Different intrepretation of the law.

wsfiredude said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

12/15/1791
Click to expand...

Yeah....... That's what the 2nd Amendment says, but, unfortunately, that's not what the law says. ...even though I always thought the Constitution is supposed to protect our God-given rights from being taken away by an over-bearing government...

Silly me...
 
Amendment II, along with the others, is THE LAW. Any action taken to restrict, regulate or prohibit a right of free citizens is, by its very nature, a criminal act.

Fact, not opinion.

Additionally, the BOR doesn't protect and/or guarantee anything. It is simply an enumeration of our rights and protection/preservation of those rights does not lie with a document, but sits squarely on the shoulders of the citizenry.

The free exercise of rights is what it is...a choice.
 
Last edited:
wsfiredude said:
Amendment II, along with the others, is THE LAW. Any action taken to restrict, regulate or prohibit a right of free citizens is, by its very nature, a criminal act.

Fact, not opinion.
Click to expand...

No argument from me about that. But when you look, probably 85 - 90% of our "laws," are "unconstitutional." So, who's to blame for that? Nobody but ourselves! "We The People" send these clowns to Washington to represent US, but most of them cater to the lobbyists who put the $$$ in their pockets. And "We The People" sit back and let them get away with it. If we're not happy with what comes out of Washington, I'll quote a former presidential candidate who said, "Blame Yo-self!"



wsfiredude said:
Additionally, the BOR doesn't protect and/or guarantee anything. It is simply an enumeration of our rights and protection/preservation of those rights does not lie with a document, but sits squarely on the shoulders of the citizenry.
Click to expand...

The BOR is part of the Constitution, which is SUPPOSED to be a "muzzle" or "restraint" if you will, on the Federal Government. It is SUPPOSED to LIMIT their power, but like I said, We The People" have become so uneducated, indoctrinated, and apathetic, that the Federal Government has usurped so much power that is not in the Constitution, and we LET them, so we have no one to blame but ourselves.
 
You can have all the freedom you can seize .
 
JimB said:
So you are choosing an insignificant amount of additional safety (maybe reduce the infentisimal risk that this one officer might decide to arrest you for something that nobody has ever been arrested for) over freedom. Good for you, at least you're honest about it.

Odds are that nothing will come of this, but how will you feel if the Sheriffs get together and pass a bill changing "a" to "one"?
Click to expand...


^^^^ THIS!

There's a bunch of folks who have asked the NFA branch of ATF questions that have resulted in previously tolerated situations now being defined as illegal. They're really popular
 
Dear .....


Good afternoon. I received your recent inquiry and am pleased to provide a response. Although this should not be considered an official opinion of the Attorney General, I can tell you my section (Law Enforcement Liaison) has told folks for a number of years—at least—that a CCW permit is not limited to a particular number of handguns. Take care.


Best Regards,


William P. Hart, Jr.

Assistant Attorney General

North Carolina Department of Justice

(919) 716-6725
 
Harold2689 said:
Dear .....


Good afternoon. I received your recent inquiry and am pleased to provide a response. Although this should not be considered an official opinion of the Attorney General, I can tell you my section (Law Enforcement Liaison) has told folks for a number of years—at least—that a CCW permit is not limited to a particular number of handguns. Take care.


Best Regards,


William P. Hart, Jr.

Assistant Attorney General

North Carolina Department of Justice

(919) 716-6725
Click to expand...

Yep never heard anything else. I don't think they teach it as a singular in blet either, but I could be wrong.
 
Chdamn said:
I think that is two or more people trying to use semantics to find a justification to screw with law abiding citizens.

The term "a" in that context does not mean singular or plural. It is simply an article. An article is a word (prefix or suffix) that is used alongside a noun to indicate the type of reference being made by the noun.

Articles specify grammatical definiteness of the noun.

Only in some cases does it extend to volume or numerical scope.

If the law had intended you to only carry 1 firearm it should have used a number instead of an article.
Click to expand...

