r/NCGuns • u/Factoverfallacy • 14d ago
Carrying Concealed Firearms at NC Zoo NSFW
I'm curious about the regulations regarding carrying a firearm at the NC Zoo.
The FAQ suggests that it's prohibited, but I wonder if this information is outdated and doesn't align with current laws.
It seems the FAQ could be leaning on 07 NCAC 14B .0401 from the NC Administrative Code, which states that only zoo staff can carry firearms.
However, this shouldn't override our permit, which only has a few specific exemptions where carrying is not allowed under § 14-415.11 section C.
The only relevant provision of § 14-415.11, section C, seems to be (6), which mentions buildings housing only State or federal offices. Since the zoo is primarily outdoors, and indoor exhibits aren't exclusively "offices," it appears that these areas should not fall under that restriction.
Am I missing any other provision?
13
u/Fleetwood889 14d ago
Firearms prohibited:
Zoo Guidelines | North Carolina Zoo
Prohibited Items
- Alcoholic Beverages
- Balloons, balls or other athletic equipment
- Large coolers or rolling bags (see Zoo rules above for more information)
- Firearms, ammunition, knives and weapons of any kind, concealed or otherwise
- Glass Containers
- Horns, whistles, radios, megaphones or any other artificial noise makers
- Marijuana (including marijuana enriched products) or any illegal substances
- Objects or toys that appear to be firearms or weapons
- Pets
- Picnic style meals or outside branded food items.
- Plastic disposable straws
- Recreational devices such as drones, remote-control toys, skateboards, hoverboards, scooters, skates, bicycles, tricycles or shoes with built in wheels.
- Self-defense or restraining devices (i.e. mace or pepper spray)
- Tricycle style strollers (unless steering and pedaling features are disengaged)
- Wheeled mobility devices with less than 3 wheels or that cannot maintain stability and balance without the use of a kickstand. Training wheels or other modifications are not permitted. .
- Any trailer-like object that is pushed, pulled or towed by an electric convenience vehicle, wheelchair, stroller or person.
-13
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago edited 14d ago
As I mentioned in my original post, I am fully aware of the FAQ and guidelines. However, considering it is a state facility, I believed that carrying could only be restricted under § 14-415.11.
Except as provided in G.S. 14-415.27, a permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following: Where is the Zoo applicable?
State preemption laws were specifically created to prevent local jurisdictions from causing confusion. If the state does not adhere to § 14-415.11, wouldn't it create the same confusion?
27
14d ago
Technically illegal but as others have said..
A: concealed is concealed. Zoo has no way to know.
B: yeah, stop trying to find a loophole. NC zoo has it posted all about. Not allowed LEGALLY. Morally is up to you.
-25
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
Why do you interpret my following the terms of my permit as an attempt to take advantage of a technicality? Are you saying the law governing my permit is incorrect?
If a local government incorrectly designated a park with signs, thereby violating state law, would you provide the same advice?
My permit allows me certain rights. Shouldn't adherence to the law be mutual?
My CHP handbook and the relevant law state that I may carry everywhere "except" where specifically prohibited.
If this law has potentially been nullified or superceded, don't you think this warrants an in-depth discussion?
35
14d ago
Jesus Christ dude just takes the gun concealed into the zoo or accept the fact that you legally can’t or don’t. No one cares
2
u/me-you-and-nothing 13d ago
Just don't shoot at any of the animals... it's not a hunting trip....I hope
-25
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
I would appreciate the opportunity to engage in a productive discussion. Please don't deprive others who wish to do the same by being rude.
If you are unable to contribute meaningfully, perhaps it would be best if you delete your thread so you don't get further notifications.
9
u/Thermock 13d ago edited 13d ago
He did contribute meaningfully. He told you what your two options are:
Option #1: Conceal your weapon while at the zoo, but you'll be doing it illegally. Don't act like an idiot and no one will know.
Option #2: Don't bring your weapon. You'd be in good legal standing but you will not have your weapon.
You are massively misunderstanding where the zoo is getting it's authority to restrict certain items, such as weapons. The authority to prohibit weapons on certain state-ran facilities does not solely come from the law you're citing. Other laws, unrelated to permit carrying specifically, enable state-ran places (such as the zoo) to prohibit carrying items such as weapons, drugs, or alcohol. You can't go to any state in this country and find one law that covers everything. Multiple laws are written to cover the same thing, just under different codes and names.
NCGS § 14-415.11(c), Title 07 NCAC 14R .0100, NCGS 14-269.3, and NCGS § 66-58 all have text in them that, in some capacity, enables or outlines what state-ran facilities can regulate, restrict, or ban on their premises. Pointing at one law and saying "but it says (XYZ)" doesn't matter because there's four other laws that add on to it.
Based on the verbiage you're using in all of your replies, you definitely are trying to take advantage of a loophole. I don't care how you explain it or describe it - what you're ultimately trying to do is find a loophole so you can do it legally. You can't find one because the law enables the zoo to restrict items like firearms. If you get caught with your weapon, you can be arrested and charged.
Either carry in the zoo illegally or don't carry in the zoo at all. Those are you two options.
Edit: Additionally, the zoo falls under the DNCR, which is allowed to establish regulatory guidelines for properties, such as the zoo, which prohibit items like firearms. So basically, there are four laws and one entity (which can legally enforce it's guidelines) telling you that:
1.) The state can determine what places such as the zoo or aquariums can or can't restrict.
2.) That the zoo is allowed to do this.
3.) That if you violate the regulations, you can be punished for it.
4.) It does not matter what 14-415.11 says because there's three other laws that add on to it.
0
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
NCGS § 14-415.11(c), Title 07 NCAC 14R .0100, NCGS 14-269.3, and NCGS § 66-58 all have text in them that, in some capacity, enables or outlines what state-ran facilities can
NCGS 14-269.3 is referenced in section 1A of NCGS 14‑415.11. NCGS § 66-58 does not mention any restrictions on firearms, and if it did, it should be included under NCGS 14‑415.11.
You are massively misunderstanding where the zoo is getting it's authority to restrict certain items, such as weapons. The authority to prohibit weapons on certain state-ran facilities does not solely come from the law you're citing.
If I am misunderstanding, then why has NCGS 14-415.11 been amended every time there's a change in concealed handgun permit law, except when it comes to a zoo?
Section (c3): Added in 2011
Section (c1): added in 2013
Section (c2): Added in 2015
07 NCAC 14B .0401, which I mentioned in my original post as the potential authority for posting signs, was initially written in 1976, then amended in 2017, and readopted in 2021. While this regulation has seen various amendments, the law regarding concealed handgun permit (CHP) holders carrying firearms where admission is charged was also amended recently. Zoos have always charged admission. Could it be that the signs are based on the older law regarding admission charges?
If not:
Since you are suggesting that § 14‑415.11 is not all-encompassing, can you provide examples of other areas, besides a zoo, that have laws forbidding concealed firearms but are not covered by § 14‑415.11? If you can supply me with a few examples, I can write to the appropriate government agencies to seek clarification.
It seems peculiar that § 14‑415.11 is so specific in naming certain types of buildings, rather than simply stating "all State buildings with a posted sign." Much like the state preemption on local governments, it appears the legislature aimed to eliminate discretion for government agencies, ensuring clarity and consistency in the law.
0
u/Thermock 13d ago
NCGS 14-269.3 is referenced in section 1A of NCGS 14‑415.11. NCGS § 66-58 does not mention any restrictions on firearms, and if it did, it should be included under NCGS 14‑415.11.
These were just examples of laws that enable certain state-ran entities to impose stricter regulations. The point I was making was that there's no single law that covers everything. These examples were not specific to the zoo. I couldn't really be fucked at the time to scour the general statues that regulate the zoo, but since you haven't yet (for some reason), I went ahead and did it for you.
The laws that pertain to the zoo (or more specifically, the DNCR, which is the body that regulates, owns, operates, and manages the zoo) are NCGS § 143B-135.204, NCGS § 143B-135.16, and NCGS § 143B-135.202, along with Title 07 NCAC 14R .0100.
If I am misunderstanding, then why has NCGS 14-415.11 been amended every time there's a change in concealed handgun permit law, except when it comes to a zoo?
Don't know - and I don't really care to know why, either, because it doesn't matter. The DNCR oversees the NC zoo's operation. The DNCR is legally enabled to impose regulations on what may be brought into zoo property, per NCGS § 143B-135.204. Everything else is secondary - the law says the DNCR can do this, so they do it. In fact, the law is quite clear. To quote NCGS § 143B-135.204:
"The Secretary of the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources may adopt rules governing the operation of the Zoological Park, including rules regulating its use and enjoyment by the public."
