close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

North Carolina Glock...Errr...I Mean Gun Laws

Discussion in 'Carolina Glockers' started by Iron Nose, Feb 18, 2007.


  1. THEPOPE

    THEPOPE
    Expand Collapse
    Nibb

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    4,183
    5
    Location:
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Glocks&Ducs is correct on his statement that the CCW book of state carry laws is an over-view, kind of "in-a-nut-shell" view of the laws of your land, as the laws are long, amended time and again, to include and/or exclude whatever the current lawmakers decide from year to year.

    It'a a "rule of thumb" thing, but by no means the difinitive document to base any real-life expectations on, for carry or any thing else.


    Ime out ;)
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. obxemt

    obxemt
    Expand Collapse
    Chaplain of CT

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    7,467
    0
    Location:
    In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean
    Did you think before you wrote that? Oh wait, can't spell sheriff, viewpoint invalid.
     

  3. geekboy

    geekboy
    Expand Collapse
    Glock Lover

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    I'm just shocked that the AG's interpretation of § 14‑288.7 limits CCW holders.

    They have a legal snafu I think...

    14-288.7 is regarding weapons during a state of emergency. In 14-288 it specifically declares that "This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269 with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties".

    If you read 14-269, which is the Carrying Concealed Weapons statute, you'll see clearly that in 14-269(a1) "It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his person any pistol or gun except in the following circumstances" and (2) "The deadly weapon is a handgun, and the person has a concealed handgun permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter or considered valid under G.S. 14‑415.24". This is for the exception to 14-269.

    Oops!

    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, but I did sleep at home last night!
     
  4. Glocks&Ducs

    Glocks&Ducs
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    4,051
    1
    Sherrif, sheriff, sharif, shref, sloth, scumbag, might all be the same thing depending on the county you live in. Oh yeah, ours also runs an illegal gun registration. The permits here consist of two copies. One that the dealer keeps and one that gets sent back to the sheriff so he can keep a record of what guns, by model and serial number, were bought and by whom.
     
  5. obxemt

    obxemt
    Expand Collapse
    Chaplain of CT

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    7,467
    0
    Location:
    In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean
    Whatever. Paranoid nonsense. Imagine that, on a gun forum no less.

    They're not making any money by paying a deputy to run background checks or a civilian to issue the permits. They don't want the responsibility, its a PITA.

    Sounds like you need to get to voting if there's a problem in your county.
     
  6. WinstonSmith

    WinstonSmith
    Expand Collapse
    lovebirds

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    536
    0

    Ummm, I think the persons exempted from 14-269 are those who use firearms in the conduct of official duties... police, State Troopers, licensed security personnel, etc.
     
  7. Glocks&Ducs

    Glocks&Ducs
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    4,051
    1
    I don't see where the snafu is. 269 is giving LEO(in the performance of their duties) and permit holders the right to carry concealed. 288.7 is giving LEOs the right to carry in performance of their duties during a declared state of emergency. It is not extending that right to CCW permit holders.

    I think they clearly covered their butts by stating "with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties". LEOs are considered to be performing duties. The average Joe Blow with a CCW is not.
     
  8. geekboy

    geekboy
    Expand Collapse
    Glock Lover

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    I wrote about this above. I think -- read "my opinion is" that -- the AG is incorrectly interpreting the stattue which provides an exception. I think they'll need to get the legislature to re-write the law (14-288.7 and 14-269) in order to mean what the AG's opinion is above.

    While I don't recommend it, there is clearly a defense of carrying a CCW during a declared state of emergency or in vicinity of a riot. It's right there in the statute!

    I also don't like the use of the word vicinity in terms of a "riot". You could just be around the block conducting business when the riot/melee started!

    [set Rant ON]
    Sheesh... no wonder laws are always under attack. No one really thinks these through when they go through the state house of representatives and senate.

    This happens time and time again where you have conflicting language in the laws and then people abuse it. In this case, I think the AG is abusing the language. Remember when New Orleans and Louisiana drinking age laws were in conflict? Until 1994 you could drink in the French Quarter at age 18!
    [set Rant OFF]

    Okay, so I return to my regularly scheduled program, already in progress...
     
  9. geekboy

    geekboy
    Expand Collapse
    Glock Lover

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Yeah, that's the problem. Clearly, 14-288.7 gives an exception to 14-269... and 14-269 gives an exception to CCW holders (for handguns only)!

    Regardless of the language with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their duties... it won't hold in a court of law (IMHO). For example, I could just be going to work. Thereby, lawfully engaged and carrying out my "official" duties! ;)

    This is why real criminals go free. The language used in the law is not strict enough and leaves loopholes and has conflicting language.

    To me, it reads like the law (14-288.7) gives CCW holders an exemption from 14-288.7 by virtue of 14-269 :). The AG thinks that 14-288.7 restricts CCW holders, although it does in fact grant an exception to those excepted in 14-269(a1)(2)! :)

    I love the law.. really! :wavey:
     
  10. geekboy

    geekboy
    Expand Collapse
    Glock Lover

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Read the statutes... NC General Laws 14-269. CCW holders are exempted from 14-269! Section (a) under 14-269 is specifically about "all weapons", but clearly under (a1)(2) the CCW holder is exampted from the statute when the weapon is a handgun!

    I'm just saying... the law is written wrong if the AG's opinion is accurate. Looks like they wrote the 14-288.7 law before they wrote 14-269!

    (BTW, I'm correct. NC 14-269 was last ammended in 2006. The last time 14-288.7 was ammended was in 1994, so NC passed the CCW laws after 14-288.7. Therefore, NC 14-269 with a CCW is a defense (you'll still get arrested) to the prosecution of 14-288.7!!!)

    Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and I'm rather tired right now.

    Edited to add taht 14-269 is a section on Weapons in general, not just on firearms. CCW holders are specifically exempted if the "weapon" is a handgun. The other exceptions, to law enforcement and military, is for "all weapons".
     
  11. WinstonSmith

    WinstonSmith
    Expand Collapse
    lovebirds

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    536
    0
    (b) This prohibition shall not apply to the following persons:

    (1) Officers and enlisted personnel of the armed forces of the United States when in discharge of their official duties as such and acting under orders requiring them to carry arms and weapons;

    (2) Civil and law enforcement officers of the United States;

    (3) Officers and soldiers of the militia and the national guard when called into actual service;

    (4) Officers of the State, or of any county, city, town, or company police agency charged with the execution of the laws of the State, when acting in the discharge of their official duties;

    (5) Sworn law‑enforcement officers, when off‑duty, provided that an officer does not carry a concealed weapon while consuming alcohol or an unlawful controlled substance or while alcohol or an unlawful controlled substance remains in the officer's body.

    Others are not exempt. They are still ruled by this law. They are permitted to carry a handgun with a permit... but still under the aegis of this section. Courts consider the intent of the legislature in interpreting the law. The intent here is clear and splitting hairs in the language is not going to change that.
     
  12. geekboy

    geekboy
    Expand Collapse
    Glock Lover

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Not quite all the facts... as you left out the other exception in (a1)(2). CCW holders clearly have an "exemption" when the weapon is a handgun (14-269(a1)(2) which is the paragraph above what you posted).

    What you post is concerning the persons who are not prohibited for all of 14-269. I'm just saying there's a conflict in the wording. NC 14-288.7 should have been written to read that...

    Because the law doesn't have an exclusion for anyone exempted from the provisions of 14-269, it is vague and not prosecutable. The law (14-288.7) clearly should read 14-269(b) if that was the intent of the legislature (and law) to prohibit everyone BUT law enforcement and others excluded by the law. Because it reads "exemption", then 14-269 clearly "exempts" CCW holders when the weapon is a handgun.

    Just a language issue. I don't know why I'm so stuck on the language, but the language is wrong if you want to prohibit CCW of a handgun of CCW permit holders when that weapon is a handgun.

