NC OC experience reports

[cce1302]

Well, my employer has seen fit to return me to Eastern North Carolina for a couple years (J-ville area, if you know what that means), though I currently post from foreign shores. I moved back in December.

I've been OCing throughout the town and outskirts, up to emerald isle, and for a few days while Florence had her way with the coast, Raleigh. I have yet to have an unpleasant OC experience. Even those who are not military don't seem to mind, though I find it somewhat disappointing that there are still places around town with unarmed victim zone signs.

OC has become much more common than it was when I first joined OCDO, to the extent that if I make 3-4 stops while running errands, I will generally see at least one OCer besides myself (not counting @Academy or at a gun store).

 

[solus]

Well things change sometimes for the better...

Did your employer implement 5210.56 on your installation?

 

[cce1302]

Well things change sometimes for the better...

Did your employer implement 5210.56 on your installation?

Not that I know of, why?

 

[bc.cruiser]

Lunch at Applebee's today with a long-time friend. OC'd the 1911. Nobody noticed, or at least did not say anything. The place is not posted but, since they serve alcohol, I used the exemption of 14-269.3(b)(3). My host for the event was using (5) as his exemption. The "event" was a scheduled convention of retired members of a particular military organization. Okay, so only two of us made it; not our fault.

 

[solus]

Oh yet another typical uneventfull day as I OC’d in O’ Rileys, Subway, Office Depot, and other boring businesses...

 

[solus]

Well seems some time in the last year the local McDonalds owned in Goldsboro & Mount Olive [Dixon ownership} has removed the “NO FIREARMS” decals from their facilities.

 

[bc.cruiser]

Thursday evening I was part of a small group meeting with a newsperson from abctv11 (Fayetteville) next to a planned housing development area to give our opinions. When asked if we would also be at the city council meeting, the lady who organized the meeting pointed at me and said "But you can't take that in with you." The man I had been standing next to the whole time didn't understand; he had to be shown the 1911 she was pointing at. Grins all around.

 

[solus]

Great bc to see you are still spreading the OC word in a community which surprisingly, with the high volume of active & retired service members, exhibits such rabid behaviour over citizen’s OC’g.

If i might inquire, what was the reaction of the ABC 11 newsperson to the exclamation you were OC’g especially since this station is prone to consistently broadcast anti firearm sentiments?

 

[color of law]

North Carolina Constitution:
Article I, Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms. 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

Article VI, Sec. 7. Oath. Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath:
"I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as , so help me God."

The United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.

More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

So, my question is how does the NC lawmakers think they have authority to regulate open carry of firearms?

 

[solus]

Hummm CoL how to adequately explain...

§ 11-11. Oaths of sundry persons; forms.
The oaths of office to be taken by the several persons hereafter named shall be in the words following the names of said persons respectively, after taking the separate oath required by Article VI, Section 7 of the Constitution of North Carolina:

Sheriff
I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the office of sheriff of __ county to the best of my knowledge and ability, agreeably to law; and that I will not take, accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any fee, gift, bribe, gratuity or reward whatsoever, for returning any man to serve as a juror or for making any false return on any process to me directed; so help me, God.

Law Enforcement Officer
I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be alert and vigilant to enforce the criminal laws of this State; that I will not be influenced in any matter on account of personal bias or prejudice; that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties of my office as a law enforcement officer according to the best of my skill, abilities, and judgment; so help me, God.

G.S. 11-11

As was explained to me by representatives of the NC AG’s office at training seminars, since CC is specifically mentioned but OC is not, therefore OC is allowed.

CC is now statutorily allowed since the late ‘90s with several major ‘legislative’ refinements > 2011.

 

[eye95]

...
So, my question is how does the NC lawmakers think they have authority to regulate open carry of firearms?

This would not be my answer, but the one that people who advocate for gun control would give: Because Scalia himself noted that the 2A Right is subject to “reasonable regulation”.

What is “reasonable regulation”? Well that is something that lawmakers would try to decide, later either being affirmed by or slapped down by the courts, meaning that our Rights are not defined by the Constitution, but by the courts!

Again, this is not my answer.

I believe that there can be no such “reasonable regulation” of a Right. Courts should only be able to determine what was meant by the words “Right to keep and bear arms”, and then determine whether a particular behavior was covered by the Framers’ meaning. Actions that are so covered are unregulable. Actions that are not so covered are regulable (unless otherwise protected).

Those latter actions being regulated would not be “reasonable regulation” of a Right. Such would be reasonable regulation of a behavior that was first found not to be a Right.

Courts should start by asking, “Is this behavior one that the Framers would have believed to be a behavior protected by the words they wrote in the 2A?” An answer of yes should immediately end the matter without further consideration.

 

[solus]

This would not be my answer, but the one that people who advocate for gun control would give: Because Scalia himself noted that the 2A Right is subject to “reasonable regulation”.

What is “reasonable regulation”? Well that is something that lawmakers would try to decide, later either being affirmed by or slapped down by the courts, meaning that our Rights are not defined by the Constitution, but by the courts!

Again, this is not my answer.

I believe that there can be no such “reasonable regulation” of a Right. Courts should only be able to determine what was meant by the words “Right to keep and bear arms”, and then determine whether a particular behavior was covered by the Framers’ meaning. Actions that are so covered are unregulable. Actions that are not so covered are regulable (unless otherwise protected).

Those latter actions being regulated would not be “reasonable regulation” of a Right. Such would be reasonable regulation of a behavior that was first found not to be a Right.

Courts should start by asking, “Is this behavior one that the Framers would have believed to be a behavior protected by the words they wrote in the 2A?” An answer of yes should immediately end the matter without further consideration.

Eye95, IF those were not your answers, WHO is the author as they are posted under your moniker?

For the record, mate, in the Buckeye State, can you OC in your vehicle without a CPL?

In the TarHeel state, there are very few legislative OC’g nuances governing OC’g by NC citizens.

 

[bc.cruiser]

Great bc to see you are still spreading the OC word in a community which surprisingly, with the high volume of active & retired service members, exhibits such rabid behaviour over citizen’s OC’g.

If i might inquire, what was the reaction of the ABC 11 newsperson to the exclamation you were OC’g especially since this station is prone to consistently broadcast anti firearm sentiments?

No reaction at all. She had already seen, and ignored, it while setting up the on-camera comments portion.

 

[color of law]

This would not be my answer, but the one that people who advocate for gun control would give: Because Scalia himself noted that the 2A Right is subject to “reasonable regulation”.

I didn't give an answer. I asked a question. And, please don't give your pat answer.

Let's be clear Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”

Scalia specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period.

Please provide the Supreme Court's opinion that says: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. You won't, even though it is east to do. Read Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself.

Apparently, a lot of people believe anything they hear. That includes politicians and judges. Then they try to justify their opinion as law, destroying peoples lives.

The problem with opinion is when people profess their opinion as fact and law. Let that sink in.

 

[solus]

No reaction at all. She had already seen, and ignored, it while setting up the on-camera comments portion.

Tks bc...wondered it was their 30sec of fame event...

 

[eye95]

I didn't give an answer. I asked a question. And, please don't give your pat answer.

...

I didn’t think you had given an answer..

Yes, you asked a question. Responses are a natural reaction.

Your third sentence, requesting that another not answer the question you asked is so arrogant that I stopped reading at that point. Show a little more respect for others, and they might care what you have further to say.

 

[color of law]

I didn’t think you had given an answer..

Yes, you asked a question. Responses are a natural reaction.

Your third sentence, requesting that another not answer the question you asked is so arrogant that I stopped reading at that point. Show a little more respect for others, and they might care what you have further to say.

Another one of your little man jerk replies. You are a sick puppy, but you are also amusing with your brand of idiocy. A cheep price to pay your beguiling entertainment style.

 

[eye95]

Another one of your little man jerk replies. You are a sick puppy, but you are also amusing with your brand of idiocy. A cheep price to pay your beguiling entertainment style.

Quoted to memorialize the post.

 

[color of law]

Quoted to memorialize the post.

Unlike you, I stand behind my posts.

 

[solus]

Quoted to memorialize the post.

No eye95 my personal rational for quoted your posts when responding to your rhetoric is to preclude you from changing what you stated initially, then playing the martyr in the court of public opinion!

Just saying...