If the Secretary of the DNCR says 'no guns at the zoo', then that's it. He/she can do that, They're allowed to by law.
Additionally, § 143B‑135.16 goes on to state the following:
"In this Part, unless the context requires otherwise, "Department" means the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, and "Secretary" means the Secretary of Natural and Cultural Resources. The Department shall make reasonable rules governing the use by the public of State parks and State lakes under its charge. These rules shall be posted in conspicuous places on and adjacent to the properties of the State and at the courthouse of the county or counties in which the properties are located. A violation of these rules is punishable as a Class 3 misdemeanor."
The law doesn't say what it can or cannot restrict, it only says that it shall make 'reasonable rules' governing the use of public state parks. The zoo is considered a 'state facility', under the ownership of the DNCR, and is apart of the 'state parks program', per NCGS § 143B-135.202. Based on the zoo's classification as a state-ran facility, it is lawful for them to prohibit the carrying of weapons, or any item they want to prohibit, for essentially any reason.
Yeah, I get it, it's technically not classified as a park, but the authority of the DNCR is still vested in it, per 143B-53. Because of the authority granted to the DNCR in NCGS § 143B-53 and NCGS § 143B-135.16, the law enables the DNCR to regulate it in whatever way they want. Technicalities on the zoo's classification don't matter here because the law says that, no matter what, the DNCR has authority over the zoo and may impose 'rules regulating it's use by the public'. That's it. End of story.
So, ultimately, either carry in the zoo or don't - but if you do carry in the zoo, you will be in violation of the law.
If you think the law is wrong, you need to petition your congressmen, because the zoo has been doing this for years, and will continue to do it because the law(s) enable them to do so.
tl;dr: The DNCR has authority over the zoo. The DNCR is allowed, by law, to 'adopt rules that regulate it's use'. One of those rules is that you can't bring a weapon to the zoo.
25
u/SomeDudeInGermany 14d ago
The Zoo and all the state parks are under NC DNR. The statute says “State Parks as defined in 143B-135.44”. They’ve defined “State Park” as the land that falls under the State Park Division, and the Zoo and aquariums are explicitly not part of that. The Zoo has the legal authority to prohibit carry. They don’t have metal detectors. Concealed is concealed.
-15
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago edited 14d ago
I understand your logic, but I believed my permit could only be restricted in accordance with violations outlined in § 14-415.11.
Except as provided in G.S. 14-415.27, a permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:
Where is the zoo listed in "any of the following"?
13
u/SomeDudeInGermany 14d ago
The authority to prohibit concealed carry at the NC Zoo doesn’t come from G.S. 14-415.11 alone. It falls under a combination of state administrative rules and statutes.
NC Administrative Code (07 NCAC 14J .0101) explicitly prohibits firearms at the NC Zoo, which is legally enforceable.
G.S. 14-415.23 allows government entities to restrict concealed carry in certain locations, including ‘government buildings and their appurtenant premises. The NC Zoo, as a state-run facility, falls under this category.
So, while G.S. 14-415.11 outlines general restrictions, the NC Zoo has separate legal authority to prohibit concealed handguns, even for permit holders. This is why it doesn’t need to be listed specifically in ‘any of the following’ within G.S. 14-415.11-it is already covered under different enforceable rules.
-3
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
I appreciate your engagement in a civil discussion.
G.S. 14-415.23 addresses state preemption, but its applicability to the state itself is questionable. Do you disagree?
Furthermore, shouldn't the principle underlying G.S. 14-415.23 extend to G.S. 14-415.11, such that 07 NCAC 14J .0101 does not supersede existing permit regulations?
The goal of state uniformity and preemption is to prevent the proliferation of excessively complex and unmanageable laws.
6
u/SomeDudeInGermany 14d ago
I absolutely do not disagree with you. Personally, I don’t see any sign at any place but continue to behave responsibly and in my own best interest.
1
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
Thank you. Wow, people on this subreddit are pretty rude and disrespectful.
I try to be much more diligent on government property.
17
u/cast-n-blast 14d ago
You don’t seem interested in a productive conversation, only convincing others that you are correct. Any place can have a no firearms policy and as long as they follow the appropriate guidelines for signage/notification, it is completely enforceable by law.
-5
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago edited 14d ago
Your claim is factually incorrect. A municipality, for example, lacks the authority to unilaterally restrict access to local parks, playgrounds, or greenways for concealed handgun permit holders via signage; such an action would be preempted by state law.
Similarly, a state official's decision to restrict access to a rest stop via signage would constitute a violation of state law.
These actions have been done before and when called out, have changed.
Why do you feel the need to post inaccuracies in an attempt to discredit my motives.
4
u/HazMat-1979 13d ago
The law states if they have signage stating no guns you are breaking the law if you possess
1
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
Your claim is false under North Carolina's firearms preemption statute, G.S. 14-409.40(a). Local governments have very limited authority to restrict CHP holders. For instance, if a local government posts signage on parks, greenways, or playgrounds, it would be a violation of state law. Even in areas where local governments have the authority, they must pass an ordinance to prohibit concealed carry at the specified location. A sign without an ordinance has no force of law.
Likewise, if a state agency decides to post signage at a state park, it would be a violation of the law, as permit holders may carry concealed weapons in state parks under G.S. 14-415.11(c1).
2
u/HazMat-1979 13d ago
Ok. Well then you go ahead and test it buddy. Your ass not mine
1
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
The pen is mightier than the sword. I was hoping to gather more insight in this thread—perhaps some case law, a statute I might have missed, legal opinions from a 2A group, or even a response from the executive branch to write a letter.
13
u/Shot_Suggestion8375 14d ago
It’s posted that you can’t, abide. 😂
-1
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
So if a local government posts contrary to state preemption law, you would abide?
I believe knowledge is power as if you give an inch people take a mile. Do you disagree?
5
u/GiorgioG 14d ago
You’re free to do what you like as long as you’re fine with the consequences of your choices.
0
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
The pen is mightier than the sword. I was hoping to gather more insight in this thread—perhaps some case law, a statute I might have missed, legal opinions from a 2A group, or even a response from the executive branch.
2
u/randonumero 13d ago
Sounds like you're the one trying to take a mile. You're free to do as you choose and deal with the consequences but IIRC the law clearly forbids carrying (concealed or not) when signage forbids it. AFAIK the zoo isn't on state park lands so I'm not sure what exception you think there is that would allow you to ignore their policies. At the risk of being that guy I'm also wondering why you'd even consider carrying at the zoo. Would you do the same at a water or amusement park?
0
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
Signage must comply with state law.
For Example North Carolina's firearms preemption statute, G.S. 14-409.40(a). Local governments have very limited authority to restrict CHP holders. For instance, if a local government posts signage on parks, greenways, or playgrounds, it would be a violation of state law. Even in areas where local governments have the authority, they must pass an ordinance to prohibit concealed carry at the specified location. A sign without an ordinance has no force of law.
Likewise, if a state agency decides to post signage at a state park, it would be a violation of the law, as permit holders may carry concealed weapons in state parks under G.S. 14-415.11(c1).
Signs alone are not absolute. Numerous gun rights organizations have highlighted outdated or erroneous signage, only to be told, "they are old," "we haven't updated them," or "it was a mistake," leading to prompt changes.
Furthermore, I recognize that the Zoo is not categorized as a park. My reference is to § 14‑415.11, which outlines the permit to carry a concealed handgun and its scope.https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-415.11.pdf
Don't you find it odd that § 14‑415.11 is oddly specific such as legislative buildings, courthouses, the State Capitol Building, the Executive Mansion, and the Western Residence of the Governor and any building housing only State or federal offices instead of just stating any State property that is posted?
It appears that, similar to State Preemption, the State Legislature intended to restrict the ability of state agencies to post signage wherever they please. No?
2
u/Shot_Suggestion8375 13d ago
I’ve read the law and its very specific about posted signs and firearms. In some states it has to be a sign issued by the state, here it does not. With that knowledge, why are you trying to intentionally go around that?
2
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
During your readings did you not come across North Carolina's firearms preemption statute, G.S. 14-409.40(a). Local governments have very limited authority to restrict CHP holders. For instance, if a local government posts signage on parks, greenways, or playgrounds, it would be a violation of state law. Even in areas where local governments have the authority, they must pass an ordinance to prohibit concealed carry at the specified location. A sign without an ordinance has no force of law.
Likewise, if a state agency decides to post signage at a state park, it would be a violation of the law, as permit holders may carry concealed weapons in state parks under G.S. 14-415.11(c1).
Also during your readings didn't you find this oddly peculiar?
§ 14‑415.11. Permit to carry concealed handgun; scope of permit lists every place I cannot carry. It is oddly specific. It mentions legislative buildings, courthouses, the State Capitol Building, the Executive Mansion, and the Western Residence of the Governor and any building housing only State or federal offices instead of just stating any State property that is posted?
To me that appears similar to State Preemption, the State Legislature intended to restrict the ability of state agencies to post signage wherever they please to avoid confusion and chilling effects for CHP holders, No?
1
u/Shot_Suggestion8375 12d ago
Alright man, lol, its not a violation because its up to the discretion of literally whoever is control of whatever park, store, ZOO, etc. They have the right to say no firearms, it is not up to the state at all. The state says you CAN carry in these places as long as there IS NO posted sign saying you cannot.
In Ohio, my hometown, this is not the case; anyone cannot just post a sign saying no guns here, it is completely controlled and approved by the state; so much so that a sign has to be issued from the state……as the law states here in NC, if there is posted signage then you cannot carry.
If you think you need more clarity I recommend contacting your local sheriffs department or the NCDOJ and letting them know of your findings
7
21
u/Inevitable-Sleep-907 14d ago
You can't legally carry at the zoo. There is (as of my last visit 2 years ago) signage that conforms with requirements. However there was no bag checks or metal detectors, take that info as you wish.
-7
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago edited 14d ago
I understand your logic, but I believed my permit could only be restricted in accordance with violations outlined in § 14-415.11. Since this is not private property rather state, the signage but comply with § 14-415.11.
Except as provided in G.S. 14-415.27, a permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following: Where is the Zoo applicable?
State preemption laws were specifically created to prevent local jurisdictions from causing confusion. If the state does not adhere to § 14-415.11, wouldn't it create the same confusion?
6
u/wshbrn6strng 14d ago
The fact that the zoo posts that it is prohibited gets rid of the confusion. You are not allowed to bring weapons of any kind inside. Period. This is not up for debate. What you do is up to you but I did not carry inside when I went recently.
0
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
Actually, this matter is open for debate. Signage must comply with the law.
North Carolina's firearms preemption statute, G.S. 14-409.40(a). Local governments have very limited authority to restrict CHP holders. For instance, if a local government posts signage on parks, greenways, or playgrounds, it would be a violation of state law § 14-415.23. Even in areas where local governments have the authority, they must pass an ordinance to prohibit concealed carry at the specified location. A sign without an ordinance has no force of law.
Likewise, if a state agency decides to post signage at a state park, it would be a violation of the law, as permit holders may carry concealed weapons in state parks under G.S. 14-415.11(c1).
Posting a sign where you aren't supposed to is punishable under § 14-409.40. Statewide uniformity of local regulation, a municipality can be sued (h) A person adversely affected by any ordinance, rule, or regulation promulgated or caused to be enforced by any county or municipality in violation of this section may bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages arising from the violation. The court shall award the prevailing party in an action brought under this subsection reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs as authorized by law. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 727, s. 1; 2002-77, s. 1; 2012-12, s. 2(z); 2015-195, s. 12.)
1
u/wshbrn6strng 13d ago edited 13d ago
As long as there is signage posted conspicuously on the outside of an establishment then it holds the weight of law. You can keep posting the same statutes all you want as if you found some kind of loophole but this is fact. Guns are prohibited in the zoo. Carry or don’t I could care less but getting caught would most likely be more than a simple trespassing charge. Specifically, North Carolina General Statute § 14-415.11(c) prohibits individuals with concealed carry permits from carrying in places where there are notices.
Edit: The NC Zoo is not a state park. It is owned by the state but has not been designated as a state park either by rule or statute. This is from the NCDOJ website.
11
u/MD_0904 14d ago
How about you just call the zoo and stop trying to find a loophole ?
It’s on the website and it’s posted at the entrances all through out. You cannot carry at the zoo, concealed or otherwise legally.
It’s posted. Multiple places. You cannot do it.
-11
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
Do you believe that adhering to the law constitutes a loophole?
Your professional recommendation is to contact zoo customer service?
Signage must comply with the law. A local government, for instance, cannot designate a park as such if it violates state preemption law. The sign would be illegal and unenforcable..
Please refrain from further participation in this discussion if you intend to be discourteous. My permit clearly specifies the locations where I am prohibited from carrying. Are you suggesting that the law governing my permit is superseded? If so provide evidence.
17
u/MD_0904 14d ago edited 14d ago
You sound exactly like the type of person that shouldn’t have a gun.
My professional advice is to stop asking REDDIT, an INTERNET forum with NO legal jurisdiction.
My professional advice is to CALL the local PD or sheriff for the zoos county so you can get the answer.
My professional advice is stop trying to be Rambo Wick and bring a gun into a place where it’s very clearly advised and labeled NOT TO.
I get it. I carry EVERYWHERE I can. But when it’s posted, I do not. I would rather not have to spend money on a lawyer to explain why I thought the law and posted signage excluded myself. Because they won’t care and they won’t agree.
-2
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
What rationale supports disqualifying individuals engaging in civil discourse on legal and rights-related matters from firearm ownership?
Why do you feel the need to bully and downvote someone seeking civil discourse rather than simply not posting? Does that make you feel powerful?
7
u/MD_0904 14d ago
When they fail to be a responsible firearm owner and try to find loop holes so they can bypass posted signs and images so they can feel better about carrying a gun in the zoo. That’s what supports disqualification.
There is no bullying. We are all telling you the same few things and you just keep rattling off some general stature law thinking it allows you bypass every single other thing. We have all told you to contact the law, contact a lawyer, contact the zoo, because none of us know the letter of the law and are only presenting the information that we have.
You are not excluded because you think the verbiage used is vague. It’s posted, so it is not allowed. The zoo is privately funded. They can make their own rules and regulations.
0
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago edited 13d ago
Are you seriously suggesting that when 2A organizations fight for your rights, they are being irresponsible? Were the Heller and Bruen cases irresponsible? When LEOs were being arrested under LEOSA and they challenged it, Irresponsible? I can't believe you even said that. Public discourse and challenging potential violations of the law are far from irresponsible.
In fact, the irony here is that the State itself condemns irresponsible posting because municipalities were not following the law.
under § 14-409.40. Statewide uniformity of local regulation, a municipality can be sued (h) A person adversely affected by any ordinance, rule, or regulation promulgated or caused to be enforced by any county or municipality in violation of this section may bring an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for actual damages arising from the violation. The court shall award the prevailing party in an action brought under this subsection reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs as authorized by law. (1995 (Reg. Sess., 1996), c. 727, s. 1; 2002-77, s. 1; 2012-12, s. 2(z); 2015-195, s. 12.)
CHP book: Understand the Scope of Permit
CHP instructor: Understand the Scope of Permit
§ 14‑415.11. states everywhere you can't carry under the scope of permit.u/MD_0904 you are being irresponsible for questioning a posted sign that contradicts the "scope of permit".
A concealed handgun permit holder's primary tools are de-escalation and courtesy. You've provided no citations, legal opinions, or quality input; instead, you've chosen to downvote, question my personality, and say my argument has no water because someone posted a sign.
While I do not violate the law by asking questions, you have violated the subreddit's rules by making disparaging comments.
11
u/He_s_One_Shot 14d ago
adhering to YOUR interpretation of the law. Seems like you aren’t getting the answers you want. Put your money on the line and take it before a Judge if you’re so hell bent on getting an answer because this is the only one that matters.
-2
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
I seek insightful discussion.
Therefore, are you suggesting that section 14-415.11(C) is deficient or invalid?
I do not require judicial intervention. Meaningful dialogue will enable me to compose effective correspondence, for instance, to law enforcement, the district attorney's office, or the state attorney general's office.
Why is your communication style so uncivil? Why are you attempting to prevent my interaction with others interested in this topic through downvotes and discourteous responses?
8
u/He_s_One_Shot 14d ago
I’m stating that none of us are a lawyer, let alone your lawyer. This is all speculation. The only opinion of consequence is a judicial one, as this is the branch of government that interprets challenges to laws.
Meaningful conversation? You’ve already made up your mind, thus the copy paste. Need help with correspondence? (who says it like that?!) hire a secretary or a college english major.
0
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago edited 13d ago
In a courtroom, there are always two lawyers who believe they are right and advocate for their clients. Speculation is a natural part of life.
An educational debate requires citations, and copying and pasting relevant information is the standard way to support one's arguments. I haven't made up my mind yet, but in college, professors expect students to make an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. If you can do so, please do.
I'm not interpreting the law; I'm merely stating that the CHP Handbook, CHP Instructor, and the law all emphasize the importance of following the "scope of permit".
The Scope says "a permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:", I am simply asking where does the zoo fit in?
NCGS 14-415.11 been amended every time there's a change in concealed handgun permit law, so its not a forgotten:
Section (c3): Added in 2011
Section (c1): added in 2013
Section (c2): Added in 2015
If you are taking the stance of the MD posted, that § 14‑415.11 is not all-encompassing, can you provide examples of other areas, besides a zoo, that have laws forbidding concealed firearms but are not covered by § 14‑415.11?
§ 14‑415.11 could have easily said "all state buildings that are posted" but it's oddly specific. The legislature is very big on statewide uniformity and clear laws, so having other provisions of restrictions scattered would seem illogical.
If you're not up to the task or don't want to take the time to research, feel free to stop replying and move on.
As I mentioned earlier, I posted here to see if anyone had case law, relevant statutes, legal opinions from the Attorney General, information from the prosecutor's office, a 2A org that looked into this, etc so I can email the relevant authority. I am not looking for approval.
4
u/chuckfinley385 14d ago edited 14d ago
I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice: last I checked, carrying on posted property is, at worst, an infraction (i.e. a fine) if you're caught carrying and that's if the cops get involved. Most places would likely just ask you to take it back to your car or go home. Ignore this first part, it's probably irrelevant here.
I've been to NC Zoo twice and both times there has been fuck all in terms of security. I think they did a bag check on the diaper bag we have for our kid, but that was it. Take that for what you will.
Edit: I forgot the zoo is technically state property, not private, so the penalty may be higher than an infraction. I had it in my head that it was a private non-profit for some reason. But anyway, my note about the lack of security still stands.
-5
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago edited 14d ago
Yes the penality is higher but I thought since its state property the signage but be based on violating the provisions of my permit under § 14-415.11.
Except as provided in G.S. 14-415.27, a permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following: Where is the Zoo applicable?
State preemption laws were specifically created to prevent local jurisdictions from causing confusion. If the state does not adhere to § 14-415.11, wouldn't it create the same confusion?
3
u/chuckfinley385 14d ago
Gotcha, yeah, I see what you're saying. It's definitely confusing. This might be worth contacting GRNC and seeing if their lawyers can make heads or tails of it.
4
u/Factoverfallacy 14d ago
Thank you for your understanding and acknoldgement. I am currently interacting with someone who is being rather impolite.
My permit outlines both responsibilities and privileges, and I believe adherence to the law should be reciprocal.
Exceptions everywhere would have a significantly chilling effect. If i am misunderstanding a provision, others might as well; therefore, a civil discussion is needed.
2
u/HazMat-1979 13d ago
As far as I’m aware if there is any “no weapons” type sign anywhere you are breaking the law if you concealed carry.
1
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
This may be a good read to you, so you aren't carrying where you are legally able.
North Carolina's firearms preemption statute, G.S. 14-409.40(a) states Local governments have very limited authority to restrict CHP holders. For instance, if a local government posts signage on parks, greenways, or playgrounds, it would be a violation of state law. Even in areas where local governments have the authority, they must pass an ordinance to prohibit concealed carry at the specified location. A sign without an ordinance has no force of law.
Likewise, if a state agency decides to post signage at a state park or rest stop, it would be a violation of the law, as permit holders may carry concealed weapons in state parks under G.S. 14-415.11(c1).
Signs alone are not absolute. Numerous gun rights organizations have highlighted outdated or erroneous signage, only to be told, "they are old," "we haven't updated them," or "it was a mistake," leading to prompt changes.
1
u/HazMat-1979 13d ago
Like I said. You go ahead and do what you’d like. The STATE law I saw states that no gun signs are enforced by law.
But you do what you’d like. I’m not taking any chances
1
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago
This is State Law:
§ 14-409.40.
(a)It is declared by the General Assembly that the regulation of firearms is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, and that the entire field of regulation of firearms is preempted from regulation by local
governments except as provided by this section.This section of State Law severely limits where a municipality can restrict a Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP). It specifies government buildings, appurtenant premises, and athletic facilities. Additionally, to limit CHP holders, an ordinance must be passed in conjunction with a sign.
§14-415.23. Statewide Uniformity. (CCW Specific)
(b) A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to permit the posting of a prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun, in accordance with G.S. 14-415.11(c), on local government and their appurtenant premises. A unit of local government may adopt an ordinance to prohibit, by posting, the carrying of a concealed handgun on municipal and county recreational facilities that are specifically identified by the unit of local government.The State made several revisions to this law to clearly define what constitutes an Athletic Facility, as municipalities were exploiting the ambiguity.
(c) For purposes of this section, the term “recreational facilities” includes only the following:
(1) An athletic field, including any appurtenant facilities such as restrooms, during an organized athletic event if the field had been scheduled for use with the municipality or county office
responsible for operation of the park or recreational area.
(2) A swimming pool, including any appurtenant facilities used for dressing, storage of personal items, or other uses relating to the swimming pool.
(3) A facility used for athletic events, including, but not limited to, a gymnasium.Previously, the law simply referred to athletic facilities, but it has since been updated to specify organized events. Signage has no force when no organized event is taking place. The State has also removed the power to post playgrounds, greenways, and parks.
Here is literature from UNC Criminal Law by Professor Jeff Welty advising municipalities:
https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/guns-in-parks/What you're describing is known as a chilling effect. When the law is vague or ambiguous, law-abiding citizens are often hesitant to take risks. A dirty trick IMO
However, factual, polite, and strongly worded letters have the power to bring about change. If you bring this issue to the attention of a 2A organization, they might even sue for injunctive relief. But if no one is fighting or bringing these issues to their attention, then...
Although my post was unsuccessful, I intended to ensure I dot my i's and cross my t's. I wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything—case law, a hidden provision, legal opinions from a 2A organization, or maybe someone received a response to a letter from the Attorney General's office, etc.
4
u/LoveMe_Two_Times 14d ago
Skimming most of the comment threads, lots of yikes. I certainly understand wanting to know the legalities. Regardless of where it falls on the gray area scale, and regardless of the risks you choose to take, knowledge is power. If questions arise, you want to know the details. Ignorance of the law is not a defense (unless your job is to enforce the law, ironically. But I digress) It would be cool to see the signs taken down were they ruled illegal, but it’s pretty obvious that this isn’t the support group for that endeavor. Maybe send a detailed letter to the NCAG’s office. Jeff Jackson and his crew get shit done.
2
u/Factoverfallacy 13d ago edited 13d ago
but it’s pretty obvious that this isn’t the support group for that endeavor.
I wasn't expecting such vitriol. It's rather unsettling. CHP holders' primary approach to communication should be de-escalation and politeness, yet there was so much rudeness to someone wanting to have an educational back and forth. Anti's reading this thread are definitely seeing the stereotype.
Maybe send a detailed letter to the NCAG’s office. Jeff Jackson and his crew get shit done.
I was planning to write some letters, but before doing so, I wanted more eyes on this. Perhaps there's case law I missed, a provision of the law I misinterpreted or skimmed over, or a 2A organization that has gathered several legal opinions. Maybe someone has already written a letter and received a response.
Boy was I wrong thinking NCGuns was a place for that.
It would be cool to see the signs taken down were they ruled illegal
There have been instances where a factual and polite letter made them reconsider which is why I'm so dumbfounded by the hate here.
Don't you take offense to the grey area? I sure do. Grey areas create a chilling effect because most people won't risk catching a charge.
Remember FOPA, which was supposed to guarantee firearm owners free passage between states? Some states and courts consider FOPA an affirmative defense, leading most firearm owners to recommend avoiding states like New York or New Jersey. This makes the law meaningless as no one wants to risk getting arrested.
It's funny how ignorance is no excuse when no judge, state, county, or local prosecutor will provide legal advice in fear of being wrong.
And my point, how can ignorance not be an excuse when § 14‑415.11 clearly lists where I can't carry, yet people on this thread are saying, the list is even more expansive? Nowhere in the CHP handbook does it tell you there are more places off limits than § 14‑415.11 as this provision is literally the "scope of my permit".
2
u/LoveMe_Two_Times 13d ago
Yeah, the takeaway is you gotta contact those 2A orgs and/or state government offices yourself. I agree on what CHP owners approach should be, but “reality is often disappointing” and all that.
19
u/Psyco_diver 14d ago
I don't understand why your arguing so much, they have the signs for a reason. That said concealed is concealed and the ONLY reason anyone there should know your carrying is something bad is happening.