• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

GATTTOTP - NC Firearms Laws

RegalNC

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
79
Location
Raeford, NC Hoke County, ,
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.
 

billxdm

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
23
Location
Wilmington, ,
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...
 

chiefjason

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,025
Location
Hickory, NC, ,
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.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
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...
 

billxdm

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
23
Location
Wilmington, ,
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
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
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.
 

elixin77

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
591
Location
Greenville, NC, ,
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.
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
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".:D
 

wylde007

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
3,035
Location
Va Beach, Occupied VA
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.
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
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?"
 

elixin77

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
591
Location
Greenville, NC, ,
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....
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
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.
 

Racer X

Regular Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
93
Location
Thomasville, NC, ,
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.
 

tekshogun

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,052
Location
Greensboro, North Carolina, USA
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.
 

chiefjason

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2009
Messages
1,025
Location
Hickory, NC, ,
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
 
Top