Oct 1st law change

[gary737]

gary, since nobody was much help except to quote the language and i presume you would like to read them yourself, here is the link to nc statutes:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/statutes/statutes.asp

enjoy your reading...

ipse

Thanks for the link. I have read through them many times.

 

[bc.cruiser]

Medic,

So in the first quote you said NCGS 14-269 specifically applies to CC only. How can you than use a statute in that same section to apply to OC?

If that is the case, NCGS 14-269 covers both CC and OC, than the exemption in the change would seem to allow OC in any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed with a CHP.

Do not read -269.3 as a part of -269. A charge can be levied under -269.3 as a stand alone statute. That is how -269 refers only to CC, while -269.3 refers to both OC and CC.

Not in agreement? Contact your local DA.

 

[Medic1210]

Medic,

In post #8 of this thread, you posted the following quote.





Then I asked where is the statute that prohibits OC and into any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed. And you responded with the following post;



So in the first quote you said NCGS 14-269 specifically applies to CC only. How can you than use a statute in that same section to apply to OC?

If that is the case, NCGS 14-269 covers both CC and OC, than the exemption in the change would seem to allow OC in any establishment in which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed with a CHP.

My mistake was referring to 14-269.3 as a subsection of 14-269. That isn't the case. 14-269 is the statute that says concealed carry is illegal in NC.

14-269.3 is an individual statute that prior to HB937 bans the carry of any weapons in an establishment that charges admission or serves alcohol.

My logic was flawed on thinking it was a subsection of the primary 14-269 when in fact it is just another law that falls under Article 35 - Offenses against the Public Peace. Since the original Article 35 goes from 14-269 through 14-277, with 14-288 falling under Article 36 - Offenses against the Public Safety. Apparently, any new laws that were added since the original had to be given a decimal indicator. Again, my mistake for assuming or stating 269.3 was a subsection. That was flawed.

As for my reasoning regarding the new exception applying only to concealed weapons has been talked about and supported with multiple examples above, and I still feel confident that my reasoning is correct. Again, IANAL, and I may very well be wrong, so folks will need to decide for themselves.


As a side note, and I have hesitated to even mention this because I worried it may inaccurately sway some folk's view, but I'll offer it up here. The reason I said someone may get lucky and not get hassled if they carried openly because of the disinformation spread in the media was also supported in a conversation with a friend of mine. One of the guys I ride my bike with is a Hamlet City Council Member, and also an area ALE agent. I prefer not to call names, but probably isn't hard to figure it out. Anyway, a couple weeks ago, we were riding and the group got to commenting on the gun I was carrying (LCP in a Fobus paddle), saying how it was the perfect size yadda yadda yadda. Well, I got to talking with the ALE agent, I told him I couldn't wait until Oct 1, because of the new laws. He kinda acted indifferent, and then said he didn't much care for the "carrying in bars" part since that's the area he covers, and he made the comment of "when alcohol is involved, I like to be the only one armed." He said he worries about someone seeing someone else with a gun, and it could cause things to escalate... You know, the often typical police officer mentality. Well, I kinda grumbled on that one, and told him how the CHP holders aren't the folks he has to worry about, and that it was still against the law to drink, etc. He then said he wasn't worried about CHP holders, but worried about someone open carrying. Well, that's when I said it didn't cover OC, only CC, and he seemed surprised. He said he hadn't really read the law, and just figured it covered both from the talk he had heard from others and the news.

So there you go. He's probably not the only police officer who hasn't actually read the law, so you may get lucky and end up dealing with another officer who hadn't read it either. Maybe they won't know what is covered. Then again, maybe they have read the summary that was linked a few posts back that specifically say concealed.

I would hope anyone thinking of OC in a restaurant serving alcohol would not do so without actually confirming 100% that it was legal. A quick email to Jacqueline Schaffer would settle it.

 

[Medic1210]

Do not read -269.3 as a part of -269. A charge can be levied under -269.3 as a stand alone statute. That is how -269 refers only to CC, while -269.3 refers to both OC and CC.

Not in agreement? Contact your local DA.

You're right. I realized that earlier when looking for something else in response to Gary737, hence the reason I practically verbatim said what you said. Could have saved me some typing had I seen your post first, lol. I was definitely longer winded. I've read this thing so many times in the past few months trying to decipher the legalese and understand exactly which statutes were changing, I should have it memorized by now.

 

[papa bear]

the so called "pro-gun group", you know the one that wants us to disarm to go to a meet and greet, is trying to have us go to restaurants to "celebrate the law change

this is so stupid it ain't even funny.

WOLF, i am seeing more and more what you are talking about. if we leave it up to these fools we won't have the right to carry at all