Campus Police Shoot Gunman at North Carolina University

Dreamer said:

You are 100% correct on the GAttTotP charge. It is a "pile on charge" that they almost ALWAYS throw at people who do stupid things with firearms in NC. By the letter of the law (actually, there is NO statute that defines GAttTotP--it is a court-precedent based common law violation), a person must meet 4 conditions to be guilty of GAttTotP according to the NC AG's "Firearms Laws" brochure:


If he was carrying an AK-47-style rifle, he undeniably meets condition #1.

...........

Click to expand...

I'd question #1 as well. An AK is the most common gun in the world. How does that qualify as "unusual".

Elkad said:

I'd question #1 as well. An AK is the most common gun in the world. How does that qualify as "unusual".

Click to expand...

Probably depends on how the courts think the law works, does the unusual apply only to the firearm or to carry habits.

Daylen said:

Probably depends on how the courts think the law works, does the unusual apply only to the firearm or to carry habits.

Click to expand...

As Dreamer cited above -

By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to:
1) arm himself/herself with any unusual and dangerous weapon,
2) for the purpose of terrifying others,
3) and go about on public highways
4) 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.

Click to expand...

That's how the law works in NC. Either get the legislature to change it, challenge it in court, or move away from there.

stay safe.

Daylen said:

Probably depends on how the courts think the law works, does the unusual apply only to the firearm or to carry habits.

Click to expand...

The GAttTotP common law violation in NC is based on a court case from the 1843 called "State v. Robert S. Huntley":

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

This ruling uses as it's benchmark precedent an ENGLISH common law ruling from the 1300s (Reign of King Edward III). A VERY good argument can be made that this ruling is essentially illegal, because the Article 4 of the original Mecklenberg Declaration of Independence made ALL dependence and reference to English Law null and void:

http://www.cmstory.org/history/hornets/declare.htm

As we now acknowledge the existence & controul of no law or legal officers, civil or military, within this County, we do hereby ordain & adopt as a rule of life, all, each & every of our former laws - wherein nevertheless the crown of Great Britain never can be considered as holding rights, privileges, immunities, or authority therein.

Click to expand...

All that said, however, the "Huntley" ruling determined that, as a general rule, the carrying of firearms in the context of specific intent to cause terror or intimidation while out and about on the public highways was "unusual" because:

No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements--as a part of his dress--and never, we trust, will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace-loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.
--State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843)

Click to expand...

It is not the firearm itself that is unusual, but rather it's carry that the Court deemed unusual in Huntley. In fact they go to great lengths discussing the near-universality of firearm ownership and use among the People of the day, and state that they fully support such rights:

...for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort...

...For any lawful purpose--either of business or amusement--the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun...
--State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843)

Click to expand...

What Huntley boils down to is a "crime of intent", whereby the carry of a firearm is done with the specific intent of causing terror or mayhem, or as an instrument of crime or violence:

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.
--State v. Huntley, 25 N.C. (3 Ired.) 418, 40 Am. Dec. 416 (1843)

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the day HAS come when the wearing and carrying of a firearm HAS become "an appendage of manly (and womanly) equipment" due to the lawlessness of our streets, the diffidence of our LEAs, and the utter disregard for fundamental human rights of our government.

However, even with the current state of affairs today, the NC Common Law Violation of GAttTotP is a VERY specific violation, and to be convicted the accused myst meet 4 very specific requirements. Given the circumstances involved in the OP's story, it is looking more and more like the accused actually IS guilty of GAttTotP.

I have been looking for over 3 years for an instance where a "stand-alone" charge of GAttTotP was successfully prosecuted, and I have yet to find one. Usually it is a "pile-one" charge for someone who did something much more serious (armed robbery, assault, etc) while using a firearm, and they throw it at people just to make the case seem stronger, and to intimidate the defense, and to demonize the open carry of firearms in th eyes of the uneducated public.

Funny thing is, most LEOs have NO CLUE as to the actual legal background of GAttTotP, and many "anti-OC" LEOs like to throw it around in an attempt to intimidate OCers to not OC.

If you are every lawfully OCing in NC, and an LEO says "I can charge you with GAttTotP", your response should be "Please, do..." because 99% of the time the case will be tossed by the local prosecutor before it even enters the docket. And even if the case makes it to trial, any competent judge will toss it out once they learn that you were not doing anything illegal or unlawful, or in anyway had the EXPRESSED INTENT of causing terror or intimidation.

NC needs to strike this violation from the books with a Statute, and adopt a VA-style Statutory definition of "Brandishing" that is clearly, specifically, and clearly articulated. the GAttTotP violation is too vague and open to interpretation to be relied upon as any sort of effectively enforceable violation, and it's vagueness lends to easily to abuse by gun-unfriendly LEOs...

MilProGuy said:

"...carrying an AK-47 on a college campus..."

Not a wise choice.

Every choice we make in life has a consequence.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting he carry an AR?

I always feel a need refer to the Journalist's Guide to Firearms Identification when a particular weapon is mentioned in an article.
Just to get a better idea of what they are reporting about...

Dreamer said:

You are 100% correct on the GAttTotP charge. It is a "pile on charge" that they almost ALWAYS throw at people who do stupid things with firearms in NC. By the letter of the law (actually, there is NO statute that defines GAttTotP--it is a court-precedent based common law violation), a person must meet 4 conditions to be guilty of GAttTotP according to the NC AG's "Firearms Laws" brochure:

Click to expand...

Also, wasn't this instituted/applied as part of the Jim Crow laws?