Different intrepretation of the law.

Harold2689

Harold2689

Shooter
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2017
Messages
568
Location
Henderson County
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
My wife and I both have CHP's, and we are currently enrolled in our County Sheriff's "Citizen's Academy" program. It's been a fantastic program, and I even got to go into their VirTra simulator and play out an armed robbery scenario. It was fantastic, and very valuable training.

One of last night's presentations was the CHP licensing procedure. At least half of the class already has their CHP, so this was a very popular topic. The presentation was given by the sworn deputy who is in charge of the CHP process. Everything was going great up to the point that a CHP does NOT authorize the carrying of any other weapon, except ONE concealed handgun. Immediately, the question was asked about carrying a "backup" handgun, and he emphatically repeated that a CHP allows the holder to carry ONE, and ONLY ONE concealed handgun. Several people admitted that they carry a semi-automatic pistol as a primary" weapon, and a revolver as a "backup." I brought up scenarios where my wife and I were in a department store, and for whatever reason, she didn't want to carry her weapon into a changing room to try on clothes, would discreetly hand me her holstered handgun for me to hold for her. I would slip it into my pocket, and was then carrying TWO concealed handguns. Or, the guy I work with, who also has his CHP, stops at the Post Office to check his mail. Knowing he can't carry in the P.O., he hands me his gun and says, "Watch this for me." Now, I have TWO handguns within my access, plus the OTHER one I know he has concealed elsewhere in his truck. The deputy kept repeating, that a CHP allows the holder to carry ONE, and ONLY ONE concealed handgun. One person asked if there was a statute that specified the number of handguns a CHP holder could conceal on his person. He said there was, and he would look it up and make copies for us. The rest of his presentation was without challenge, and we went on to the second presentation of the evening, "Emergency Preparedness."

As we were finishing up for the evening, the director of the Academy program had copies of the statute given to him by the earlier presenter. It was a copy of GS_14-415.11. It reads in part:


§ 14‑415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit.


(a) Any person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry a concealed handgun unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law. The person shall carry the permit together with valid identification whenever the person is carrying a concealed handgun, shall disclose to any law enforcement officer that the person holds a valid permit and is carrying a concealed handgun when approached or addressed by the officer, and shall display both the permit and the proper identification upon the request of a law enforcement officer. In addition to these requirements, a military permittee whose permit has expired during deployment may carry a concealed handgun during the 90 days following the end of deployment and before the permit is renewed provided the permittee also displays proof of deployment to any law enforcement officer.


Those two "a's" were specifically underlined. They are interpreting "a concealed handgun" as meaning one and only one handgun. Since we were finished for the evening, and the presenting officer was no longer present in the room, there was no further discussion on the matter. In my opinion, the word "a" in this context does NOT limit the number of handguns a person may carry concealed to ONE and ONLY ONE. There is NOTHING in the statute that even mentions the number of handguns a permit holder may legally conceal. Obviously, his opinion is different.

I feel that I am not allowed to "break" a law based upon my personal interpretation of it, nor can he "enforce" it based on his. Last night I emailed the NC Attorney General's office for clarification on this statute. Either way, I will advise this deputy as to the AG's reply.

What say you guys?
 
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.
 
Although a number of years ago now, I think I remember my instructor saying there was no limit on the number you have concealed. That's interesting he told ya'll that. It would be nice to have some clarification.
 
The statute doesn't specifically prohibit carrying more than one, so until a case comes about to clarify the issue, its just opinion.

Anyone know of a person charged?
 
If I'm riding along, get pulled over, officer approaches my window, I hand over my NCDL and CHP (which "informs" him without discussion), and he asks what or where the firearm is, and I say "9mm on my hip, and one in the console", I am concealing more than one, and I am pretty sure this is an all day, everyday occurrence.
 
All of the above.

Sounds like one representative of a department that wants to scare law-abiding citizens into thinking they can only carry one weapon.

So--if gun, then no pocketknife? If gun, no pepper spray? If gun, no Tae Kwon Do training?

Sooner or later, someone in that dept's jurisdiction will be charged according to that interpretation, and if that person doesn't challenge the charge (and win), then a precedent is established, and US law is based on established precedent, so...

It could come to mean one and only one eventually.
 
I've talked with a few friends about this, and so far every one agrees that there is no limit placed on the CHP.

I feel very strongly that if this officer is wrong, then he needs to be told so. That is precisely why I emailed the state AG office. Whatever comes back, I will share it with this officer. I submitted the question via their website, and it clearly stated that the website is not closely monitored, so, not knowing if or when anyone would check it, I followed up this morning with a phone call. When I finally navigated through the phone tree and different persons along the way, I finally reached someone who said I reached the correct department, but she could not offer legal advise or interpret the law for me. But she said, tell me what the issue is, and I can either say yes or no. When I told her the issue, she asked me if I emailed this through their website. I said I did. She replied that she saw the email, and has already referred this to an assistant attorney, and I should be hearing back via email from him. She gave me his name, and I thanked her.

I will let you all know as soon as I hear something back.
 
Harold2689 said:
What say you guys?
Click to expand...

s9oLeWU.png


He's not the first cop to interpret the law to fit his own biases, nor will he be the last. One must remember every regime in human history is, in effect, a regime of laws - that also employ muscle to enforce it.

Being a Free Man or Free Woman is a choice.

Choose.
 
I don't really see that there is anything wrong with the way the statute is written. The deputy made a mistake when he changed the verbiage of the statute (from "a" to "one") as he read it to the class.

If a LEO asks me if I am carrying a gun, my reply could be, "Yes, I have "a" gun in my waistband, and "a" gun in my pocket, and "a" gun on my ankle."
 
The concealed carry laws are one of the areas in which there are vast differences in what LEOs are taught in BLET and what the law actually says. This particular LEO was probably parroting back what he was taught in BLET.

BLET doesn't always present the law with the same interpretation that we have.
 
Great, please stop asking our overloads to clarify exactly how they intended to restrict our rights, it's like some of you have never seen this before.

Leave it to the courts, as liberal as they may be they will not rule that "a" was intended to mean "one" because the legislature would have said "one" if that's what they meant. Now, because some nervous Nellie asks about it the legislature may just clarify it, and do you think that'll say 2, or 3 or 10, F*** NO, they'll say 1.

If you're gonna play, please think first, and growing a pair wouldn't hurt either.
 
@Chdamn has it right. It is used as a grammatical construct, nothing more. How do you know? Remove "a" and ask if it makes sense. It does not; it was meant to reference the following noun.

But I am not a lawyer.
 
JimB said:
Great, please stop asking our overloads to clarify exactly how they intended to restrict our rights, it's like some of you have never seen this before.

Leave it to the courts, as liberal as they may be they will not rule that "a" was intended to mean "one" because the legislature would have said "one" if that's what they meant. Now, because some nervous Nellie asks about it the legislature may just clarify it, and do you think that'll say 2, or 3 or 10, F*** NO, they'll say 1.

If you're gonna play, please think first, and growing a pair wouldn't hurt either.
Click to expand...

I doubt that any attorney or judge is going to say that you can carry one, two, or however many you can conceal. As the statute is written, the only thing they could possibly come back with is, "The statute makes no mention of how many concealed handguns a permittee may carry." Period, end of discussion. And, if that is the official advice/interpretation, then this LEO needs to be made aware of it.

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.
 
trcubed said:
Ed administers the instructor program. He does not interpret the law.
Click to expand...

I've called Ed about the particulars of what we are to tell students concerning CCH questions, which he is able to convey the state's position concerning CCH. If he doesn't know, he will find out and send you an answer by email. All matters of authority are to be tested in court if in dispute and then most of the time only settles that dispute. The state can take a position, but not be authoritative about the (mis) understanding of the beat cop. If these things were as cut-n-dry as people would like, we'd not need courts. Courts rule on the law.

Has there actually be a problem with a lawful CCH holder carrying more than one gun?
 
Harold2689 said:
I doubt that any attorney or judge is going to say that you can carry one, two, or however many you can conceal. As the statute is written, the only thing they could possibly come back with is, "The statute makes no mention of how many concealed handguns a permittee may carry." Period, end of discussion. And, if that is the official advice/interpretation, then this LEO needs to be made aware of it.

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...

Why does this LEO need to be made aware of anything, and why by you? He'll find out when it matters, you're just stirring up stuff that doesn't need to be stirred.
 
htperry said:
I've called Ed about the particulars of what we are to tell students concerning CCH questions, which he is able to convey the state's position concerning CCH. If he doesn't know, he will find out and send you an answer by email. All matters of authority are to be tested in court if in dispute and then most of the time only settles that dispute. The state can take a position, but not be authoritative about the (mis) understanding of the beat cop. If these things were as cut-n-dry as people would like, we'd not need courts. Courts rule on the law.

Has there actually be a problem with a lawful CCH holder carrying more than one gun?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. This was presented to us in the "Sheriff's Academy" presentation last night. He was speaking on behalf of our Sheriff's department CHP application process. I have no idea if this was his personal interpretation of the statute, or that of the Sheriff. As supportive of concealed carry as our sheriff is, I think it may be his personal interpretation. Nonetheless, he passed it off to us last night as the "statute."
 
JimB said:
Why does this LEO need to be made aware of anything, and why by you? He'll find out when it matters, you're just stirring up stuff that doesn't need to be stirred.
Click to expand...

Because I don't need to be arrested and go through the expense of legal defense just because he is "enforcing" his own personal interpretation of the statute. Would you be willing to pay for those legal defense costs for someone he arrests?
 
Harold2689 said:
Because I don't need to be arrested and go through the expense of legal defense just because he is "enforcing" his own personal interpretation of the statute. Would you be willing to pay for those legal defense costs for someone he arrests?
Click to expand...

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"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SPM
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...


I think you're right, nothing of any significance will come of it, but in all honesty, If I am going to be held to "the law," then I need to know exactly what the law is. If it gets changed and we don't like it, then we petition our lawmakers. We fire those who changed it to what we don't like, and hire those who will change it to what we want. They work for us. That's how it works.
 
JimB said:
Why does this LEO need to be made aware of anything, and why by you? He'll find out when it matters, you're just stirring up stuff that doesn't need to be stirred.
Click to expand...

Not trying to pick a fight, but I completely disagree with this.

If there is any ambiguity in the statute, then it benefits the citizens, the police, and the courts to clarify the statute.

Inconsistency within the department could lead to all kinds of problems, such as unequal treatment under the law (one CCW'er gets arrested for 2 guns, another does not), unlawful arrests and related lawsuits, overturned convictions, and bad PR for the department.

By inquiring about the issue of the instructing officer's interpretation with his superiors, one would then find out if the interpretation is his alone or the department's view. If his interpretation is counter to that of the department's, then the department can clarify its position with the instructing officer. This does not have to be a punitive measure! It's jut clarifying department policy/position, etc.

If the interpretation is the "official opinion" of the department, then the NC AG should be consulted to find out if that opinion is inconsistent with the other 99 counties in NC. If a substantial majority of counties say a =2 or more is ok, then the others would be wise to adjust their enforcement of the statute to avoid the same type of issues mentioned above, unequal treatment, etc., within the State as opposed to within a particular county.

If there's a roughly even division of interpretation among all the counties, or if more counties declare a=1, then the Powers That Be need to act to clarify the statute. If they do declare a=1, then a citizen or an organized group of citizens can push for an injunction preventing enforcement until a lawsuit settles the issue. That lawsuit is then a civil action to review and clarify a statute that might be joined by multiple parties and/or organizations like GRNC, 2A Fndn, NRA, etc., thus spreading the cost around. It would not be a criminal action against an ordinarily law-abiding citizen.

This is not "stirring stuff up." It's how laws get tested and corrected without some poor schmuck getting railroaded and wrongly convicted/ bankrupted by a misinterpretation of an ambiguous law.
 
htperry said:
Has there actually be a problem with a lawful CCH holder carrying more than one gun?
Click to expand...

This is the question. And I'm willing to bet ( not much though) the answer is no.

While an officer would not be technically incorrect to make the charge they would be denying the intent of the law to do so.

If the legislature had intended the number to be one they could have easily used the word one where the a is.
 
Harold2689 said:
I think you're right, nothing of any significance will come of it, but in all honesty, If I am going to be held to "the law," then I need to know exactly what the law is. If it gets changed and we don't like it, then we petition our lawmakers. We fire those who changed it to what we don't like, and hire those who will change it to what we want. They work for us. That's how it works.
Click to expand...

Apologies for my poor demeanor, but you're assuming first that it's even possible to know exactly what the law is, and second that it matters in the sense that knowing would keep you from being arrested. Today we have a straightforward reading of the statute that gives you exactly what you want, so in the best case further clarification does nothing for you while it clearly creates risk. You think being arrested for a bad charge is expensive, you should look at what it costs to get rid of even a single legislator.
 
This is from page 43 of "North Carolina Firearms Laws" published by the NC Attorney General's office, Roy Cooper at the time of publication. Note the link is to the NC Sheriffs Association web page.

http://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/December-2015-Firearms-Publication.pdf

R. HOW MANY HANDGUNS AM I AUTHORIZED TO CARRY CONCEALED AT ANY ONE TIME WHILE I HAVE A VALID CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT? ANSWER: North Carolina law does not restrict the number of handguns that may be carried by a concealed handgun permittee. Therefore, the permittee may carry as many handguns as he/she is comfortable carrying.
 
dmarbell said:
This is from page 43 of "North Carolina Firearms Laws" published by the NC Attorney General's office, Roy Cooper at the time of publication. Note the link is to the NC Sheriffs Association web page.

http://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/December-2015-Firearms-Publication.pdf

R. HOW MANY HANDGUNS AM I AUTHORIZED TO CARRY CONCEALED AT ANY ONE TIME WHILE I HAVE A VALID CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT? ANSWER: North Carolina law does not restrict the number of handguns that may be carried by a concealed handgun permittee. Therefore, the permittee may carry as many handguns as he/she is comfortable carrying.
Click to expand...

This is a decent reference document, but remember that it, too, is simply an interpretation of the law, albeit by the AG. We happen to agree with his interpretation on the number of guns allowed.
 
Yup. That is the document that is cited more often than not even in our own discussions here.
 
SC's law isn't specific as to number either, but my instructor made it clear the permit was good for any number of guns you want to carry
 
trcubed said:
This is a decent reference document, but remember that it, too, is simply an interpretation of the law, albeit by the AG. We happen to agree with his interpretation on the number of guns allowed.
Click to expand...

I would like my chances of prevailing to have any charges thrown out based on the AG interpretation of the law in a document published on the Sheriff's Association web site.
 
dmarbell said:
This is from page 43 of "North Carolina Firearms Laws" published by the NC Attorney General's office, Roy Cooper at the time of publication. Note the link is to the NC Sheriffs Association web page.

http://ncsheriffs.org/wp-content/uploads/December-2015-Firearms-Publication.pdf

R. HOW MANY HANDGUNS AM I AUTHORIZED TO CARRY CONCEALED AT ANY ONE TIME WHILE I HAVE A VALID CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT? ANSWER: North Carolina law does not restrict the number of handguns that may be carried by a concealed handgun permittee. Therefore, the permittee may carry as many handguns as he/she is comfortable carrying.
Click to expand...



THANK YOU! I actually HAD that document on my hard drive, but didn't check it. I will definitely quote that page as one source reference when I decide how to bring this to the attention of the Sheriff. I still haven't heard back from the NCAG lawyer to whom this question was assigned.
 
Harold2689 said:
....If I am going to be held to "the law," then I need to know exactly what the law is.
Click to expand...

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


And for what it's worth, that law...THE LAW...was designed to put limits on them, not you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom