By David Rogers. December 12, 2011. BLOWING ROCK – Back in the days of the “Wild Wild West”, even the good guys holstered six-shooters and were prepared to use them if a “bad hombre” threatened family or property.  Simply put, they exercised a right to defend themselves.

Whether it is a “big” issue or simply routine policy-making, Blowing Rock’s elected officials, town management, and planning board now need to revisit the issue of restrictions, if any, on concealed weapons on town property, including in recreation areas. Legislation passed in the North Carolina General Assembly in late June seeks statewide uniformity in local regulations concerning concealed weapons – and Blowing Rock’s existing ordinances may not comply.

Historical Perspective

We are a culture fond of stereotypes, and perhaps none are as starkly etched in the American psyche as those involving the American frontier.  From Kit Carson to Davy Crockett and Daniel Boone, a frontiersman’s dress was not complete unless he was carrying his “long rifle” and “Bowie knife” -- and prepared to defend himself against attack by a bear or mountain lion, or a need to “rustle up” some game for supper.  There were no cell phones back in those days to call Animal Control, and no anticipation of a Burger King, Wendy’s or Come Back Shack right around the bend.

Times have changed – we are more “civilized” -- but an increasing number of otherwise law-abiding Americans are clamoring to exercise Second Amendment constitutional rights “to keep and bear arms.”  They may not fear oppression by a tyrannical government as our once Colonial forefathers did, but especially in more urban areas they feel threatened by gangs, terrorized by drug dealers, and victimized by carjackers.  We hear daily reports from our larger towns and cities about home and business break-ins.

In challenging economic times, “everyday people” fear for their families and their property. They feel a need to protect themselves from desperate others.  An increasing number of Americans want to be able to defend themselves whenever and wherever the need arises, whether in their homes, on a hiking trail, or in a shopping mall.

Which “Thesis” Prevails?

The Second Amendment was part of the “Bill of Rights,” the collective name for the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  As drafted, the amendments were limitations on government in order to protect the “natural rights” of liberty and property, to guarantee a number of personal freedoms, and to limit the federal government’s power even while reserving powers to the states.  In a very real sense, the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights were added simply to gain ratification of the historic Constitution by three-fourths of the 13 former British colonies. In modern-day parlance, ratification was not a "slam dunk" even if, in retrospect, it seems like a no-brainer given how well the "American Experiment" has worked out through history.

There have been a significant number of academic opinions rendered with respect to regulating the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail their ownership.  At the same time, the courts have offered little in the way of resolution for what “right” the Second Amendment actually protects.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The last half of the amendment text (“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”) supports an “individual rights” thesis that individuals are protected in the ownership, possession and transportation of firearms.  Period.

But the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights didn’t do latter-day interpreters of the documents any favors by adding the first half, because it may provide an historical context in asserting that individuals should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Historians point out that the leaders of individual former colonies newly freed of oppressive British rule were suspicious of a powerful national or “federal” government.  They wanted the right, if need be, to hastily organize their respective state militias comprised of individual citizens.  Such men called to duty -- to defend themselves and their neighbors against outside aggressors -- needed to be able to grab that rifle hanging over the fireplace mantle or pull a sidearm out of the big cookie jar in the pantry and quickly join the fray.  In other words, they needed the right to keep and bear arms.

So a “states’ rights” thesis for interpreting the Second Amendment suggests that the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.  In other words, the right to keep and bear arms was strictly a military convenience for an historical period when there was no fully-trained standing army, according to this view.

The Blowing Rock Issue

The U.S. Supreme Court has considered, interpreted and rendered opinions on the Second Amendment over the years, usually tending to side with the individual rights thesis that is at the heart of the dialogue. Certainly the individual rights thesis is favored in the June legislation passed by the General Assembly.

While the Town of Blowing Rock has had an ordinance on the books for some time regarding concealed weapons, mostly prohibiting them on all town property, legislation by the North Carolina General Assembly in mid-summer is forcing many municipalities, including Blowing Rock, to revisit their rules for carrying firearms.

The current applicable Town ordinance reads:

Section 15-17 Weapons on Town Property.

