North Carolina Glock...Errr...I Mean Gun Laws [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : North Carolina Glock...Errr...I Mean Gun Laws


Iron Nose
02-18-2007, 14:32
This goes out to all the North Carolinans on the board. How stringent are the NC gun laws. I am a soon-to-be medically retired Peace Officer in good standing out here in CA. In CA I am still able to CC under my retired PO status. Will I have the same rights in NC, or do I have to apply for a permit as a citizen? I know the law that Bush signed a couple of years ago, grants us the ability to cross states and CC, but not sure about the retired status. We are seriously considering relocation to NC. I am originally from Balto., MD, but have no desire to move back there. NC will be much closer to my family in MD. I would also like to PM with some NCers about employment and location suggestions.

WinstonSmith
02-18-2007, 15:44
I don't know about the retired status issue, but getting a CCW is not difficult in NC. A short safety course. In general gun laws in NC are fine with the exception of the prohibition against any carry in a declared emergency. It's a beautiful state with the best climate in the east. Beaches, mountains, Research Triangle, universities....and a little slower pace of life. What are you looking for?

SBM
02-18-2007, 16:00
Are you looking to get back into LE, or something else?

As far as the laws here go, all the info you need is on packing.org.

Iron Nose
02-18-2007, 17:15
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
I don't know about the retired status issue, but getting a CCW is not difficult in NC. A short safety course. In general gun laws in NC are fine with the exception of the prohibition against any carry in a declared emergency. It's a beautiful state with the best climate in the east. Beaches, mountains, Research Triangle, universities....and a little slower pace of life. What are you looking for?

I'm looking for a peaceful place that is within reach of city amenities. Right now, where I live, the closest malls are 2 hours to the south and 2.5 hours to the east of here. Lakes for the kids to wakeboard and tube are 3-5 hours away. I'm looking for some nice temperatures and sunshine. Up here we get @ 80-110 inches of rain a year. The summers are always overcast and cool (@ 65*-70*). Being within reasonable reach of lakes for fishing and boating, and the ocean for fun would be AWESOME. Edit: Question- Why would it be against the law to carry during a declared emergency? IMHO, that would be the most prime time to carry. That would really suck if you got hit by a hurricaine like Katrina, and the only people carrying guns would be the BGs. And we all know what happens during the states of emergency...Robbing, looting, murder, etc... For some reason that really doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by SBM
Are you looking to get back into LE, or something else?

As far as the laws here go, all the info you need is on packing.org.

If the physical limits that I have on my shoulder will still allow me to be a LEO, I would love to stay in the field. The shoulder injury on my weak side prevents me from being able to combat inmates inside the prison. I worked at Pelican Bay State Prison for 12 years. Of which 6.5 were as a Sergeant. So I have supervisory and custody experience to offer.

Thanks for the link and the information fellas. I will give it a look-see. :thumbsup:

obxemt
02-18-2007, 17:44
NC gun laws aren't bad at all. It is a shall-issue state for CCW permits. Also, with a CCW, you can buy as many pistols as you want. Without, you have to apply to the Sheriff's Office in your county of residence for permits which cost $5 each and you can only get five at a time.

You can technically open-carry on your person or in your vehicle but there is also a common-law offense called "going armed to the terror of the people." It is a long story and there have been lots of arguments here on GT over it, but the fact is that the offense remains untested as to its full application because it is rarely, if ever, charged.

Not sure how HR218 applies once you retire and move...your agency has to issue a retired ID, which in my mind means it would limit you to the state you worked but I may be wrong. CCW is relatively easy to get.

NC will recognize many states' L.E. certifications. We have reserve and part-time officers which are regular officers; you just have to find an agency willing to take you and who allows you to work (as opposed to just holding your certification as a paperwork courtesy). In NC, Sheriff's Offices patrol unincorporated areas. Deputies are certified through Sheriffs Training and Standards, police officers are through Criminal Justice T&S, but they are essentially the same thing and you can switch between SO and PD without any issues once certified. Many Sheriff's Offices jump on retirees to bailiff.

To become NC-certified, you must have been through an academy with comparable training and hours, and then challenege the state test. You can also take an 86-hour NC-specific portion of an academy, THEN challenge the state test which is what most people do because if you fail the test, you have to go through the whole academy (Basic Law Enforcement Training or "BLET") in its entirety. If you worked corrections most recently, it won't transfer to L.E. certifiction.

I'd recommend the mountains for retirement; Ashville, Dillsboro, Sylva. The Outer Banks is too busy even year-round now, and it is 90 minutes from the Tidewater, Va area (nearest metroplex). Charlotte is a nightmare as is Durham.

PM me if you have specific questions.

10mmFeeder
02-18-2007, 18:01
Durham is not a nightmare. You can't even compare it to Charlotte, it's about 5 times smaller. However, I still wouldn't suggest living there, because I suggest Cary. I live in Raleigh, which is also great, but Cary is absolutely wonderful, almost zero crime, and plenty to do. It is always in the top ten places in the US to live. Not to0 big, about 100,000 people.

As far as the Carolina carry laws, they aren't bad. The only one some people have a problem with is no carrying if you have had a drink, not even a sip.

Basically NC is awesome. You can't really go wrong anywhere. Someone suggested the mountains, just be aware that the climate there can be much different from the rest of the state.

obxemt
02-18-2007, 18:26
Originally posted by 10mmFeeder
Durham is not a nightmare. You can't even compare it to Charlotte, it's about 5 times smaller.

Durham is a nightmare. And no comparison was made.

geekboy
02-18-2007, 18:29
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
In general gun laws in NC are fine with the exception of the prohibition against any carry in a declared emergency. What what what????!!!!??? Sheesh, might as well take them away, like Nagin did in New Orleans. I think that's the one time where CC would be useful.

I dno't mean to hijack the thread, but that's the first provision in any state law I've read which limited CC during a declared emergency.

givo08
02-18-2007, 18:29
I'd say Durham is a nightmare also :o. Try Cary or Raleigh if you want to be on the east side of the state. Charlotte is a nice, clean city with some really great suburbs around it (huntersville, belmont, mooresville, etc). Also Hickory is a nice town :thumbsup:

WinstonSmith
02-18-2007, 18:36
Originally posted by Iron Nose
I'm looking for a peaceful place that is within reach of city amenities. ... Being within reasonable reach of lakes for fishing and boating, and the ocean for fun would be AWESOME.
There are lakes all over the state. If you are more interested in ocean than mountains, and you want city amenities, then you might consider Wilmington. Nice town. Old Southern charm but modern high tech outlook. And it's full of non-southern immigrants so you would feel at home.

Hurricanes are a consideration though. If you want to move inland, you could consider the Raleigh area... very fast growing... lots of job opportunities and about 2 hrs. from the coast. NC summers are hot but not as bad as Georgia or Texas. Winters are mild. You'll love it.

Fredman
02-18-2007, 19:26
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
In general gun laws in NC are fine with the exception of the prohibition against any carry in a declared emergency.

Have you got a cite for that law? If it is law it must be new, because I've never heard of that before. Never discussed in my CCW class, not in the CCW law handbook.

geekboy
02-18-2007, 19:28
Originally posted by Fredman
Have you got a cite for that law? If it is law it must be new, because I've never heard of that before. Never discussed in my CCW class, not in the CCW law handbook. I dont' see it in the Statutes either.

Bogey
02-18-2007, 19:40
There is NO prohibition in a declared emergency.

Durham SUCKS. Period.

Raleigh is fine, but from what you describe, areas north of Raleigh would be great. Creedmore is a sleepy little town, and 30 minutes from Raleigh, 25 minutes from Henderson, and very close to 3 large reservoirs. Mountains are 2 1/2 hours away, and so is the beach.

Lots of stuff happening all around the greater Raleigh area. Durham might be nice to go to a Durham Bulls game, or see some historic stuff, but sheesh....crime isn't as isolated there as it is in Raleigh or Cary. Oh, I live in Raleigh, and I think it's easier to get around here than it is in Cary. (less infrastructure it seems to me)

Cobra64
02-18-2007, 19:48
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
I don't know about the retired status issue, but getting a CCW is not difficult in NC. A short safety course. In general gun laws in NC are fine with the exception of the prohibition against any carry in a declared emergency.
No where in my CCW manual does is it state anything about, "prohibition against any carry in a declared emergency."

Cobra64
02-18-2007, 19:50
Originally posted by Iron Nose
This goes out to all the North Carolinans on the board. How stringent are the NC gun laws. I am a soon-to-be medically retired Peace Officer in good standing out here in CA. In CA I am still able to CC under my retired PO status. Will I have the same rights in NC, or do I have to apply for a permit as a citizen? I know the law that Bush signed a couple of years ago, grants us the ability to cross states and CC, but not sure about the retired status. We are seriously considering relocation to NC. I am originally from Balto., MD, but have no desire to move back there. NC will be much closer to my family in MD. I would also like to PM with some NCers about employment and location suggestions.

NC is really beautiful in the Raleigh area. Many of my friends moved there last year. Housing prices are very low.

WinstonSmith
02-18-2007, 20:14
Originally posted by Fredman
Have you got a cite for that law? If it is law it must be new, because I've never heard of that before. Never discussed in my CCW class, not in the CCW law handbook.
Here is the reference. (http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:ZwMyUo2n2HYJ:www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf+nc+gun+carry+declared+emergency&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a) It's page 22, section 5 in the attorney general's summation of NC gun laws. This would probably not be in the CCW manual because it is not specific for concealed carry but applies to all carry in a declared emergency. Section 6 is the law on going armed to the terror of the public.

5. AREAS OF EMERGENCIES AND RIOTS
It is also a misdemeanor under North Carolina law for a person to transport or possess,
off his own premises, a dangerous weapon in an area during a declared state of emergency,
or in the vicinity of a riot. A concealed handgun permit does not allow a permittee to carry a weapon in these areas.

6. GOING ARMED TO THE TERROR OF THE PEOPLE
By common law in North Carolina, it is unlawful for a person to arm himself 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 has said 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.

The actual General Statute reference by the AG for the area of declared emergency is this one:
14‑288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:

(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or

(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.

(b) 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.

(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Dinky
02-18-2007, 20:15
I live in Durham, I have a permit to carry----------No problem

Glocks&Ducs
02-18-2007, 20:22
I feel sorry for some of you that think you only have to follow the laws in your CCW books. There are several more laws that apply to gun ownership and possesion, concealed or otherwise, that you should know aside from what is in your CCW book. I bet some of you have never even read these source documents.

http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/homePage.pl


14‑288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to transport or possess off his own premises any dangerous weapon or substance in any area:
(1) In which a declared state of emergency exists; or
(2) Within the immediate vicinity of which a riot is occurring.
(b) 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.
(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. (1969, c. 869, s. 1; 1993, c. 539, s. 192; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 24, s. 14(c).)

Glocks&Ducs
02-18-2007, 20:40
Iron nose,

Some things to consider before moving this way. NC is one of the most highly taxed states in this area. State income tax is pretty high, gas tax is outrageous, and our insurance rates on the coastal counties is getting ready to go up another 25% in March. But then again, coming from California, perhaps you won't feel the pinch so much.

The spring and summer can be quite hot, rainy, and muggy, plus you might have to put up with hurricanes every once in a while if you live close enough to the coast.

The gun laws aren't too bad, depending on what county you move to. I know there are counties where the sherrif will issue several gun permits pretty much on the spot, once the NICS check has been done. Others, you have to fill out a crapload of paperwork and have people you know sign a statement, stating that they trust you to own a handgun, and then you have to wait several days to weeks for a locally imposed limit of 2 permits. So you are forced to pay $10 for a police check, and $5 per permit, with a limit of five per year. So instead of paying $10 and getting your five for the year, you have to pay $30 in police checks in order to get your limit of five, because the local sherrif will only issue two permits per application. The simple solution, is to get a concealed carry permit. Which I don't know the particulars about, as they pertain to you being retired. But knowing NC, you would probably have to go through the normal process, so the local sherrif can get the application process money.

WinstonSmith
02-18-2007, 20:48
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
Some things to consider before moving this way. NC is one of the most highly taxed states in this area. State income tax is pretty high...
This can be a little misleading. In NC, education is paid for mainly at the state level and that (being the largest part of the state budget)does make the income tax higher than in other southeastern states. But those other states pay for education at the county/municipal level so their property taxes are higher than in NC.

THEPOPE
02-18-2007, 20:49
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 ;)

obxemt
02-18-2007, 20:51
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
But knowing NC, you would probably have to go through the normal process, so the local sherrif can get the application process money.

Did you think before you wrote that? Oh wait, can't spell sheriff, viewpoint invalid.

geekboy
02-18-2007, 20:58
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
I feel sorry for some of you that think you only have to follow the laws in your CCW books. There are several more laws that apply to gun ownership and possesion, concealed or otherwise, that you should know aside from what is in your CCW book. I bet some of you have never even read these source documents.
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!

Glocks&Ducs
02-18-2007, 21:00
Originally posted by obxemt
Did you think before you wrote that? Oh wait, can't spell sheriff, viewpoint invalid.

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.

obxemt
02-18-2007, 21:08
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.

WinstonSmith
02-18-2007, 21:09
Originally posted by geekboy
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 [B]"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.
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.

Glocks&Ducs
02-18-2007, 21:16
Originally posted by geekboy
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!

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.

geekboy
02-18-2007, 21:16
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
5. AREAS OF EMERGENCIES AND RIOTS
It is also a misdemeanor under North Carolina law for a person to transport or possess, off his own premises, a dangerous weapon in an area during a declared state of emergency, or in the vicinity of a riot. A concealed handgun permit does not allow a permittee to carry a weapon in these areas.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...

geekboy
02-18-2007, 21:19
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
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. 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:

geekboy
02-18-2007, 21:24
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
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. Read the statutes... NC General Laws 14-269 (http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-269.html). 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".

WinstonSmith
02-18-2007, 21:44
(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.

geekboy
02-18-2007, 21:53
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
(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. 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).

(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:
.
.
.
(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.
.
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...

14‑288.7. Transporting dangerous weapon or substance during emergency; possessing off premises; exceptions.
.
.
.
(b) This section does not apply to persons exempted from the provisions of G.S. 14‑269(b) with respect to any activities lawfully engaged in while carrying out their dutiesBecause 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.

Glocks&Ducs
02-18-2007, 22:35
Originally posted by obxemt
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.

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.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b260/shmauricio/permit.jpg


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.

geekboy
02-18-2007, 22:42
N.C. should have wrote their emergency act (36A) like Florida's!

870.044 Automatic emergency measures.--Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:

(1) The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(2) The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(3) The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in a criminal act.
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 :)

Glocks&Ducs
02-18-2007, 22:56
Originally posted by geekboy
N.C. should have wrote their emergency act (36A) like Florida's!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
870.044 Automatic emergency measures.--Whenever the public official declares that a state of emergency exists, pursuant to s. 870.043, the following acts shall be prohibited during the period of said emergency throughout the jurisdiction:

(1) The sale of, or offer to sell, with or without consideration, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(2) The intentional display, after the emergency is declared, by or in any store or shop of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description.

(3) The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or person in military service acting in the official performance of her or his duty.

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to authorize the seizure, taking, or confiscation of firearms that are lawfully possessed, unless a person is engaged in a criminal act.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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 :)

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?

geekboy
02-18-2007, 23:07
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
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? 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.

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?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. :)

obxemt
02-18-2007, 23:07
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
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.

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.

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.

Glocks&Ducs
02-18-2007, 23:20
Originally posted by obxemt
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.

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.

