Agenda - 11-16-1993 - VII-B (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• 6 17 S State t•. 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.t; tense debate in both political and academic arenas during the past twenty- ,�a years ' A focal point 01 "The Great American Gun War"' has been the constirunonality of banning or restricting various weapons.) Despite the tmpor- 'ance of possible constitutional limitations on a state's authority to restrict a citueit's right to bear arms, the judiciary, especially the federal judiciary, re- trains reticent on this hotly contested social issue.' Since 1968 the North Caro- . ';:a Supreme Court has not addressed directly the constitutional limits the State tray impose on the right to keep and bear arms.s In State v. Fennel!,' 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.* sawed-off shotgun at a community recreation center.' The • officers spotted Jeffrey Fennell, who matched the description given in the re- ,• 1. Eg., S. HALaao4[. THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED IX•X (1984); E. KaLSCHKE. Nit FLIGHT TO Ku AND BEAR ARMS 3-4(1915); Note. The Adrvtdual Right to Dear Annr An/lltjory Public Ponfert, 1946 UTAH L. REV 751, 755. 2. See Bruce-Bngp• The Great American Gun War, 1976 Pus. INTEREST 37 3 See generally Feller & Gating, The Second Amendment. A Second Laot. 61 Nw U.L. REV 46 (1966) (contending that second amendment does not grant an individual right to bear arrest. Jackson, Handgun Control. Corwtnrreonat and Cntien/ly Needed, 3 N.C. Cavr. U . 189 (1977)(mayor of Atlanta unsung urban problems with firearms): Kates.Handgun Prohibition and the Origin/Meaning of doe Second Amendment, 82 MICR. C. REV. 204, 206.11 (1983)(surveying the -11,p.3op"of liberals and conservatives on the issue of individual liberty regarding the right to beat arms) Malcolm, The Right of the People to Keep and Dear Amu. The Common Lear Traduion, 10 HASTINcs Conn. LQ 235(1983)(ugwng that the framers unaided the second amendment to convey an individual right). 4. The United Sulu Supreme Court has addressed the second amendment only tour times, • most rs en dy in 1939. See infra notes 24-29 and accompanying test. The Court's sluice ccettrs es chattily with its more wove role in other disputed social issues such u abortion,e.g.Rom v. Wade, 410 L.S :i3(1973),school integration.et,Brown v Bourn of Education,347*J.&tan i0.4r and the rights of criminfl defendants.e.g.. Miranda v. Arizona. 344 U.S. 436(l966); Mapp v.Ohio,367 U.S. 643(1961). The Supreme Court's refusal to reconsider its stand on the second amendment in light of the incorporation of other parts of the Bill of Rights since 1939 remains pooling. 5 State v. Dawson. 272 N.0 535, 159 S.E.2d 1 (1964). 6. 95 N.C. App. 140. 332 S.E2d 231 (1989). 7. Id. at 141, 382&E24 at 2.32. Volume 68 North Carolina Law Review ( 1990)