Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: GATTTOTP - NC Firearms Laws

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Raeford, NC Hoke County, ,
    Posts
    79

    Post imported post

    Folks,

    The following information is derived from the 2007 version of the NC Firearms Laws, Section III- Possessing and Carrying Firearms

    Subsection E - Areas Where Weapons Are Prohibited

    Paragraph 6 - GATTTOTP

    6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

    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.




    KNOWLEDGE IS KING! Know your rights, be carefull out there.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wilmington, ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    RegalNC wrote:
    Folks,

    The following information is derived from the 2007 version of the NC Firearms Laws, Section III- Possessing and Carrying Firearms

    Subsection E - Areas Where Weapons Are Prohibited

    Paragraph 6 - GATTTOTP

    6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

    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.




    KNOWLEDGE IS KING! Know your rights, be carefull out there.
    Ok and...

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    I'll see your 2007 firearms law and raise you State v Huntley

    1. The offence of riding or going armed with unusual or dangerous weapons, to the terror of the people, is an offence at common law, and is indictable in this State.
    2. A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose of business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon, to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people.
    3. The declarations of the defendant are admissible in evidence, on the part of the prosecution, as accompanying, explaining, and characterizing the acts charged.


    But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun, per se, constitutes no (p.423)offence. For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. 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.

    http://www.guncite.com/court/state/25nc418.html

    And yes, knowledge is power.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358

    Post imported post

    RegalNC wrote:
    6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

    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.
    What you fail to comprehend is that there are some VERY subtle and SPECIFICALLY PARTICULAR wording being used in the GAttTotP law. Those commas are breaks in the descriptive requirements of the violation, and you MUST meet all three descriptive criteria to be in violation. To make it more clear, I'll reformat the wording:
    By common law in North Carolina,
    1. it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon,
    2. for the purpose of terrifying others,
    3. and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others.
    So this is a "3 pronged" violation. You must be armed, AND it must be your specific intent to use your weapon to terrify people, AND you must be on a public highway (which under NC law is defined as ANY roadway, sidewalk, or thoroughfare that is maintained by ANY governmental body)

    If you do not meet ALL THREE of these criteria, you are NOT committing the violation of GAttTotP.

    You must also pay particularly close attention to the second criteria. This violation is what they call in the legal world, a "crime of intent". It is not based on any action that is on it's face illegal, but rather it is a violation based on the INTENT of the person being charged.

    So, if I am legally and lawfully carrying a firearm in a holster, and not being rude or threatening, or have not expressed the desire, intent, or purpose of using that firearm to threaten or intimidate people, then I am NOT committing the violation of GAttTotP.

    It doesn't matter how hysterical the soccer mom making a MWAG 911 call is because she saw me walking inside a Lowes or Starbucks or WalMart wearing my 1911 in a holster. It doesn't matter how indignant or "offended" some yuppie sheeple may be when they walk up to an LEO to report that I have a gun out in plain view.

    This charge is NOT based on the perceptions, feelings, tender sensibilities, or political agendas of OTHER people. It can ONLY be applied if the person carrying the firearm (or other weapon) has the SPECIFIC INTENT of creating terror, mayhem, or intimidation in others.

    If you are carrying for "self defense", you are OK. If it's late at night, and you feel you need to have the ability to protect yourself (and are legally allowed to carry and possess a firearm) then you are OK. If you are in a business and it's not "posted", and there have been no managers approach you to tell you that they don't allow carry, then you are OK.

    GAttTotP is one of those obscure laws that LEOs like to throw out at OCers because it sounds terrible and frightening, and because most people don't know the intent, meaning and history of this law, and even fewer know the subsequent case law establishing and defining it's bounds.

    If an LEO ever tries to use a GAttTotP charge to intimidate you, your only response should be "Am I Being Detained".

    If they answer "no", then the ONLY other thing you should say is "am I free to go".

    If they say "yes", then you should KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT and just walk away.

    Don't try to argue the law with cops. Most of them only know enough to sound convincing and threatening. If they wanted to REALLY know the law, they would have gone to law school not the Academy...

    If they write you a citation for GAttTotP, accept it, smile, and walk away. Because it WILL be thrown out by almost EVERY judge in this state, and you will have the personal satisfaction of seeing the look on his face when the judge dismisses his improper charge.