^^^^
This.

It's saying you can carry a HANDGUN concealed. As opposed to, say, carrying a concealed rifle, shotgun, rocket launcher, or tank.

"Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun..."


A handgun is defined by NC Statute here:

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-409.39.pdf

§ 14-409.39. Definitions.

The following definitions apply in this Article:

(1) Dealer. – Any person licensed as a dealer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 921, et seq., or G.S. 105-80.

(2) Firearm. – A handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by action of an explosion.

(3) Handgun. – A pistol, revolver, or other gun that has a short stock and is designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 727, s. 1.)


Here's the appropriate NC Statute to read on concealed carry of weapons:

http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_14/Article_35.html

§ 14-269. Carrying concealed weapons.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his or her person any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shuriken, stun gun, or other deadly weapon of like kind, except when the person is on the person's own premises.

(a1) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his or her person any pistol or gun except in the following circumstances:

(1) The person is on the person's own premises.

(2) The deadly weapon is a handgun, 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, and the person is carrying the concealed handgun in accordance with the scope of the concealed handgun permit as set out in G.S. 14-415.11(c).

(3) The deadly weapon is a handgun and the person is a military permittee as defined under G.S. 14-415.10(2a) who provides to the law enforcement officer proof of deployment as required under G.S. 14-415.11(a).

(a2) This prohibition does not apply to a person who has a concealed handgun permit issued in accordance with Article 54B of this Chapter, has a concealed handgun permit considered valid under G.S. 14-415.24, or is exempt from obtaining a permit pursuant to G.S. 14-415.25, provided the weapon is a handgun, is in a closed compartment or container within the person's locked vehicle, and the vehicle is in a parking area that is owned or leased by State government. A person may unlock the vehicle to enter or exit the vehicle, provided the handgun remains in the closed compartment at all times and the vehicle is locked immediately following the entrance or exit.
.
.
.
Blah
Blah
Blah
Blah
.
.
.
(b1) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

(1) The weapon was not a firearm;

(2) The defendant was engaged in, or on the way to or from, an activity in which the defendant legitimately used the weapon;

(3) The defendant possessed the weapon for that legitimate use; and

(4) The defendant did not use or attempt to use the weapon for an illegal purpose.

The burden of proving this defense is on the defendant.

(b2) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section that:

(1) The deadly weapon is a handgun;

(2) The defendant is a military permittee as defined under G.S. 14-415.10(2a); and

(3) The defendant provides to the court proof of deployment as defined under G.S. 14-415.10(3a).
 
Harold2689 said:
As I said in my OP, I am not allowed to break a law based on my interpretation of it, nor is a LEO allowed to enforce it based upon his.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true.

You cannot INTENTIONALLY violate the law based upon personal interpretation.

In Sailor-terms, this means playing "sea-lawyer" with semantics doesn't cut the mustard.

That doesn't mean you can't be held liable for misinterpretation...because that does happen. But whereas it is a mitigation that interpretation (of an unclear law, for example) may be a defense or reduce/eliminate your liability for a violation, a willful violation is far less likely to result in this.

As for "...nor is a LEO allowed to enforce it based upon his [interpretation]", this is patently false.

It is the basic job description of a LEO to do EXACTLY that. Now, whether his interpretation is correct in the eyes of the law (read: "court") is another matter.

What this means is that Officer Joe can, indeed, arrest someone because he thinks that person has violated the law as he understands it. If he's wrong, and it's proven so before or after going to court, then he's released.


Ideally, anybody in a job would go about it 100% correct 100% of the time. However, in the real world this doesn't happen. The ideal real world would be correct most of the time, and then be corrected/learn from our mistakes and improve on the things we're not correct on.

In the case of the LEO who takes an action based upon an incorrect interpretation, he's trained in the correct way and goes forth to do better.
 
