Agenda - 11-16-1993 - VII-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6s 17 Side V. Fennell: The North Carolina Tradition of Reasonable Regulation of the Right to Bear Arms The right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms has created increas- .ng!; tense debate in both political and academic arenas during the put twenty• ;%e years ' A focal point of "The Great American Gun W'ar' 2 has been the constirunonality of banning or restricting various wapons.3 Despite the impor- 'ance of possible constitutional limitations on a state's authority to restrict a citizen's right to bear arms, the judiciary, especially the federal judiciary, re- mains reticent on this hotly contested social issue.' Since 1%8 the North Caro- . 'i:a Supreme Court has not addressed directly the constitutional limits the State may impose on the right to keep and bear arms.s In State v. Fennell,' however, the North Carolina Court of Appeals recently upheld a statute making posses- sion of a sawed-off shotgun illegal. This Note considers the constitutional right to keep and bear arms in North Carolina- The Note first briefly discusses United States Supreme Court cases holding that no individual right to bear arms exists under the United States Constitution. Next, it examines.North Carolina cases holding that an individual right to keep arms does exist under the North Carolina Constitution. The Note also analyzes other states' treatments of the right to bear arms under their vari- ous constitutional provisions. Finally, the Note contends that North Carolina courts have concluded properly•that the North Carolina Constitution provides for an individual right to bear arms. On March 3, 1988, three Goldsboro police officers responded to a report of a man carrying a saved-off shotgun at a community recreation center.' The officers spotted Jeffrey Fennell, who matched the description given in the re- 1. Eg., S. HAL3IOOC. THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED IX-X (1984); E KRI:SCHKE, rHt RICNT To Kam,AMO BEA.ARMS 3.4(1915); Note. The Individual Right to Bear.4rmt. An II(t..ton, Pithier Pacifier?, 1916 UTAIt L. REV 751. 755. See Bruce-Brigp. Tee Ghat American Gun War, 1976 Ptra. !NTEaEST 37 3 See generolty Feller t Getting, The Second Amendment A Second took. 61 Nw U.L. REV 46 (1966) (contending that second amendment does not grant an individual right to bar arms,. Jaekaon, Handgun Control. Consttnrtrasal and Critically Needed, I N.C. Carr. L.J. 119 (1977)(mayor of Atlanta stressing urban problems with firearms); Kate. Handgun Pohibmoe and the Original Meaning of At Second Amendment, 12 MIcH. L. REV. 204, 206-11 (19131(surveying the 'lip-eop"of liberate and conservatives on the issue of Individual liberty regarding the right to oat arms): Malcolm, At Right of the People to Keep and Sear Arms The Common Law Teedtteon. 10 HASrtieas Copier. LQ 215(1913)(ugurng that the framers intended the second amendment to convey an individual nest). 4. The United Stun Supreme Court has addressed the second amendment only tour DIMS. most recently in 1939. See infra notes 24-29 and accompanying text. The Court's silence ct ntraus (harpt> with its more►-ve role in other disputed social issues such u abortion.e.g, litre v. Wade. 410 U.S :13 0973),school integratsont.ag., Brown r Bourn of Education,347 U.S.taJ t 1444 and the rights of crtmini t ddetda ts.e.g.. Miranda v. Arizona. 384 U.S. 436(1966) Mapp v.Ohre. 367 U.S. 643 (1961). The Supreme Court's refusal to reconsider its stand on the second unendment In . fight of the Incorporation of other parts of the Bill of Rights UDC! 1939 remains puzzling. 5 State v. Dees sca, 272 N.0 535. 159 S.E.2d I (1968). 6. 95 N.C. App. 140. 312 S.E2d 231 (1919). 7. Id. at 141, 382 S.E2d at 212. Volume 68 North Carolina law Review ( 1990)