    And if you have PARTICULARLY deep pockets, you may well have a Federal Civil Rights violation case under "color of law" on your hands, and those are brought against the INDIVIDUAL officer, and he DOES NOT have immunity, and his department or the city CAN NOT pay the settlement...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggressionŚand this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wilmington, ,
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    Dreamer wrote:
    RegalNC wrote:
    6. Going Armed To The Terror Of The People

    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.
    What you fail to comprehend is that there are some VERY subtle and SPECIFICALLY PARTICULAR wording being used in the GAttTotP law. Those commas are breaks in the descriptive requirements of the violation, and you MUST meet all three descriptive criteria to be in violation. To make it more clear, I'll reformat the wording:
    By common law in North Carolina,
    1. it is unlawful for a person to arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon,
    2. for the purpose of terrifying others,
    3. and go about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to others.
    So this is a "3 pronged" violation. You must be armed, AND it must be your specific intent to use your weapon to terrify people, AND you must be on a public highway (which under NC law is defined as ANY roadway, sidewalk, or thoroughfare that is maintained by ANY governmental body)

    If you do not meet ALL THREE of these criteria, you are NOT committing the violation of GAttTotP.

    You must also pay particularly close attention to the second criteria. This violation is what they call in the legal world, a "crime of intent". It is not based on any action that is on it's face illegal, but rather it is a violation based on the INTENT of the person being charged.

    So, if I am legally and lawfully carrying a firearm in a holster, and not being rude or threatening, or have not expressed the desire, intent, or purpose of using that firearm to threaten or intimidate people, then I am NOT committing the violation of GAttTotP.

    It doesn't matter how hysterical the soccer mom making a MWAG 911 call is because she saw me walking inside a Lowes or Starbucks or WalMart wearing my 1911 in a holster. It doesn't matter how indignant or "offended" some yuppie sheeple may be when they walk up to an LEO to report that I have a gun out in plain view.

    This charge is NOT based on the perceptions, feelings, tender sensibilities, or political agendas of OTHER people. It can ONLY be applied if the person carrying the firearm (or other weapon) has the SPECIFIC INTENT of creating terror, mayhem, or intimidation in others.

    If you are carrying for "self defense", you are OK. If it's late at night, and you feel you need to have the ability to protect yourself (and are legally allowed to carry and possess a firearm) then you are OK. If you are in a business and it's not "posted", and there have been no managers approach you to tell you that they don't allow carry, then you are OK.

    GAttTotP is one of those obscure laws that LEOs like to throw out at OCers because it sounds terrible and frightening, and because most people don't know the intent, meaning and history of this law, and even fewer know the subsequent case law establishing and defining it's bounds.

    If an LEO ever tries to use a GAttTotP charge to intimidate you, your only response should be "Am I Being Detained".

    If they answer "no", then the ONLY other thing you should say is "am I free to go".

    If they say "yes", then you should KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT and just walk away.

    Don't try to argue the law with cops. Most of them only know enough to sound convincing and threatening. If they wanted to REALLY know the law, they would have gone to law school not the Academy...

    If they write you a citation for GAttTotP, accept it, smile, and walk away. Because it WILL be thrown out by almost EVERY judge in this state, and you will have the personal satisfaction of seeing the look on his face when the judge dismisses his improper charge.

    And if you have PARTICULARLY deep pockets, you may well have a Federal Civil Rights violation case under "color of law" on your hands, and those are brought against the INDIVIDUAL officer, and he DOES NOT have immunity, and his department or the city CAN NOT pay the settlement...
    Good info, Thanks

  6. #6
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    If they say "yes", then you should KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT and just walk away.
    Dreamer, I'm curious why you say this. Wouldn't you be hurting yourself in court if you did this?
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  7. #7
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    elixin77 wrote:
    Dreamer, I'm curious why you say this. Wouldn't you be hurting yourself in court if you did this?
    How could that hurt you in court?

    If they tell you that you are free to leave, the conversation is over and they CANNOT question, query, interview or interrogate you any further. Period.

    If they want to talk to you that badly, they can arrest you. And after that, you sue them for civil rights violations.

    Police officers acting as EMPLOYEES of the PEOPLE do not have any authority to violate or suspend the rights of citizens. Ever. They may attempt to do so, but it is up to us, as citizens and executors of COMMON LAW to hold them accountable and have them brought to justice when they fail to recognize their stations as SERVANTS and not MASTERS.

    For too long there have been far too many of these representatives of the law being treated and acting as a special, protected class. That needs to end. Abruptly.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  8. #8
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    I oh see what dreamer is saying now. I misread what he said. Then yes, I completely agree.

    When I read Dreamer's post the first time, I was under the impression that he was asking if he was being detained, LEO says yes, and he walks away.
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  9. #9
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    elixin77 wrote:
    When I read Dreamer's post the first time, I was under the impression that he was asking if he was being detained, LEO says yes, and he walks away.
    Upon reading it again, I can see how that comprehension of the chain of events might be taken.

    You read it "if, then". I read it "if, if, then".
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    elixin77 wrote:
    If they say "yes", then you should KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT and just walk away.
    Dreamer, I'm curious why you say this. Wouldn't you be hurting yourself in court if you did this?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

  11. #11
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Tekshogun:

    He was inferring that if the officer said "Yes" to the question "Am I being detained?" would it hurt you later if you walked away, to which the answer would be "Yes".

    It's a matter of context. However, you never talk to the police. That video is an excellent source and it was recorded right down the street from me at Regent University, IIRC.
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    wylde007 wrote:
    Tekshogun:

    He was inferring that if the officer said "Yes" to the question "Am I being detained?" would it hurt you later if you walked away, to which the answer would be "Yes".

    It's a matter of context. However, you never talk to the police. That video is an excellent source and it was recorded right down the street from me at Regent University, IIRC.
    Gotcha, thanks, however, everyone needs to know these things...



    "Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

  13. #13
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591

    Post imported post

    "Am I being detained or am I free to go?"
    I am very familiar with these questions, and have used them in the past.

    I was simply confused by what dreamer said because I misunderstood what he was trying to say, is all.

    And the only cop I actually talk to is a friend I play DnD with (yes I'm a nerd), but then again, he's not in uniform when we play....
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    elixin77 wrote:
    "Am I being detained or am I free to go?"
    I am very familiar with these questions, and have used them in the past.

    I was simply confused by what dreamer said because I misunderstood what he was trying to say, is all.

    And the only cop I actually talk to is a friend I play DnD with (yes I'm a nerd), but then again, he's not in uniform when we play....
    Yes, understood... and there are more nerds around than you think. Your friend should be in uniform when ever he is the dungeon master, and no I don't play DnD.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Thomasville, NC, ,
    Posts
    93

    Post imported post

    Had a brief conversation with a local LEO I see regularly at work. One of my co-workers and I were discussing OC and asked him what he thought about it. First thing out of his mouth was being arrested for GATTTOTP. I guess we still have a lot farther to go than I thought.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    RegalNC wrote:
    Folks,

    The following information is derived from the 2007 version of the NC Firearms Laws, Section III- Possessing and Carrying Firearms
    What is this authority? Link?

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    1,052

    Post imported post

    I spoke to a Greensboro officer and he stated that the second amendment RKBA only applied to militia. He was respectfully corrected. He stated he didn't like it, open carrying that is.

    We have to understand that there is still a lack of civics in law enforcement training. Sure, they teach laws and such and Going Armed to the Terror of the Public is still so vague because it isn't codified. It's bloody case law, and I can assure you that regardless of what common law definition you've read, people have been convicted on less than all three points, especially the "going about public highways". Just being in public, period. That alone sets a precedence for getting charged and possibly convicted.

    Also, police officers are largely instructed, that if they're off duty and they want to carry (organizations that require them to carry while off duty are a slight exception) they must carry their weapons concealed. So it is almost an indoctrination that the only time someone should be carrying openly are police officers while on duty.

  18. #18
    Regular Member wylde007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Va Beach, Occupied VA
    Posts
    3,037

    Post imported post

    Because criminals so frequently expose their intentions by openly carrying, right?

    Right?
    The quiet war has begun, with silent weapons
    And the newest slavery is to keep the people poor, and stupid
    Novos ordo seclorum ~ Mustaine

    Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    RegalNC wrote:
    ┬*Folks,

    ┬*The following information is derived from the 2007 version of the NC Firearms Laws, Section III- Possessing and Carrying Firearms
    What is this authority?┬* Link?
    Mike, it's an Attorney General booklet. It's listed on the NC OC laws page here as well. Page 23, the NC Justice Academy page has been changed.

    http://www.grnc.org/firearms.htm#going

    Funny that they use State v Huntley to come to the conclusion that you should be careful OC'ing because of GATTTOTP. But Huntley specifically stated, "2. A man may carry a gun for any lawful purpose of business or amusement, but he cannot go about with that or any other dangerous weapon, to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm a peaceful people." Wonder how they missed that?


    Here is Penn and Tellers take on the 2a, FUNNY and NSFW, language.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

Posting Permissions

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