    The bottom line is that 14-288.7 (State of Emergency) should have specifically pointed to the paragraph (2) instead of just the statute 14-269. Like I wrote, it's a defense.

    I wonder what their intent was? The law was written well after CCW law, and was in fact emmended in 1994 in the same executive session (1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14) as the new CCW law!. If the legislature intended to exclude CCW holders, they should have ammended 14-288.7 as necessary during the same executive session in which they ammended the CCW law in 1994, but they chose not to. Oh, but they did ammend 14-288.7 in the same session, but chose NOT TO specify explicit exclusinos by simply adding (b) to the Section 14-269 exemption! So, I can't see their intent to exclude CCW holders when they gave them an exemption from 14-269 (with respect to handguns) in 1994 and continued to ammend it through 2006 legislative session! What I see is their intent NOT TO exclude CCW holders from the exemption in 14-269 (with respect to handguns)!

    I'm from Florida and when someone says "intent" I have nightmares about the 2000 Election and dangling chads! I understand legislative intent fully. I'm sure that the legislature intended (in 1994) to prohibit those not "authorized" to carry concealed weapons (or any weapon for that matter) during a declared state of emergency. I don't think they intended to exclude CCW holders. Even 14-269 (2), the paragraph which you reference, has been re-written so many times, it's almost indistinguishable from the original paragraph! They are clearly keeping the laws up to date. So, obviuosly, 14-288.7 is up to date and accurate... and accurately gives exemptions to those exempted by 14-269. That's all I'm saying. :)

    I'm also saying that the AG's opinion is reading legislative intent into it, just as you are, but I can't see the legislative intent with respect to excluding CCW permittees from the exclusion. The CCW law and Article 36A "Riots and Civil Disorders" (14-288.1 through 14-288.20) have been around since 1917 and 1969, respectively. They've been updated at least several times, with the 14-288.7 law (specific to weapons during a declared emergency or "riot") being ammended in 1993 and 1994 (in the SAME session as the ammended CCW laws!) and the 14-269 (Concealed Weapons) laws being ammended many times since 1917 and more recently 1997, 2003, twice in 2005, and 2006.
     
  13. Glocks&Ducs

    Glocks&Ducs
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    4,051
    1
    What is paranoid nonsense about this? What other reason would the sheriff need a copy of your permit and the "intent to purchase form" for? Other than to record who has what guns? And for some reason, nobody runs against the Sheriff around here. This past election cycle, somebody finally did, and he got something like 3% of the votes.

    [​IMG]


    How can they not be making money, having the deputy or the civilian that probably makes a little over minimun wage, make a 3 minute phone call for a NICS check and charge $10 for a local police check and $5 per permit? It's a scam.
     
  14. geekboy

    geekboy
    Expand Collapse
    Glock Lover

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    N.C. should have wrote their emergency act (36A) like Florida's!

    Then it would have some teeth.

    The problem with laws comes when they reference other sections of law. I think they should just make the language plain, as it is above!

    I'll concede that the N.C. legislature probably meant to exclude CCW holders as most states do. But, by referencing another section of law, they just made it unclear -- at least to me! My mind is like a logic gate... the logic in the 14-288.7 statute just doesn't exclude CCW holders :)
     
  15. Glocks&Ducs

    Glocks&Ducs
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    4,051
    1
    I don't know, it looks pretty vague to me.

    (1) You can't sell. But what about give or trade?

    (3) Intentionally? Oh, Im sorry officer. I forgot to take my range bag out of my trunk.

    And your weapon can't be confiscated unless you are committing a crime? But can you still be arrested for engagin in the criminal act, of not being in compliance with said statute, by carrying that firearm in the first place? Even if you weren't committing another crime?
     
  16. geekboy

    geekboy
    Expand Collapse
    Glock Lover

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    527
    0
    Location:
    Tampa Bay, Florida
    Touche.

    However,
    (1) just as it reads... it doesn't prevent giving. Trading is prohibited because there may or may not be consideration, but that's a "sale" for all intents and purposes. (In a trade, it's either an "even exchange" (no consideration) or you pay something in addition (with consideration).)