If the law said "this magic piece of paper allows the bearer to carry multiple concealed handguns" would that mean a person couldn't carry just a single one?

Cops can arrest people for any reason whatsoever and get away with it. "I pulled him over as he was not staying in the lane".... "he was acting suspiciously..."
etc. We as citizens typically have little to no recourse when it happens.

In return, I reserve the same right as a citizen . :)
 
JohnFreeman said:
If the law said "this magic piece of paper allows the bearer to carry multiple concealed handguns" would that mean a person couldn't carry just a single one?
Click to expand...

No. Just because you're ALLOWED to do something doesn't mean that you HAVE to.




JohnFreeman said:
Cops can arrest people for any reason whatsoever and get away with it. "I pulled him over as he was not staying in the lane".... "he was acting suspiciously..."
etc. We as citizens typically have little to no recourse when it happens.
Click to expand...

No, they can't arrest people for any reason whatsoever.... They have to have probable cause that you are violating one or more laws. And that is precisely why both we and they need to know what the law SAYS, and what is its intent. There are those here who seem to believe that the more vague the law, the better. "It allows more wiggle room for defense in court," they believe. I can understand that reasoning, but I personally don't agree with it. I believe we have laws for reasons, and the more definitive the law is, the better it is for everyone.

Our government system was set up to where it derives its power from the consent of the governed. Article one, sections eight and nine of our Constitution very definitively enumerate the powers "We The People" gave to our Federal Government. Over the years, our Federal Government has usurped so much power that it was never given in the Constitution because of over-reaching legislators, judges who change the meaning of words, and "We the People" letting them get away with it all. In order for our system of government to work, we the people must remain educated, engaged, and hold our elected officials to the laws. This is true from the President of the United States, all the way down to the local dog catcher.

I hear a lot of macho talk on many the forums like, "Come and take them," and "Molon Labe," and "Out of my cold dead hands." Sure sounds like a bunch of folks that I wouldn't want to mess with... But when someone like me steps up to participate in government the way it's supposed to be, by holding those who govern us to the law, by pointing out when they are wrong, I get chastised by being accused of "stirring up stuff that doesn't need to be stirred." It's almost like the very same people who claim, "Come and take them," are suddenly saying to me, "Shhhh, Shhhhh, Be quiet and don't stir anything up because they might change the law to make it more restrictive." What happened to the "Come and take them attitude? If there's something in the law that we don't like, we address our legislators. If those who are charged with enforcing the law are wrong about how and why they are enforcing it, they need to be addressed too. Some of us seem to forget that they work for us. We "hired" them at the ballot box, and we can "fire" them the same way.

I'm sorry if I do not live up to the standards of those who disagree with my way of thinking. I sincerely believed that most people on a firearms forum would be behind the laws of our nation, our states, and our local municipalities, and would want to follow them to the letter. And if there were any laws that were poorly written, poorly interpreted, or poorly enforced, would want to see everything done to peacefully and legally change what is wrong.

Perhaps I have still not located the best forum for me.
 
Harold2689 said:
Perhaps I have still not located the best forum for me.
Click to expand...
I would say the opposite is true!

You argue your position thoughtfully and well. While others here my disagree with you (vociferously, at times), screw 'em! You posted a reasonable question, several very practical approaches were discussed, you did what you thought was right and reasonable, and got an encouraging response from the NC AG, which you then shared with us.

Don't let others' posturing and pontificating get to you. Water. Duck's back. Carry on.

Thanks for posting your situation, comments, and the AG's reply.
 
@Harold2689 There are a bunch of strong personalities on this forum for sure. It can take a while to follow the discussions in the community long enough to discover all the unique personalities. Some with sharper edges than others. Some very friendly, and some can be outright a$$holes. But they are OUR a$$holes. :D

Until you spend some time here it can indeed seem unfriendly at times, but what you'll really find after some time is these can and will be the best fake internet friends you can ever have, and if you stay even longer you'll have plenty of opportunities to meet them/us face to face, and you'll be surprised at the large number of truly likeminded friends you'll have.
 
@Harold2689

You and I disagree on this issue. In my view, in your hypothetical situation the state would have the burden of proving that you violated the law, and in this case that is clearly an impossible burden in spite of what one LEO said to you, so there is no benefit to seeking clarification.

That said, my view is distorted by the experience with clarifications from ATF. For example a number of well meaning people just couldn't accept the sig brace letter at face value and requested clarification, as a result we have a new letter that is less clear and could be applied more arbitrarily than the old letter. This situation is however distinguishable from the situation you've sought clarification for in that ATF has the ability to create "rules" through an administrative process rather than a legislative process.

There is relatively less risk that anyone will try to clarify that "a" means "one" because to do so would require the passage of legislation and that's a ton of work for a very minor win. In theory this could also be clarified through the courts, but it would take a very motivated prosecutor and a very willing judge followed by a very willing appeals court judge to even contemplate the argument. Nonetheless, clarification from ATF requires only that they post new guidance. That guidance doesn't have the weight of law, but in court there would be a bias towards ATF's interpretation of law as expressed by their letters.

In general I'm not opposed to clarifying the law when there is a benefit to doing so, where you and I disagree is if there was any benefit to doing so in the situation you raised. I happen to think that your approach was not well considered, but that doesn't mean I think you're an a-hole.

One last thing, if you wanted to adopt the Internet warrior mentality you would have strapped on 4 concealed handguns, walked up to the officer that interprets the law as allowing only one and challenged him to arrest you...well at least you'd have said that's what you did.
 
Yesterday, (Monday) I tried to get in to speak to the sheriff. He was in meetings all day, so his secretary took my name & number and the details about which I wanted to speak to him. I told her that if I didn't hear from him before our next Citizen's Academy class, I'd pull him aside if he was there and just speak to him there. He was at our meeting tonight, so I asked him to step out in the hallway for a minute. He did, and I told him I'd like to speak to him about something we were told at last week's meeting. He chuckled and asked, "Is it about the number of guns you can carry concealed at the same time? I said yes. He said that he was going to address the group first thing tonight, because someone else had already brought it to his attention, and he THANKED me for doing so too. He got up in front of the group dressed in jeans & a tee-shirt because he mowed his grass this afternoon, but he wanted to make sure that he addressed this issue with the group. He said that a few of us told him about the erroneous information which was given out last week concerning the number of handguns that a person with a CHP may carry at any given time. He then specified that NC law makes no mention of any number of handguns, so if you have a permit, you can carry as many as you want to. He even told the story of a guy in a tuxedo who looked perfectly harmless, but then proceeded to pull about fifteen concealed handguns from everywhere under that tuxedo. He answered several more questions and finished up by saying this is precisely what he EXPECTS of us. He said,"Any time you see something that doesn't look right, or doesn't 'smell' right, I WANT you to bring it to my attention, and we'll talk about it." He mentioned that a few of us in the group brought this to his attention, and he thanked us for doing so. He had already met with the deputy and cleared up the misunderstanding. So, at least in OUR county, our Sheriff's office understands this law, and we the citizens and they the enforcers, are all on the same page.


JimB said:
@Harold2689

You and I disagree on this issue. In my view, in your hypothetical situation the state would have the burden of proving that you violated the law, and in this case that is clearly an impossible burden in spite of what one LEO said to you, so there is no benefit to seeking clarification.

That said, my view is distorted by the experience with clarifications from ATF. For example a number of well meaning people just couldn't accept the sig brace letter at face value and requested clarification, as a result we have a new letter that is less clear and could be applied more arbitrarily than the old letter. This situation is however distinguishable from the situation you've sought clarification for in that ATF has the ability to create "rules" through an administrative process rather than a legislative process.