WinstonSmith
02-19-2007, 06:24
Originally posted by geekboy
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 :) [/B]
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.

obxemt
02-19-2007, 06:28
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
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

Sorry, you're simply wrong. Shen sheriff's offices issue permits (purchase and CCW) they're doing alot more than a NICS check.

geekboy
02-19-2007, 06:39
Originally posted by WinstonSmith
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. Well, unfortunately, I now know about the declared emergency situation. I just can't believe the riot clause that you can't be in the "vicinity". (Not to open up that discussion.)

In any event, N.C. is doing what most State's call Emergency Powers and which suspend Habeas Corpus. Speaking of that... I'd hate to be arrested under that provision, N.C. 14-288.7, during an emergency. Because Habeas Corpus is suspended, you could spend 30, 60, 90, 180 days in jail. Look at those fokls in Louisiana who spent way too much time in jail, because of the hurricane and the resulting collapse (failure) of the government.

I hope this never happens in N.C. or Florida. Just read below... how the folks arrested for misdemeanors -- and some shouldn't have been arrested at all because the charge was not prosecutable -- were left in the prisons for 6 months!

The New Orleans criminal justice system collapsed after Hurricane Katrina, resulting in a constitutional crisis. Eight thousand people, mostly indigent and charged with misdemeanors such as public drunkenness or failure to pay traffic tickets, languished indefinitely in state prisons. The court system shut its doors, the police department fell into disarray, few prosecutors remained, and a handful of public defenders could not meet with, much less represent, the thousands detained. This dire situation persisted for many months, long after the system should have been able to recover.

10mmFeeder
02-19-2007, 07:30
Originally posted by Dinky
I live in Durham, I have a permit to carry----------No problem

I think everyone who is downing Durham is bad mouthing the area, not carry issues in Durham. Any of you Durham downers ever been to the South Pointe area? Yeah, real nightmare...If you say Downtown Durham sucks I will agree 100%, but its not fair to generalize.

Dinky
02-19-2007, 08:09
Originally posted by 10mmFeeder
I think everyone who is downing Durham is bad mouthing the area, not carry issues in Durham. Any of you Durham downers ever been to the South Pointe area? Yeah, real nightmare...If you say Downtown Durham sucks I will agree 100%, but its not fair to generalize.



I have lived in the Durham area for 22 years and have no regrets.

obxemt
02-19-2007, 08:18
There are nice areas in Durham. The problem is that you are always within a stone's throw distance of a crackhead no matter how nice it is.

10mmFeeder
02-19-2007, 08:37
Originally posted by obxemt
There are nice areas in Durham. The problem is that you are always within a stone's throw distance of a crackhead no matter how nice it is.

Do you work in or around Durham?

Dinky
02-19-2007, 08:40
Originally posted by obxemt
There are nice areas in Durham. The problem is that you are always within a stone's throw distance of a crackhead no matter how nice it is.


Very true, but I know what areas to stay out of most of the time.

obxemt
02-19-2007, 10:03
Originally posted by 10mmFeeder
Do you work in or around Durham?

I don't work there, but I have business contacts there. In the last three years I've been to Durham probably a dozen times, maybe 15. If things work out the way I hope they do, I'll be moving to the area in July and spending all my time in Durham, but I promise you I won't live there! :supergrin:

Jasper007
02-20-2007, 23:20
From the county in NC that I live in, may help?

http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/MCSO/Community+Services/Gun+Permits.htm

Jack

Glocks&Ducs
02-21-2007, 06:03
Originally posted by obxemt
Sorry, you're simply wrong. Shen sheriff's offices issue permits (purchase and CCW) they're doing alot more than a NICS check.

I'm not wrong. The only requirements a Sheriff needs to issue someone a purchase permit, is to perform a NICS check and be satisfied that you are of good moral character. If you have no criminal record whatsoever, and NICS reflects that, the Sheriff can use that as proof of good moral character. Am I saying that every single person who doesn't have a record is an angel? Nope. But legally that is all he needs. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be counties where you can apply for a permit and walk out in 20 minutes with as many as five at a time. No BS moral character references to fill out. I have been to gun shows, where you can apply for permits, and get them on the spot. The Sheriff just needs a couple minutes to call in the NICS check. I personally got two permits and bought two guns at a gun show this way.

All that 3 character reference bullcrap is just that. You can walk down the street and find any idiot to sign those for you, and the person calling on the Sheriff's behalf wouldn't ever know the difference. They aren't proving a damn thing. Those are local Sheriff imposed character references and they are a waste of time.

Nelybarg
02-25-2007, 18:50
i was looking for the rule that says if you got a carry permit, you no longer need to get purchase permits, cant seem to find it in writing, though i know i've seen it before. can someone hook me up?

as far as where to live, durham is ok. i've been in durham (east side) for 3 years. i dont mind it. nice neighborhood, low crime from what i've seen. my bud's a DPD cop, who keeps busy, but not in my area. i'm a cop in a different county. cary and raleigh got just as much crime as anywhere else. i will move out of durham when my kids get of age to go to school.

only bad issue with durham... its the only county in the state with mandatory handgun registration. and the registration is public record (i got more pals in DCSO).

off topic...how come when the ccw permit became able to replace a purchase permit, why didnt they include LEO's?

Glocks&Ducs
02-25-2007, 18:59
Originally posted by Nelybarg
i was looking for the rule that says if you got a carry permit, you no longer need to get purchase permits, cant seem to find it in writing, though i know i've seen it before. can someone hook me up?

as far as where to live, durham is ok. i've been in durham (east side) for 3 years. i dont mind it. nice neighborhood, low crime from what i've seen. my bud's a DPD cop, who keeps busy, but not in my area. i'm a cop in a different county. cary and raleigh got just as much crime as anywhere else. i will move out of durham when my kids get of age to go to school.

only bad issue with durham... its the only county in the state with mandatory handgun registration. and the registration is public record (i got more pals in DCSO).

off topic...how come when the ccw permit became able to replace a purchase permit, why didnt they include LEO's?

It's in here.
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

And they didn't include LEOs because NC law states LEOs can purchase a gun without a permit anyway.

Nelybarg
02-25-2007, 19:41
Originally posted by Glocks&Ducs
It's in here.
http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/ncfirearmslaws.pdf

And they didn't include LEOs because NC law states LEOs can purchase a gun without a permit anyway.


thanks for the link. as far as i know, i can only buy without a permit with a letter from the chief, for duty purposes.

Glocks&Ducs
02-25-2007, 20:10
Originally posted by Nelybarg
thanks for the link. as far as i know, i can only buy without a permit with a letter from the chief, for duty purposes.

I never looked into it before, not being LEO. But from reading the link I provided, all you have to do is declare the gun is going to be used for official duties and you can purchase using your LEO credentials. Otherwise, you have to get a permit. Also, I don't understand the reasoning behind it, but apparently LEO can apply for and get a concealed carry permit(aren't you allowed to carry concealed already anyway?). And if you got a CCW permit, you would not need to get a permit for each purchase(official duty or not), just like anyone else that has a concealed carry permit.

"The requirement for obtaining a permit before purchasing or receiving a handgun does
not apply to law enforcement officers of North Carolina, who are authorized by law to carry
firearms. To use such an exemption, however, the law enforcement officer must identify
himself to the vendor or donor as being a law enforcement officer authorized to carry
firearms, and further state that the purpose for the weapon is directly related to his official
duties. Law enforcement officers need to be aware that if the purchase of the weapon is not
directly related to the law enforcement officer's official duties, they would be required to
obtain a permit prior to the receipt of the weapon."

Nelybarg
02-25-2007, 22:01
correct. i dont need a CCW permit to carry concealed. i'm covered under my job. the only benefit for me to get a CCW is to buy guns without having to get a purchase permit.

if i wanted to, i can get a chief to do me a letter and i can buy without a permit, but its up to the dealer, and it has to be for duty purposes. if i want one for fun, i gotta get a permit.

thats what makes no sense about not including LEO's in the exemption. the reasoning given to CCW permit holders was that they've already passed a background check, they dont need a purchase permit.

conversely, LEO's also passed a background check, but we still gotta get purchase permits.