Is Public Exhibition of Firearms Illegal in North Carolina?

[nraynes]

I would have reported it. I would of described the gun better but still of done the same thing. And why is that? It's dark, and late.

So, by your reasoning, we should only feel free to handle our legal firearms openly during daylight hours. I wasn't aware that gun owners have to obey a curfew. In fact I know we DON'T have a curfew. Hey, why not suggest a new law? Bring it to a vote. And then add that to the other 23,000 federal and local gun laws that are choking the life out of legal gun ownership.

Is the front light on? How many lights on in the house? Are they using a flashlight? Looking around before they do anything? Handling the gun like a gun or toy?

My house is a very large, two-storey home in the historic district of town, with a massive 2200 sqft front porch, and abundant lighting. The gun in question is a 12 gauge pump with a SureFire frontend — which means the shotgun itself IS the flashlight — and that's why we took it outside, to show him the throw of the SureFire torch. We weren't pointing it off the property.

Look, I know all the rules of safe gun ownership and handling. At no place in the rules does it say, "Only handle the firearm during daylight hours, and avoid letting the public see your firearm."

No, I don't have to live in fear of other people's ignorance. I'm not living in a cowardly Socialist nation, not yet, and I'm not going to bow and scrape to accommodate the ignorance and fear of others.

You sound to me to be pissed off at any one who does anything in regard to trying to stop crime from happening.

Just take a step back and stop seeing your self in that position.

Two people outside a home. The house is a large ranch style house with a normal amount of lights on at 11pm. It's dark and late at night. You don't know them or the house, one has a tact shotgun and it pointing the flashlight all around the property.
What are you going to do?

"oh they are just looking at the new gun"

A guy walks down the street with a gun in his hand.
What's your first thought on that?

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

one has a tact shotgun and it pointing the flashlight all around the property.

I never said we were pointing it all around the property. I said we never pointed it off of my property. We were outside for 5 minutes — I said that in my first post.

What are you going to do?

Well, I'm NOT going to jump to the conclusion that somebody is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime because I see him on private property with what appears to be a firearm. I don't think like that. I'm not so fearful and suspicious that I mistrust the American gun owner.

A guy walks down the street with a gun in his hand. What's your first thought on that?

Now you're completely changing the scenario. "A guy walks down the street" does not apply to my situation on private property. A guy walking down the street with a gun in his hand is now on public property. As a member of the public, you can do whatever you want, as he is on YOUR property, the PUBLIC'S property.

However, you'd better check the lawbooks first, because it may be perfectly legal for a guy to openly carry a firearm in public.

See, YOU GUYS are trying to turn this into a scenario in which I was wrong to carry a firearm on my own property; and, although most of you will readily admit that you can't identify a firearm at night, even with abundant lighting, you would STILL report a private citizen to the police, even though you have insufficient information upon which to draw your conclusion.

Simply because you're fearful of not obeying your suspicions. Your behavior has been modified by a climate of fear. I say you've all been brainwashed.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

but I can honestly say I've never felt the desire to play with my gun and flashlight outside my house at 11:00pm since I was about 7 years old.

As I mentioned before, I've been properly handling and using firearms my entire life — since I was about six-years-old on the ranch, as a matter of fact — and I have never "played" with a firearm, as you apparently did when you were a child.

Where do you get the idea that I was "playing" with a firearm? I never implied any such thing. You, however, are attempting to belittle me by inserting phrases such as "play with my gun" into the discussion, attempting to characterize me as careless, when you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's nothing illegal or "unsafe" or "foolish" about carrying my shotgun outside, on my own property, at any time of the day or night. Too bad if that frightens you, if you think that's careless or reckless behavior. I suggest that you allow your emotions to to supersede your reasoning, or that your reasoning is flawed.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

But back to the original question if you weren't arrested then it isn't illegal. I have never known a LEO to let someone off on that type of call just because they thought they had a fancy gun. Please rephrase your question into something intelligent so we can answer it without sounding stupid. :biggrin:

It was my intent to elicit your opinions on perfectly legal activities, and I accomplished that. I see that, in spite of my activity being perfectly safe and perfectly legal (in the state of North Carolina), several gun owners — on this site, anyway — are leading very suspicious, fear-motivated lives; and they would readily turn in their fellow gun owners based on nothing more than uninformed suspicion.

This doesn't speak well for our liberties in America.

Indeed, when gun owners instantly report each other to the police based on nothing more than fear and suspicion, when gun owners immediately run to the government for protection from other gun owners, they're NOT protecting the Liberties of gun owners in America.

