Court Opinion

ID: 9854053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:59:55.419693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:53.608929
License: Public Domain

*551Chief Justice PARKER
dissenting.
In my view N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 as applied to plaintiff does not violate Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Justice TIMMONS-GOODSON dissenting.
Because the majority has crafted an individualized exception for a sympathetic plaintiff, thereby placing North Carolina in the unique position of being the first jurisdiction, either federal or state, to hold that the inherent police power of the State must yield to a convicted félon’s right to own a firearm, I respectfully dissent. Plaintiffs right to possess a firearm is not absolute, but subject to regulation. The Felony Firearms Act at issue is a reasonable regulation of the right to bear arms, both facially and as applied to plaintiff.
I note initially that “there is a strong presumption that enactments of the General Assembly are constitutional.” Town of Spruce Pine v. Avery Cty., 346 N.C. 787, 792, 488 S.E.2d 144, 147 (1997) (citing Wayne Cty. Citizens Ass’n for Better Tax Control v. Wayne Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 328 N.C. 24, 399 S.E.2d 311 (1991). Moreover, it is well settled that “ ‘[a]ding for the public good, the state, in the exercise of its police power, may impose reasonable restrictions upon the natural and constitutional rights of its citizens.’ ” In re Moore, 289 N.C. 95, 103, 221 S.E.2d 307, 312 (1976) (quoting In re Cavitt, 182 Neb. 712, 715, 157 N.W.2d 171, 175 (1968)). Indeed, this Court recently noted that the State may properly exercise its police power to enact laws protecting or promoting the safety and general welfare of society. Standley v. Town of Woodfin, 362 N.C. 328, 333, 661 S.E.2d 728, 731 (2008). With regard to the right to bear arms, this Court has “consistently pointed out that the right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation.” State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 546, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968). To pass constitutional muster, the regulation must be (1) reasonable; and (2) related to preserving public peace and safety. See id. at 546-47, 159 S.E.2d at 9-10 (citing State v. Kemer, 181 N.C. 574, 579, 107 S.E. 222, 226 (1921) (Allen, J., concurring), for the proposition that the right to bear arms is subject to regulation by the General Assembly in the exercise of its inherent police power, but the regulation must be reasonable and related to the preservation of public peace and safety).
In addition to regulating the place and manner in which an individual may exercise his right to bear arms, the General Assembly may *552also properly regulate — to the point of absolute restriction — certain classes of persons reasonably deemed by the legislature to pose a threat to public peace and safety.3 See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. -, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 678 (2008) (affirming that the “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill” survive Second Amendment scrutiny); United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 261 (5th Cir. 2001) (stating that “it is clear that felons, infants, and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms”), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907, 153 L. Ed. 2d 184 (2002); cf. In re Moore, 289 N.C. at 102-03, 221 S.E.2d at 311-12 (stating that, although the right to procreate is a fundamental right, the state may limit a class of citizens in this right). Thus, in addition to convicted felons, our statutes unequivocally prohibit incompetents, persons acquitted by reason of insanity of any crime (whether violent or non-violent), and persons subject to domestic violence orders from purchasing, owning, or possessing firearms. See N.C.G.S. §§ 14-269.8, 415.3 (2007). The majority’s reasoning casts serious doubts upon the constitutionality of these statutes and invites individual challenges to not only the Felony Firearms Act, but these other statutory provisions as well.
The General Assembly’s prohibition of firearm use by convicted felons is both reasonable and related to preserving public peace and safety. Felonies constitute our most serious offenses. One who has committed a felony has displayed a degree of lawlessness that makes it entirely reasonable for the legislature, concerned for the safety of the public it represents, to want to keep firearms out of the hands of such a person. As this Court stated in State v. Jackson, 353 N.C. 495, 546 S.E.2d 570 (2001):
Just as there is heightened risk and public concern associated with firearms on educational property, which the legislature addressed through N.C.G.S. § 14-269.2, there is also heightened risk and public concern associated with convicted felons possessing firearms, which the legislature addressed through N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1. Both are exceptional situations, which have been addressed through dedicated statutory law.
Id. at 501, 546 S.E.2d at 573-74 (emphasis added); see also Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103, 112 n.6, 74 L. Ed. 2d 845, 854 *553n.6 (1983) (stating that Congress’s intent in enacting 18 U.S.C. 922(g), which prohibits firearm possession by convicted felons, was to “keep firearms out of the hands of presumptively risky people”), superseded on other grounds by statute, Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, as recognized in Logan v. United States, 552 U.S. 23, —, 169 L. Ed. 2d 432, 438 (2007). The Felony Firearms Act is moreover limited in scope: the prohibition on firearm possession does not apply to all persons convicted of crimes — only those convicted of our most serious offenses, felonies. And convicted felons are not barred from possessing all weapons— only firearms.
The General Assembly, acting upon its compelling interest in the public welfare and safety, determined that, like the mentally insane, those convicted of felonies pose an unacceptable risk with regard to firearm possession. In so doing, the legislature has properly fulfilled its duty to reasonably regulate firearms: “ ‘The preservation of the public peace, and the protection of the people against violence, are constitutional duties of the legislature, and the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is to be understood and construed in connection and in harmony, with these constitutional duties.’ ” Dawson, 272 N.C. at 548, 159 S.E.2d at 11 (quoting Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472, 477 (1874)). Thus, because I conclude that N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 is reasonable and related to preserving public peace and safety, both in general and to Mr. Britt in particular as a convicted drug offender, the Felony Firearms Act is constitutional on its face and as applied to Mr. Britt.
This case is difficult and poses a temptation for the Court to depart from established case law in order to accommodate Mr. Britt. However, as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court recently articulated:
Extreme cases often test the bounds of established legal principles. There is a cost to yielding to the desire to correct the extreme case, rather than adhering to the legal principle. That cost has been demonstrated so often that it is captured in a legal aphorism: “Hard cases make bad law.”
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 556 U.S. -, -, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1208, 1232 (2009) (Roberts, C.J., dissenting). Although Mr. Britt may be a sympathetic plaintiff, in that he made a huge mistake early in his life, he is nevertheless a convicted drug offender and a felon and as such, belongs to a class of persons deemed by the *554General Assembly and recognized by this Court to pose “heightened risk and public concern” with regard to firearm possession. Other state supreme courts have avoided the temptation to craft individualized exceptions for particular plaintiffs. See State v. Smith, 132 N.H. 756, 758, 571 A.2d 279, 281 (1990) (holding that the state’s felon-in-possession statute narrowly served a significant governmental interest in protecting the general public and was therefore constitutional under the New Hampshire Constitution, even though the New Hampshire Supreme Court recognized that some felons falling within the statute’s reach were not potentially dangerous). Today’s decision opens the floodgates wide before an inevitable wave of individual challenges to not only the Felony Firearms Act, but to our statutory provisions prohibiting firearm possession by incompetents and the mentally insane. The majority has not cited any direct authority from this Court or any other jurisdiction in support of its position that the legislature may not prohibit convicted felons like Mr. Britt from possessing firearms. Plaintiff does not cite any such case, and I have found none, all authority being to the contrary.
Although the majority stands up for Mr. Britt and other convicted felons who will now undoubtedly seek judicial exemption from N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1, this is a policy matter and determination best left to the executive or legislative branches. Mr. Britt may seek relief from the General Assembly through contact with individual legislators or from the Governor by way of a conditional or unconditional pardon. See N.C. Const, art. Ill, § 5, cl. 6; N.C.G.S. §§ 13-1 to 13-4. (2007). The majority resists judicial restraint in an effort to fashion an individual exception for Mr. Britt. I believe this Court should properly resist such temptation and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

. Plaintiff has not brought an equal protection challenge, nor has the majority addressed any equal protection concerns with the Felony Firearms Act. I therefore do not comment upon this issue.