There is relatively less risk that anyone will try to clarify that "a" means "one" because to do so would require the passage of legislation and that's a ton of work for a very minor win. In theory this could also be clarified through the courts, but it would take a very motivated prosecutor and a very willing judge followed by a very willing appeals court judge to even contemplate the argument. Nonetheless, clarification from ATF requires only that they post new guidance. That guidance doesn't have the weight of law, but in court there would be a bias towards ATF's interpretation of law as expressed by their letters.

In general I'm not opposed to clarifying the law when there is a benefit to doing so, where you and I disagree is if there was any benefit to doing so in the situation you raised. I happen to think that your approach was not well considered, but that doesn't mean I think you're an a-hole.

One last thing, if you wanted to adopt the Internet warrior mentality you would have strapped on 4 concealed handguns, walked up to the officer that interprets the law as allowing only one and challenged him to arrest you...well at least you'd have said that's what you did.
Click to expand...

Jim,

I acknowledge that you and I have differing opinions on this, and although I can understand your reasoning (concerning the ATF,) I still disagree with it- and that's ok. I try to live by my tagline. I enjoy (civil) disagreement discussions, because in defending your own point of view, you do more and more research, and become even more knowledgeable of it. My point of view is that our entire system of government derives its power from the consent of the governed. They are employed by us, and the system provides mechanisms for us to bring grievances back to those whom we hire. But we have to understand and use them.

All of these federal "agencies" and "commissions," (ATF, EPA, FCC, OSHA, etc.) are, in my opinion, unconstitutional. They are basically making law through the Executive Branch, bypassing congress. They call them "rulings," but they carry the same weight and penalties as law. We have a Legislative branch for that very purpose. In my opinion, if any ruling from an Executive Branch agency carries weight of law or penalty, it should have to go through both houses of Congress as a bill, and be signed into LAW by the President.

If there things in our laws (or rulings) that we don't like, keeping quiet and a a low profile is going to do NOTHING to resolve the problem. Waiting for it to go to court to be settled there is not a good option (in my opinion) either. That's costly, and it's not much more than a "crap shoot." That's precisely when we need to be calling our legislators, lighting up their switchboards and filling their email boxes. LET THEM KNOW what we're unhappy about, and if we can band together in large enough numbers to get their attention, they'll be much more inclined to keep us happy if they like their job. I believe we are seeing this very process beginning to take action on removing suppressors from the NFA, and national reciprocity? These avenues of redress were put into place for us to use as peaceful and legal methods of making demands on our government(s). The only reason they (the government{s})now have so much control over us is because we have allowed them to do so by not using the tools we were given.

If a law is clear and precise, the only thing about it that should ever be debated in court would be innocence or guilt of it... not its meaning. When I raised my kids, I never said, "Don't stay out too late..." I said, "You better be home by 11 O'clock." Clear, concise, and everybody understood what time they needed to be home.
 
Harold2689 said:
All of these federal "agencies" and "commissions," (ATF, EPA, FCC, OSHA, etc.) are, in my opinion, unconstitutional. They are basically making law through the Executive Branch, bypassing congress. They call them "rulings," but they carry the same weight and penalties as law. We have a Legislative branch for that very purpose. In my opinion, if any ruling from an Executive Branch agency carries weight of law or penalty, it should have to go through both houses of Congress as a bill, and be signed into LAW by the President.
Click to expand...

Harold, you and others may find this link useful vis-a-vis the Administrative Procedure Act (which is at the core of the issue you raise): https://www.dgslaw.com/images/materials/379427.PDF
 
GreatGazoo said:
Harold, you and others may find this link useful vis-a-vis the Administrative Procedure Act (which is at the core of the issue you raise): https://www.dgslaw.com/images/materials/379427.PDF
Click to expand...

Wow! I never saw this publication before, but I now have a copy of it on my hard drive. I didn't take Evelyn Wood's speed-reading course, so it's going to take me a while to read and try to digest it, but it looks like it may be good fodder for future discussions. Thanks for posting the link!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom