“A gun is an ‘unusual weapon,’ wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements–as a part of his dress–and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment.
State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843)
Actual passage from the decision:
The bill of rights in this State secures to every man indeed, the right to "bear arms for the defence of the State." While it secures to him a right of which he cannot be deprived, it holds forth the duty in execution of which that right is to be exercised. If he employ those arms, which he ought to wield for the safety and protection of his country, to the annoyance and terror and danger of its citizens, he deserves but the severer condemnation for the abuse of the high privilege, with which he has been invested.
"It has been remarked, that a double--barrelled gun or any other one, cannot in this country come under the description of "unusual weapons," for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use guns of some sort. But we do not feel the force of this criticism. A gun is an "unusual weapon," wherewith to be armed and clad. No man amongst us carries it about with him, as one of his every day accoutrements-as a part of his dress-and never we trust will the day come when any deadly weapon will be worn or wielded in our peace loving and law-abiding State, as an appendage of manly equipment. But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence. For any lawful purpose-either of business or amusement-the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun. It is the wicked purpose-and the mischievous result-which essentially constitute the crime. He shall not carry about this or any other weapon of death to terrify and alarm, and in such manner as naturally will terrify and alarm, a peaceful people."
"Going armed to the terror of the people (NC Common Law Crime)
ReplyDeleteA person guilty of this offense
(1) arms himself or herself with an unusual and dangerous weapon
(2) for the purpose of terrifying others and
(3) goes about on public highways
(4) in a manner to cause terror to the people."
So it is not just that the person is carrying a weapon alone but it must be shown that the intent is to terrify others. So if someone was walking down the street with a concealed handgun, do you think it could be proven that they intended to terrorize someone? In fact statements 3 and 4 imply that they have to do some other action specifically to terrorize someone, not just carry a gun. So to me this says that if you are abiding all other laws, the simple act of carrying a gun is not enough to meet the criteria of punishment under this law.
"But although a gun is an "unusual weapon," it is to be remembered that the carrying of a gun per se constitutes no offence." Hell it is spelled out right in your own quote.
ReplyDeleteSee below.
DeleteAdditionally, you are taking this out of context.
Since this addresses the crime of Going armed to the terror of the people. For purposes of that offense, cases hold that if members of the public experience fear, the “to the terror of the people” element is satisfied. In re May, 357 N.C. 423, 428 (2003).
In other words, even though you may "lawfully" be carrying a weapon and believe that people who are afraid of guns are hoplophobes: the fact that you are causing people to experience fear is enough to take this out of the lawful category.
The test isn't whether YOU believe your actions are actually lawful, but rather that they are in line with what the law and society consider lawful and normal.
"For any lawful purpose-either of business or amusement-the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun" Did you even read this before posting?!?
ReplyDeleteI did, but if you are claiming self-defence as a lawful purpose, you need to be know if that is guaranteed. At the time this was written, using deadly force if there were other less lethal options would make one the aggressor.
DeleteIndeed, carrying and using a weapon when it was unnecessary would change the table.
It's not really my place to try and teach you law or legal history, but you need to be aware of the state of the law in the 1840s to get that it isn't as supportive of your position as you might want it to be.
And you Laci need to get updated with modern laws as applied to licensed conceal carry, as unconstitutional as they are, is now the law in each state. It's a good thing you don't teach law as you clearly don't know current law.
DeleteWell the question is not whether or not someone has the right to shoot someone else. The question is whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to carry guns in public. So by posting this it looks like you agree that all law abiding people have the right to carry guns in public.
Delete