After I eliminated this offense from the 7th edition of North Carolina Crimes, a few people asked me to add it back in. A statistics report from the N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts shows that in 2011 this crime was charged in 340 cases. That’s not a huge number, but it probably justifies including the offense in Crimes. In any event, since the book has been printed I can’t make any changes until the 8th edition is produced (note: even thinking about that gives me a migraine). In the meantime, here’s what you need to know about this crime.
Statute
This is a common law offense. State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 541-42 (1968); State v. Huntly, 25 N.C. 418, 418 (1843); State v. Staten, 32 N.C. App. 495, 496-97 (1977) (citing Dawson).
Elements
A 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.
Punishment
Class 1 misdemeanor. G.S. 14-3(a).
Notes
Generally. For the elements of this offense, see Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549, and Staten, 32 N.C. App. at 497.
For a case in which the evidence was sufficient to establish this offense, see, for example, Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (armed with a carbine and four pistols, the defendant and three others drove on the public highways at night, firing bullets into a store and two homes).
Element (1). In Huntly, the court held that any gun is an unusual and dangerous weapon for purposes of this offense. Huntly, 25 N.C. at 422. In that case it was argued that a gun cannot constitute an unusual weapon, “for there is scarcely a man in the community who does not own and occasionally use a gun of some sort.” Id. The court rejected that argument, concluding: “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.” Id.
In State v. Lanier, 71 N.C. 288, 289 (1874), the defendant was charged with going armed to the terror of the people after riding a horse, at a canter, through a courthouse. Witnesses saw no arms of any kind. The North Carolina Supreme Court “attach[ed] no importance to the fact that the defendant had no arms” stating, “we think it may be conceded that the driving or riding without arms through a court house or a crowded street at such a rate or in such a manner as to endanger the safety of the inhabitants amounts to a breach of the peace and is an indictable offence at common law.” Id. at 290.
Element (3). It appears that the offense would not occur if the defendant remained on private property.
Element (4). The offense of affray involves fighting in public 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 an unpublished case involving a charge of going armed to the terror of the people, the North Carolina Court of Appeals found this element satisfied where the defendant shot his gun while driving closely behind another vehicle on a public highway. State v. Toler, 716 S.E.2d 875 (N.C. App. 2011) (unpublished) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that his actions were not “to the terror of the people” where the only people involved were those in the victim’s car, and stating: “We find this to be substantial evidence that this behavior was intended to be to the terror of the people and was in fact to the terror of the people. The fact that a limited number of witnesses testified regarding Defendant’s actions does not change the character of those actions.”).
Charging issues. Although it is proper to enumerate the acts or threats of violence that the defendant undertakes while armed, such allegations are not required.Dawson, 272 N.C. at 549 (indictment upheld absent such allegations).
I’m curious how this would be perceived by FARB, or any of the leading experts, as to Open Carry, I know we have seen a rise in Open Carry of Firearms, if the subjects are carrying a lawful but “unusual and deadly weapon” off of their property but same is holstered, but invokes fear in the public people that fear all guns, does this constitute a crime, In my opinion, no… Thank you for your time.
classic example..
https://local.nixle.com/alert/4971933/
Would not limiting firearms (rifles/pistols/shotguns) to having only fixed or built in magazines help
eliminate the ability to have a substantial ammunition supply causing deadly consequence’s associated with ‘gun massacres’ and in particular some of the more recent events(?).
This limitation does not violate any citizens second amendment rights, you can still own a weapon.
This makes a lot of reasonable sense to me. I have heard NRA spokespersons amplify the fact of how fast a clip(portable magazine) can be changed out allowing even larger damage to innocent citizens who suffer the damages from this zealous political motivated concern of the rights under the second amendment.
The second amendment included the words “a well regulated militia”. I looked up the legal meaning of the word ‘militia’ in my Blacks Law Dictionary and it is described as:
‘The body of citizens in a state, enrolled for discipline as a military force, not engaged in actual service except in emergencies as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.’
‘Enrolled for discipline’ does not seem to match the perpetrators who have no discipline in the use of deadly weapons. Enrolled means: To enter or register in a roll, list, or record, this means that the second amendment includes that weapon owners should be registered , on a list and disciplined.
Police nationwide have been documented on video/audio trying to discourage citizens from open carry of legal guns. Often they use the excuse that citizens become frightened by the sight of anyone without a badge carrying and call police, who sometimes falsely arrest the carrier and confiscate the firearm. At what point does the mere open carry turn into ” terror ‘ for anti-gun proponents? It is not the fault of the open carrier that many people today are alarmed at the sight of a gun in a holster without obvious LEo credentials, and of course cops will use any excuse to limit citizens from exercising their rights when it comes to guns, wishing to be the only armed people in public, despite the laws to the contrary.
In fact, if someone is simply open carrying , the police do not have any legal reason to detain and demand ID from the carrier, seeing as how no reasonable suspicion exists from the lawful act of open carry..the cops often say that they ” have no way of knowing if the carrier is a felon ” as an excuse to detain and ID a carrier, but if they do not have any reawson to suspect that the carrier is in fact a felon the stop is just a fishing expedition w/o RS or Pc of any kind and is an illegal detention. People should not have to prove to a cop that his unfounded suspicions have any validity and the excuse that the public may become alarmed should not be an excuse to limit the right to open carry. It is not the responsibility of the lawful open carrier to give up his rights because some citizens may have apprehensions, but the cops are using this as a reason to harrass carriers all the time.
Without ” articulable ” and reasonable grounds to believe that a crime is being committed, open carriers should not be detained whatsoever, and lawsuits may be the only way to reign in agressive cops who resent not being the exclusive carriers of guns. Flipping off a cop does not give the officer the legal right to detain or charge a citizen and carrying a holstered gun does not give them any legal authority to initiate a detention and interrogation either.
People do not have to prove that they are entitled to open carry just because they are carrying, or because of calls by citizens who do not comprehend the rights to carry and are afraid that an otherwise innocuous citizen is open carrying a gun. If unfounded alarm is enough to deny our rights, we are in a sad state of affairs indeed.