    (3) just as it reads. Your example would be fine, but that's a defense to prosecution, not arrest. :)

    However, like all laws, it does not mean the it's not an "arrestable" offense. It's only a defense of the section if you actually didn't intend to possess the weapon at the time. :) having it strapped to your side (your sidearm), pretty much negates any reasoning behind having forgotten it was on your hip! :)

    My purpose for using the Florida one as an example, is that it doesn't reference any other section! For example, it doesn't reference 790 (our concealed weapons section). It just explicitly states what the statute prohibits. That is to say that it does not reference 790.01/790.06 or 790.051... "Exemption from licensing requirements; law enforcement officers". Tha's all.

    Doesn't say anything about you having to commit two crimes. :) Nothing in the section precludes them from taking your weapon from you if you are commiting a crime. Carrying a concealed firearm during an emergency... well... is a crime. :) The purpose of the paragraph saying that they can't take your firearms, is those which you legally own and are not taken out in public. That paragraph was added after the fiasco in New Orleans.

    Using your logic, you'd be confused about carrying OC as well (in Flrodia). It's legel to carry OC in Florida. But, if you use it during the commission of a crime, then the possession of it is illegal! You'll have it taken away, be arrested, and charged with unlawful posession of OC as well as the crime for which you're being charged (known as the "underlying" crime).

    Again, the purpose of the sectino was that it doesn't reference other parts of law, so you don't have to argue both sections of law.

    Edited to add that if there's no "underlying" crime, then in either example, your unlawful posession of a firearm during a state of emergency in a public place causes firearm to be confiscated, and my O.C. example, then each of those laws stands as is! It's when you introduce an underlying crime -- in your example and mine -- that a "different" law (or set of rules) applies. Another example, baseball bats are perfectly legal, until you use one to commit an assault. Then it's a deadly weapon. It too, will be confiscated. :)
     
  17. obxemt

    obxemt
    Expand Collapse
    Chaplain of CT

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    7,467
    0
    Location:
    In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean
    If it is as bad as you say, you would have my vote.

    You need to face some facts and educate yourself. I've been a Deputy Sheriff in NC since 2000, and I don't know one that's making "minimum wage". But I'm sure you just meant that as an insult. The sheriff's office where I used to work had a dedicated investigator who did nothing but permits...she had nearly 20 years in a was a top-notch detective. She was making close to $40k a year, which for law enforcement isn't bad. Obviously you have no concept what a background check includes...and it ain't NICS. It's NCIC, criminal histories, processing paperwork and applications, contacting references, etc. And when people mave a spotted past, there's a lot of follow-up.

    Then you have the civilian employees that have also been working there close to 20 years, typing up permits instead of doing paperwork that matters. $5 a permit and $90 for a CCW doesn't even begin to recoup the cost of performing these services which are mandated by statute. There's no money being made.
     
  18. Glocks&Ducs

    Glocks&Ducs
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    4,051
    1
    Perhaps you should look at your own knowledge base before you tell other people to educate themselves. It is in fact NICS.
    http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nicsfact.htm

    And I wasn't claiming that deputies make minimum wage. I was referring to the civilians that work there, and I did say probably. Most clerical type jobs don't pay that much, especially around here. I know people with college degrees that make $10 an hour, because that is all that is offered around here.
     
  19. WinstonSmith

    WinstonSmith
    Expand Collapse
    lovebirds

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    536
    0
    You're right that it would be clearer not to reference other sections, but that opens the possibility of conflicting with another section. I think the referencing is to avoid such a conflict..... but it doesn't work very well.

    On the language issue, I think you are equating the circumstantial "exception" to an exemption. In one case, the CCW holder is allowed by that section of the law to carry. In the other instance, LEOs are not covered by the law at all.
     
  20. obxemt

    obxemt
    Expand Collapse
    Chaplain of CT

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    7,467
    0
    Location:
    In the middle of the Atlantic Ocean
    Sorry, you're simply wrong. Shen sheriff's offices issue permits (purchase and CCW) they're doing alot more than a NICS check.