What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? North Carolina
Cary and/or Durham Handgun Bans/Restrictions Illegal?
I am not following why these essential open carry bans are legal. Tell me where I am wrong. When looking at OpenCarry.org - State Information For North Carolina it appears that NC has a state preemption against the localities as below:
Complete state preemption of firearms laws except localities may regulate the possession of firearms:
* In public-owned buildings
* On the grounds or parking areas of those buildings
* In public parks or recreation areas
That would appear to say that the cities have fairly small control over carry laws. The only problem is this section here: NC Code Chapter 14 § 160A.189 which says:
"� 160A‑189.� Firearms.
A city may by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the discharge of firearms at any time or place within the city except when used in defense of person or property or pursuant to lawful directions of law‑enforcement officers, and may regulate the display of firearms on the streets, sidewalks, alleys, or other public property. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit a city's authority to take action under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. (1971, c. 698, s. 1.)"
Any thoughts on why they are very intentional to say "regulate, restrict, or prohibit" discharge of firearms but then simply limit their wording one sentence later to "regulate" when speaking of carry? Does this imply that the cities can control far less about carrying than they can about firing the weapons? Would this not be more interpreted as brandishing laws, rather than simple peaceful carry? Any lawyers have an opinion on this? Also, it says regulate display. Every interpretation I have ever seen of any Constitution (Federal or State) says that regulation cannot be prohibition, but rather can be reasonable (read: slight) restrictions/regulations, right?
From this NC Supreme Court decision (below) it says that the State may regulate the length of a firearm, but I see no mention anywhere stating that a city may regulate the length of a firearm being carried (what Durham/Cary does?)
As the court stated in State v. Kerner t is ... a reasonable regulation ... to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of "arms" which the people are entitled to bear [emphasis added].
181 N.C. 574, 578, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (1921). Thus, the State can regulate the length of a particular firearm as long as there is a reasonable purpose for doing so. We are not convinced by Fennell's argument that such a restriction leads us down the "slippery slope" [emphasis added] and gives the legislature full license to restrict any and all firearms possessed by individuals. We overrule this assignment of error.
Here is a section of a Cary law that has been mentioned in other posts:
(d) Applicability to other public locations. No person shall display any firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in G.S. § 14-269(a) while on any public street, alley, sidewalk or other public property within the town unless specifically permitted or authorized by law.
Anyone know, from case law (particularly NC, but others help including SCOTUS) what "display" typically refers to. Is this brandishing, or could it count as being in a holster?
Summary of my issue with this: By NC Constitution, concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. I love it, it isn't likely to be eliminated, but it could be. We also, Federally and State-wise, are Constitutionally allowed to keep AND BEAR (doesn't that mean carry with?) arms. So if the NCGA eliminated our privilege to concealed carry, would we not then have any ability to bear arms in Cary, NC? I don't think any reasonable interpretation of bearing arms restricts you solely to your own personal property. Isn't that what the keep arms part is all about?
Do we have a case because of anything coming out of McDonald v Chicago?
THANKS MUCH!!!!
Cary and/or Durham Handgun Bans/Restrictions Illegal?
I am not following why these essential open carry bans are legal. Tell me where I am wrong. When looking at OpenCarry.org - State Information For North Carolina it appears that NC has a state preemption against the localities as below:
Complete state preemption of firearms laws except localities may regulate the possession of firearms:
* In public-owned buildings
* On the grounds or parking areas of those buildings
* In public parks or recreation areas
That would appear to say that the cities have fairly small control over carry laws. The only problem is this section here: NC Code Chapter 14 § 160A.189 which says:
"� 160A‑189.� Firearms.
A city may by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the discharge of firearms at any time or place within the city except when used in defense of person or property or pursuant to lawful directions of law‑enforcement officers, and may regulate the display of firearms on the streets, sidewalks, alleys, or other public property. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit a city's authority to take action under Article 36A of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes. (1971, c. 698, s. 1.)"
Any thoughts on why they are very intentional to say "regulate, restrict, or prohibit" discharge of firearms but then simply limit their wording one sentence later to "regulate" when speaking of carry? Does this imply that the cities can control far less about carrying than they can about firing the weapons? Would this not be more interpreted as brandishing laws, rather than simple peaceful carry? Any lawyers have an opinion on this? Also, it says regulate display. Every interpretation I have ever seen of any Constitution (Federal or State) says that regulation cannot be prohibition, but rather can be reasonable (read: slight) restrictions/regulations, right?
From this NC Supreme Court decision (below) it says that the State may regulate the length of a firearm, but I see no mention anywhere stating that a city may regulate the length of a firearm being carried (what Durham/Cary does?)
As the court stated in State v. Kerner t is ... a reasonable regulation ... to require that a pistol shall not be under a certain length, which, if reasonable, will prevent the use of pistols of small size, which are not borne as arms, but which are easily and ordinarily carried concealed. To exclude all pistols, however, is not a regulation, but a prohibition, of arms, which come under the designation of "arms" which the people are entitled to bear [emphasis added].
181 N.C. 574, 578, 107 S.E. 222, 225 (1921). Thus, the State can regulate the length of a particular firearm as long as there is a reasonable purpose for doing so. We are not convinced by Fennell's argument that such a restriction leads us down the "slippery slope" [emphasis added] and gives the legislature full license to restrict any and all firearms possessed by individuals. We overrule this assignment of error.
Here is a section of a Cary law that has been mentioned in other posts:
(d) Applicability to other public locations. No person shall display any firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in G.S. § 14-269(a) while on any public street, alley, sidewalk or other public property within the town unless specifically permitted or authorized by law.
Anyone know, from case law (particularly NC, but others help including SCOTUS) what "display" typically refers to. Is this brandishing, or could it count as being in a holster?
Summary of my issue with this: By NC Constitution, concealed carry is a privilege, not a right. I love it, it isn't likely to be eliminated, but it could be. We also, Federally and State-wise, are Constitutionally allowed to keep AND BEAR (doesn't that mean carry with?) arms. So if the NCGA eliminated our privilege to concealed carry, would we not then have any ability to bear arms in Cary, NC? I don't think any reasonable interpretation of bearing arms restricts you solely to your own personal property. Isn't that what the keep arms part is all about?
Do we have a case because of anything coming out of McDonald v Chicago?
THANKS MUCH!!!!
