruling which is it's "conclusion":The parts you referenced were actually from the prosecutors argument. Huntley won this case, not the State. Therefore, the argument of the Prosecution, although based in centuries of "common law" was ruled to NOT be applicable in instances of lawful Open Carry. The whole idea of "terrifying the public", under the Huntley ruling, is predicated on the intent of criminal activity or purposeful intimidation. The ruling clearly states that lawful carry, in and of itself, DOES NOT constitute an offense against case law, statutory law, or even "civil peace"...

If you're going to "cherry pick", you should pick from the branch that won the case...

imported post

Dreamer, i would have to say if there were more politicians and LEO'slike you on the job, the world would be a much better place for us OCer's. I admire your wisdom and levelheadness, and i hope to gain that level of knowledge in my coming years. It's always a joy to read your posts brother. OORAH! and i need to find more OCer's in jacksonville to accompany me to the meetingand show a strong presence.

imported post

I'm not trying to say that Huntley takes anything away from OC, but it fully supports the charge when one goes about terrorizing. The decision comes after the 1838 declaration. You're going to have a hard time showing that the 1838 declaration nullifies the charge when there has been case precedent after the fact.

It is the wicked purpose, and the mischievous result, which essentially constitute the crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people.

Click to expand...

Huntley is not saying that GAttTotP is not valid, it merely sets the precedent for when it is.

I'm not pussyfooting around either, I just don't see that statement being any more helpful to you than simply stating "I intend to lawfully carry openly in this town and county". That is indeed standing up for yourself, everything else is just superfluous in my opinion. I don't know if I could even keep people listening after the first paragraph, but you may be a better public speaker than I am.

imported post

For what it's worth, I want to reiterate that I was in no way trying to "cherry pick" or show that Huntley makes charging an OCer valid. I'm simply disputing the notion that the 1838 declaration invalidates the GAttToP charge completely.

Please feel free to show me where I am misreading this, but I do not see any decision that takes this charge away in appropriate circumstances.

imported post

Dreamer,

Thanks for the additional info. My only real concern was giving my date of birth but as I think about it, it is not that serious. The address thing I'm used to. I am a government employee so a considerable portion of my life is already public record anyway, so I must figure, what difference does it make.

As for you guy's discussion on common law and "going armed," well, it got me thinking.

In looking at the North Carolina law, even the State Constitution, if we formed or joined a militia and then ordered or were ordered to carry certain firearms in certain a manner, would we then be exempt from most of the laws, such as what is detailed in NC GS 14-269(b)?

Seriously, how does a militia officiallyform in North Carolina anyway? Think about it, a militia could technically declare that we are not exactly in a state of peace being that we ARE actively being targeted and attacked, based on recent events, and the nearly constant standing at code yellow from DHS (significant risk of terrorist attack) and also that we are, as a nation, at war, albeit abroad, our homes are at risk.

Could we then declare that members of the militia be so ordered to carry their firearms and stand poised to move into action against threats against our State and our United States?


By the way, Dreamer, do you have anymore info on the State vs Huntley case?

There seems to be some interesting things that happened and it has something to do with slaves and I, for some reason, want to know what, just for curiosity. It would be an interesting history lesson as I wonder what slaves had to do with someone being charged with GAttTotP. I got that from this link which I assume is at least a partialdocumentation of the case: http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html

imported post

Tek,

The problem with starting some sort of militia, is that such a group, under current DHS policy and parts of the Patriot Act, would be de facto, classified as "terrorist organizations" because they would constitute a paramilitary organiation functioning without government sanction...

The difference between an activist and a martyr is how they feel about what happens to their fellow man after they accomplish their goal. A Martyr doesn't care about the rest of humanity after he is martyred, because his reward is in the hereafter. An activist's PRIMARY concern is his fellow man, and he hopes that his actions will improve life for all.

I have no motivation or desire to be a martyr. My goals are much more "earthly"...

With regards to some of the issues of minorities, racism and gun control, I HIGHLY recommend you read "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Clayton Cramer. It's very enlightening, and should outrage ANY person who believes that the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is True, valid, and moral...

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

imported post

CarryOpen wrote:

Please feel free to show me where I am misreading this, but I do not see any decision that takes this charge away in appropriate circumstances.

Click to expand...

You are right. "Huntley" does not nullify the charge of GAttTotP when it is appropriate, such as if someone were walking around with a double-barreled shotgun making death threats in public.

However, the ruling closed by saying that merely carry a firearm is NOT an offense, per se. My point is that Huntley instructs that OC, in and of itself, does not qualify for the offense of GAttTotP. Even if someone is uncomfortable with seeing a firearm on law-abiding citizen's hip, in a holster, such a firearmpresents no reason to be terrified, and furthermore, it is not the mere presence of a firearm, so much as the INTENT of the person that is key in meeting the 3-pronged qualifications for GAttTotP.

I maintain that "Huntley" sets forth a precedent whereby a law-abiding citizen, lawfully OCing should not be treated as a de facto criminal, because no OCing is NOT evidence of a crime in progress, a crime having been recently committed, or the intention of future commission of a crime. It is only when there is CLEAR criminal intent tied to the act of carrying a firearm that the GAttTotP violation should be applied...

GAttTotP is a violation rooted in INTENT, not mere possession of a specific instrument.

But since "Huntley" seems to be a rather controversial case, perhaps I will take this reference out. If OC'er can agree on what it means, then I imagine it could very easily be twisted and used against an OCer by a hostile DA...

The truth of the matter is that NC needs to abolish the charge of GAttTotP and adopt a "brandishing" statute like most other reasonable state use. Brandishing makes much more sense, and being based in Statute (not Common Law), it is much more tightly defined and clear-cut. The GAttTotP violation is an unconstitutionally vague, outdated law based on a system of law that we no longer recognize as being informative to our modern Judicial system. It is a relic of an outmoded culture of serfdom and noble privilege, and has no place in these United States.

imported post

I emailed my city's mayor on OC today, will be intersted to see if he responds. He's a former LEO, so it could be an interesting perspective. I figure before I'm a PITA about exercising my rights, I ought to at least try to open a civil discussion about it. I could not go to our city council meeting tonight, but I will go to the Feb. meeting if I don't get any reply.

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

The truth of the matter is that NC needs to abolish the charge of GAttTotP and adopt a "brandishing" statute like most other reasonable state use. Brandishing makes much more sense, and being based in Statute (not Common Law), it is much more tightly defined and clear-cut. The GAttTotP violation is an unconstitutionally vague, outdated law based on a system of law that we no longer recognize as being informative to our modern Judicial system. It is a relic of an outmoded culture of serfdom and noble privilege, and has no place in these United States.

Click to expand...

YES YES YES!

imported post

tekshogun wrote:

Dreamer wrote:

The truth of the matter is that NC needs to abolish the charge of GAttTotP and adopt a "brandishing" statute like most other reasonable state use. Brandishing makes much more sense, and being based in Statute (not Common Law), it is much more tightly defined and clear-cut. The GAttTotP violation is an unconstitutionally vague, outdated law based on a system of law that we no longer recognize as being informative to our modern Judicial system. It is a relic of an outmoded culture of serfdom and noble privilege, and has no place in these United States.

Click to expand...

YES YES YES!

Click to expand...

+1

I personally think that if you cannot show me the statute, then you shouldn'tbe allowed to charge me with it. Show me where this (and other) rediculous common laws are written down.......it is very difficult to follow common laws when they are not listed with all of the other statutes on the website :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

imported post

Dreamer wrote:

Tek,

The problem with starting some sort of militia, is that such a group, under current DHS policy and parts of the Patriot Act, would be de facto, classified as "terrorist organizations" because they would constitute a paramilitary organiation functioning without government sanction...

The difference between an activist and a martyr is how they feel about what happens to their fellow man after they accomplish their goal. A Martyr doesn't care about the rest of humanity after he is martyred, because his reward is in the hereafter. An activist's PRIMARY concern is his fellow man, and he hopes that his actions will improve life for all.

I have no motivation or desire to be a martyr. My goals are much more "earthly"...

With regards to some of the issues of minorities, racism and gun control, I HIGHLY recommend you read "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" by Clayton Cramer. It's very enlightening, and should outrage ANY person who believes that the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is True, valid, and moral...

http://www.constitution.org/cmt/cramer/racist_roots.htm

Click to expand...

I'm confused. We ARE part of the militia. I don't know what a militia is. I think branding certain militant groups as militia's is an attempt to damage the militia conceptually.

imported post

simmonsjoe wrote:

I'm confused. We ARE part of the militia. I don't know what a militia is. I think branding certain militant groups as militia's is an attempt to damage the militia conceptually.

Click to expand...

Three definitions, really:

- part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in an emergency

- body of citizens organized for military service

- the whole body of able-bodied citizens declared by law as being subject to military service.

In the US, The first includes the Natonal Guard and the Reserves.

The second constitutes our regular forces.

The third includes everyone registered for Selective Service.

Well, that's the texbook definition.

The forth is as it was used in the 2A, and includes all citizens - the People. It sequestered our right to keep and bear arms in order that we would be well-regulated (trained, ordered, uniform), as it recognized this as a requirement necessary to the security of a free state. A rabble do little to protect the security of a free state.