(A) Subject to subsection (B), no person on town property may possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any deadly weapon not used solely for instructional or officially sanctioned ceremonial purposes.

(B) Subsection (A) shall not apply to federal, state, or local law enforcement officers acting in the discharge of their official duties if such officers are authorized by law to carry weapons.

In June 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly passed Session Law 2011-268 which, among other things, establishes statewide uniformity in a citizen’s right to carry a concealed weapon and, most specifically, a handgun. It went into effect on December 1, 2011.

Section 14-415.23 of this law appears to prohibit a town, city or other jurisdiction to enact ordinances or rules about this issue, except to post any prohibition against carrying a concealed handgun in local buildings and related properties, as well as on parks and recreation facilities that are specifically identified by that unit of local government. Further, the text of the law provides that recreational facilities (where a prohibition might be instituted) “…includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility.”

§ 14-415.23. Statewide uniformity.

It is the intent of the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform system for the regulation of legally carrying a concealed handgun. To insure uniformity, no political subdivisions, boards, or agencies of the State nor any county, city, municipality, municipal corporation, town, township, village, nor any department or agency thereof, may enact ordinances, rules, or regulations concerning legally carrying a concealed handgun. 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 buildings, their appurtenant premises, and parks buildings 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. If a unit of local government adopts such an ordinance with regard to recreational facilities, then the concealed handgun permittee may, nevertheless, secure the handgun in a locked vehicle within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or area within or on the motor vehicle. For purposes of this section, the term "recreational facilities" includes only the following: a playground, an athletic field, a swimming pool, and an athletic facility."

In speaking with Town officials, Blowing Rock News was told that revising Blowing Rock’s ordinances to comply with the new North Carolina requirements should be neither difficult nor controversial. However, the devil could well be in the details of which Town properties the Planning Board and Town Council specifically identify as recreational facilities or athletic facilities.  For example, areas requiring definition might include:

• Robbins Swimming Pool
• Memorial Park
• Annie L. Cannon Memorial Garden
• Broyhill Park
• Davant Field
• The Glen Burney Trail

Recreation Facilities an Extension of Castle Doctrine

Colloquially dubbed as “The Castle Doctrine” (“a man’s home is his castle”) the primary objective of the June legislation is to support the right of individuals to use deadly force, if need be, to protect themselves.  And, the legislation provides some degree of relief from criminal or civil liability should they do so.

A primary example used leading up to passage of the new law:  if someone unknown to a homeowner enters their house without permission to do so.  Under the new law, the homeowner may presume that the uninvited houseguest intends harm, and use deadly force to protect himself and other home occupants.

While the legislation is aimed at protecting 2^nd Amendment rights “to keep and bear arms,” its origins were somewhat controversial in that the architects of the bill include principals of Grass Roots North Carolina, a Raleigh-based lobby organization that, while it has individual members, receives a substantial amount of funding from firearms merchants. This is not surprising, since in previous conversations State Representative Jonathan Jordan and State Senator Dan Soucek have told Blowing Rock News that when crafting legislation the leaders of the now Republican-controlled legislative bodies brought together representatives of the various constituent interests involved in an issue to air concerns, voice positions, and achieve what they felt were workable compromises.  Gun rights were just one of the areas addressed in the General Assembly this year.

In tackling the issue, Blowing Rock joins a host of other North Carolina towns and cities addressing how their local ordinances fit into the new legislation.  Among them are Hickory, Smithfield, Winston-Salem, Fayetteville, Greenville, Havelock, Garner, Forsyth County, and Henderson, among others.

Some jurisdictions have passed ordinances that "passed muster" with Grass Roots North Carolina, while other municipalities’ law-making has been criticized by the lobby group as “over-reaching,” and even “illegal.”

Planning Director Kevin Rothrock and Town Manager Scott Hildebran have advised Blowing Rock News that the Town's Planning Board will be first to review existing ordinances vs. the new state law and make recommendations to the Town Commissioners.  The Planning Board meeting is Thursday, December 15, 5:30 pm, at Town Hall.  The agenda and other pertinent information for the Planning Board meeting will reportedly be available at the Town website on Monday, December 12.

Comments: