NC: Can you be charged for Concealed Carry in a Supermarket?

D

DMK

New member
Apparently so. I'm especially surprised this happened in Western NC. Usually you hear about this stuff happening on the central or eastern side of the state.

Watauga D.A. wantonly misinterprets restaurant carry ban;
COULD YOU BE PROSECUTED FOR CARRYING IN A GROCERY STORE?

At precisely the moment House Bill 111 for concealed carry in restaurants is languishing in the Senate Judiciary II Committee, a western North Carolina man is being prosecuted for carrying a firearm in violation of GS 14-269.3 – a place where “alcohol is sold and consumed” – EVEN THOUGH HE IS CLEARLY INNOCENT.

To be clear: GRNC is not defending the actions of the man in question. He also faces the common law charge of “going armed to the terror of the public” and might well be guilty as charged. But the arrogance of local law enforcement and the district attorney clearly signal that you too might come under the prosecutorial knife, and that we need restaurant carry RIGHT NOW!

Arrested in Burnsville, Larry Dean Hunter is charged with “Going armed to the terror of the public” and violating GS 14-269.3, which bars firearms “where alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed.” The problem? He was arrested for displaying a firearm in an INGLES SUPERMARKET, where alcohol might be sold, but is definitely not “consumed.”

An innocent mistake on the part of law enforcement? Think again. GRNC president Paul Valone actually called the office of District Attorney Jerry Wilson, representing Avery, Madison, Mitchell, Watauga, and Yancey Counties. Here is how the conversation went:

Valone: “I am calling regarding the potential misinterpretation of a pending case regarding our concealed handgun statute in Yancey County. Can you direct me who to talk to?”

D.A. office: “Are you a defendant or a relative in the case?”

Valone: “I don’t want to talk about the case. I want to talk to the District Attorney about GS 14-269.3.”

D.A. office: “I’m terminating this call now.” CLICK.

Given that GRNC had already made attempts to contact the Burnsville Chief of Police, Brian Buchanan, and did contact the town’s mayor, Danny McIntosh, it is safe to say that D.A. Jerry Wilson is aware of the case and dodging questions on a prosecution they clearly intend to continue, despite the fact that GS 14-269.3 clearly does not apply.
Click to expand...


http://grnc.org/alerts/alert_8_1_11.htm
 
Isin't it illegal or atleast against department of public health regulations to drink alchahol at a super market?


sold and consumed


And consumed in the keyword and im sorry but in the jeopardy world I do not think "drinking alcohol" would be on the top 10 list of things you do at a super market.



To be fair, did this super market have some kind of a built in restaurant? Was it a "stuckys" or "pigley wigley" type place, or was it a 7/11?


We must be missing something due to the vagueness of the article, if we are not then IMO this is a miscarriage of justice. I think they key here might be the manner in which the firearm was exposed.
 
I have no clue on the NC laws, but “going armed to the terror of the public” is usually charged against open carriers in NC. Perhaps he printed a little too much or had the gun exposed.

At least in VA some grocery stores do have wine tastings. If they have a special permit to do this I do not know.
 
I thought open carry was legal in N.C.

so the concealed carry law should not apply if the guy was open carrying...

and yes as far as I know one can open or conceal carry in a grocery store in N.C....

sounds like somebody over stepped.... then again, one never gets even close to the full story on these things.
 
I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but Paul Valone pretty much ruined his chance to talk to the DA when he opened by saying that he wanted to talk about the misinterpretation of the law in regards to the case, then followed up by saying that he wasn't calling to talk about the case. Obviously he was. And, of course, the DA isn't going to discuss a case over the phone.

Assuming that drinking on the premises where beer is sold is illegal (as it is where I live), then it's going to be tough to make GS 14-269.3 stick. The other one...who knows.

I can see a plea deal coming out of this. But I don't know about dodging questions. I wouldn't expect the government agencies concerned to talk to some guy over the phone about the case.
 
I agree that Paul Valone does tend to add a bit of drama to his reporting, and it does appear that he is using this story to push his agenda of passing the carry in restaurants bill, though overall GRNC does good and I also feel that supporting that bill is a good thing.

I also agree that there appears to be more to this story that appears on the surface. Especially in WNC. That is a very rural area, pretty far away from Asheville and almost everyone around here owns guns. Perhaps this guy was legitimately threatening in some way. Though you think there would be some sort of disturbance charge if that was the case.

However, the DA's charge of violating the CCW regulations due to alcohol being sold is disturbing. I have never seen an Ingles supermarket where alcohol was consumed. In fact, I'm pretty sure that in itself would be illegal, armed or not. Hopefully that charge will get thrown out, just for precedence sake.
 
Last edited:
At least in VA some grocery stores do have wine tastings. If they have a special permit to do this I do not know.
Click to expand...

A special permit is required.

A regular ABC permit for a store is for sales ONLY.

NO consumption.

Someone is going to get butt hurt when this gets in front of a judge (like whomever prosecutes it).

The law clearly says "sold AND consumed."
 
Was there some sort of tasting going on at the NC store on that date? If so, that could be a loophole the DA is using.

But from what's been reported, it just seems like an abuse of power, so far.
 
Like I said, there has to be more to the story.... or possibly even less.... since the only news link so far has been the grassroots one....
 
Hardcase said:
I don't mean to be a wet blanket,...
Click to expand...

Far from it.

All this recording shows is an attorney whose office will not take a call from an adverse party who may be represented by counsel. I've had this happen twice in two decades, and both times got on the phone immediately to opposing counsel to let them know that I did not initiate the contact and that I terminated the call as soon as his client identified himself.

The DA's case may stink, but hanging up was the ethical thing to do.
 
you can crack a cream soda on the way to the register just like you could a beer though it is much more uncommon for the latter to happen(cream soda looks like a beer bottle anyways and comes in a sixpack and nobody has ever said anything to me).

Not only that, the law as written in an earlier post can be interpreted in different ways, so that can allow the attempted prosecution.

*also many grocery stores(near the beaches as example or tourist areas) have places where people can sit and tip one back. The store probably has the right but doesn't use it(wine as a good example mentioned for tastings).
 
I work as a full time LEO in N.C. I can't speak for other jurisdictions, but where I'm at, the "armed to the terror of the public" thing is usually reserved for cases like a guy walking down a city street carrying a rifle or shotgun. We do have CCW laws, but last time I checked, we're also an "open carry" state, and anyone old enough to legally possess a handgun is not prohibited from openly wearing same. I very rarely encounter OC folks when I'm working, and I personally don't favor it...but until such time as OC becomes illegal, I'll leave them be.
 
So single six, I guess you don't open carry either?

Sorry that will open a different can of worms, we can debate in a different post. (How we sheeple have been brain washed into believing that it's okay for government 'enforcement' agents to open or conceal carry but not regular citizens)

anywho... would not the terror to the public require more than just open carrying of either a long or short gun since doing either is perfectly legal in N.C.?
 
Oddly, NC sounds more and more like Connecticut. We've had some Connecticut folk post about a government mindset that if anybody complains, then the Open Carrier is de facto disturbing the peace and should be charged.

The Carolinas are probably the gun (and knife) unfriendliest southern states. At least, they have been in my experience.

Edit: In my mostly vicarious experience. Nothing bad has happened to me, I'm just going by a) newspaper articles; b) difficulties in purchasing firearms (permit required in NC); c) difficulties (actually impossibilities) in obtaining an out-of-state carry for SC, since I don't own any SC real estate.
 
Last edited:
Blume: No, I don't OC, I just don't favor it. However, if you're referring to OC while I'm in uniform, then obviously, yes, I do. On my own time, I carry concealed. As I've said before on TFL, I, for one, am all for citizens carrying openly if they so choose. Our laws do not forbid this. I just personally think that CCW is better, and so that's how I go about it. As for your question, no need to debate, because I agree with you. I see what you mean, because I've often wondered the same thing...you'd think OC of a long gun would also be legal since doing likewise with a handgun is okay. To that I can only respond with four words that I find myself using often: "I just work here."
 
Last edited:
MLeake: All I can tell you is, in the very few cases along these lines I've had in 22 years, I have never arrested anyone for OC of a handgun. I also must admit confusion on your saying the Carolinas are not gun-friendly. In my LE capacity, I very often encourage the citizens I serve to own, train with, and carry firearms. Of course, I'm just one guy, but in my career thus far, I have yet to encounter any anti-gun types in my profession. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but as yet, they've not crossed my path.
 
"to the terror of the public" implies, to me at least, that the bearer of the firearm is not simply carrying it but doing so in a menacing or threatening manner. The simple act of openly carrying a firearm cannot be described as "to the terror of the public", if for no other reason than LEO's do so everywhere, all the time.

The deliberate misapplication of laws, with the implicit collaboration of the judiciary, is one of the most frightening aspects of our criminal justice system, because the remedies to it are so exceedingly difficult to accomplish.
 
CS: Here's a recent example I can give you: A year or so back, while on patrol, I heard gunfire in a nearby neighborhood. This was well after midnight. As myself and my colleagues began checking the area we heard several more shots. As I came up to a stop sign, I saw a guy carrying a rifle, directly across the street from where I was. He was holding same in the port of arms position as he strode across somebody's front lawn. When he saw me, he took off running into an adjacent yard, ducking behind the house. I [and my entire squad] confronted this individual at gunpoint a few moments later. He was taken into custody, with no force being necessary on our part [thankfully], and was charged with the aforementioned "terror of the public" statute. Hope this helps.
 
Single Six said:
CS: Here's a recent example I can give you: A year or so back, while on patrol, I heard gunfire in a nearby neighborhood. This was well after midnight. As myself and my colleagues began checking the area we heard several more shots. As I came up to a stop sign, I saw a guy carrying a rifle, directly across the street from where I was. He was holding same in the port of arms position as he strode across somebody's front lawn. When he saw me, he took off running into an adjacent yard, ducking behind the house. I [and my entire squad] confronted this individual at gunpoint a few moments later. He was taken into custody, with no force being necessary on our part [thankfully], and was charged with the aforementioned "terror of the public" statute. Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Based solely on the information given, just what public was "in terror"? Now I can see charges of disturbing the peace, discharging a firearm in a public place or perhaps negligent discharge of a firearm but "terror of the public"? Could you please post the terror of the public statute?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top