In fact, it makes me wonder how many of you would actually FIGHT for your Liberty if it came down to it. When the troops show up at your doors to confiscate your firearms, it sounds as though you'd hand over your guns and give up your Liberty without so much as a whimper.

And that's sick and sad.

 

[Nightmare45]

In the neighborhood I live in everyone on my cul-de-sac are NRA members and the local officers that patrol have stopped and discussed firearms and hunting on a regular basis, I usuall sit on my front porch and clean my guns if the weather is good. No problem.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think you just came here and posted your story looking for company in bashing the person who called the cops on you and bashing the cops for investigating. Unfortunately, for you, most of us here feel that two guys outside a residence at 11:00pm with a gun and a flashlight just plain warrants and justifies reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime may be about to occur.

Personally, I would thank a neighbor who called the cops at 11:00pm about two guys with a gun outside my house, even if one of the guys was me, because that shows they care about me and my house and are watching out for me.

 

[Doc Mustang]

See, YOU GUYS are trying to turn this into a scenario in which I was wrong to carry a firearm on my own property; and, although most of you will readily admit that you can't identify a firearm at night, even with abundant lighting, you would STILL report a private citizen to the police, even though you have insufficient information upon which to draw your conclusion.

I promised that I would not respond again but I feel compelled. YOU were not violating any laws. You were handling an unloaded gun, in a safe manner, on your own property. You were well within your rights. However you did place yourself in suspicious circumstances.

I am going to ask you to approach this scenario as a journalist an area in which you have considerable training and experience. Place yourself in the position of an innocent (without prior knowledge) bystander the following facts should be apparent:

1. Two men are on private property in the historic residential district.

2. They have a gun or something that resembles a gun.

3. It is 11PM an hour when many people are inside their homes.

There are several uncertainties, uncertainties which cannot be known by a bystander without previous knowledge.

1. What are the identities of the men?

2. Who is the owner or ocupant of the house/property?

3. Why are the two men there?

4. What is their intention?

You could attempt to determine these answers themselves by approaching and asking those questions yourself. But then there is the fact that you have two men armed with a shotgun, with unknown intentions. How will they react to your intrusion? Are you willing to bet your life on their innocent intentions?

I suppose you might attempt to get more information through observation and listening to the men's conversation. How would you do so without placing yourself in further danger? Remember, they are armed and it is unknown how they would respond to potential witnesses. What would happen if, intent on robbery or murder they were to discover your presence? What if you were carrying a weapon yourself? Would that change your conduct in any way?

If only there were people employed for the purpose of investigating uncertainties of the sort discussed above, people with the capability of dealing with armed men with hostile intentions but the training to hold back should the occasion prove innocent? You could call them and allow them to intervene and determine the truth.

Perhaps you are willing to presume that the intentions of two unknown men pointing a gun at an unknown, and possibly, occupied house in the historic district in the middle of the night have the most honorable of intentions. Many of us here are not willing to do so and would call the police to determine what was going on.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

I think you just came here and posted your story looking for company in bashing the person who called the cops on you and bashing the cops for investigating.

If I came here "looking for company," then I can assure you what I've found is not the sort of company I want.

Frankly, I know enough about the person that reported me to know he or she wasn't a neighbor, but definitely was motivated by fear and suspicion. I know it was the sort of individual who runs to the police without knowing all or any of the facts.

I don't need to "bash" a person like that, because such an individual is always going to be a victim to his own fear.

As for the police, I have never "bashed" them for doing their jobs. I know all of the LEOs in my town and in the county, and they know me, and I have far more respect for them than I have for fearful, suspicious tattle-tales who trust the government more than their fellow gun owners.

Just sayin'

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

Many of us here are not willing to do so and would call the police to determine what was going on.

Then you're more than welcomed to enjoy your police state. I, for one, do not enjoy it. More than that, I do not enjoy the mistrust that is apparent here among gun owners, such that they assail one another based on little or no information.

 

[Doc Mustang]

Then you're more than welcomed to enjoy your police state. I, for one, do not enjoy it. More than that, I do not enjoy the mistrust that is apparent here among gun owners, such that they assail one another based on little or no information.

Sir, with respect a state which investigates potential endangerment of life, liberty or property with just and probable cause, determines the righteousness of the individual under investigation without undue imposition on the reputation, life, liberty or property of said individual is a far cry from a police state. What I have described (and advocated) is a Night Watchmen State a minarchist concept which fully supports both rule of law and individual rights.

I would like a question answered: In a free society what is the proper role of a police force? Should there even be one? Your arguments appear to advocate anarchy. In such a case, let us say that there is no police force. You are out on your front lawn at 11PM with a friend examining a shotgun pointing it at your house . Three armed men (private citizens) happen to pass by and earnestly believe that you might be attempting to rob or murder the occupant of the house which they do not know to be yours. Because sometimes people who point shotguns at houses do not have the best of intentions for those inside.

These men (still private citizens) hold you at gunpoint, determine your right to be on the property in question then go on their merry way and leave you in peace with the advice that you may not want to exercise your rights in such a manner as to put yourself in a position where others may presume bad intent. Would that course of action be justified?

How would you respond to three private citizens holding you at gunpoint on your own property whose only intent is to prevent your being robbed or murdered? I hope you can see how this scenario could get several innocent people with good intentions killed.

Only in a world where there are no persons with bad intent, a world where every person pointing a shotgun at a house has no thoughts of robbery or murder could a person of conscience pass by with no concerns for the occupants of the target house. I presume you understand that we do not live in such a world or you would not have purchased the shotgun in the first place.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

I would like a question answered: In a free society what is the proper role of a police force? Should there even be one? Your arguments appear to advocate anarchy.

In a free state, the ultimate security and continued freedom of that state is up to the free citizens, who are granted the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for that express purpose.

No, it is not up to the Executive branch to protect us individually — the job of the Executive branch is to protect the NATION against all enemies foreign and domestic. However, the Second Amendment clearly calls upon citizen Militias to ensure the security of a Free State.

This entails the armed citizenry protecting itself not only from local crime, but also from an increasingly corrupt and oppressive central government when necessary, just as the Founders intended.

No, a well-regulated Militia is NOT another arm of the Executive branch of government. No, police forces and the National Guard DO NOT constitute citizen's Militias under the Constitution. A citizen's Militia must, of necessity, NOT be regulated by the central government.

A citizen's Militia is well-regulated by the CITIZENRY, not the government.

I, for one, do not believe that turning over our individual protection to the government is wise or healthy for our continued freedom. If the MILLIONS of police officers in this nation serve any purpose, it is as a RESPONSE force serving the citizenry.

However, when a corrupt or oppressive central government is calling the shots, WHO do you think the police, or the FBI, or the BATF, or the National Guard will serve? The government? Or the citizenry?

We already have ample evidence to answer THAT question.

Only seldom do the police and other law enforcement agencies actually PROTECT the citizenry. More crimes are prevented by armed citizens than by police forces, and any LEO can confirm that.

How would you respond to three private citizens holding you at gunpoint on your own property whose only intent is to prevent your being robbed or murdered? I hope you can see how this scenario could get several innocent people with good intentions killed.

I hasten to point out that the same scenario ALREADY gets many innocent people killed with police asking the questions, as well. There are many cases in which police mistakenly enter homes by force and kill innocent civilians.

Frankly, I would feel safer if my neighbors WERE monitoring my property and DID call me rather than the police. In fact, my neighbors HAVE called to alert me to prowlers, and I have done the same for them. That's the way things SHOULD BE in this country, rather than citizens cowering in their homes, awaiting an official response force that may not arrive for 45 minutes or more.

I'm not asking my neighbors to stand down. Neither will I stand down. I do prefer that those with "bad intentions" KNOW that I am more than adequately armed and able to defend my home, family and property.

Trust me, the "bad guys" in this town know I am armed and that I have no qualms about publicly exhibiting my firearms. Most of the citizens in this town are similarly armed and similarly defiant in the face of fear and suspicion.

As a result, the crime rate here is exceptionally low compared to the rest of the country. An openly armed society is, indeed, a POLITE society.

 

[NavyLCDR]

In a free state, the ultimate security and continued freedom of that state is up to the free citizens, who are granted the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for that express purpose.

No, it is not up to the Executive branch to protect us individually — the job of the Executive branch is to protect the NATION against all enemies foreign and domestic. However, the Second Amendment clearly calls upon citizen Militias to ensure the security of a Free State.

This entails the armed citizenry protecting itself not only from local crime, but also from an increasingly corrupt and oppressive central government when necessary, just as the Founders intended.

I guess maybe it would have been your duty to shoot the police then, to protect yourself from them, eh? The police work for the citizens, yes. In this case the majority of citizens on this forum feel that the police did their job properly. So I guess you are just S.O.L. unless you want to rise up against the majority of citizens here.

 

[nraynes]

No of us said you were in the wrong. We are saying that it happened as it should have and there is nothing to complain about.

The biggest thing is you say you aren't so judgemental of people why do you have a tact weapon?
"to defend yourself"
Well maybe the guy banging on your door at 1am needs to use the rest room and he is wearing a ski mask because he is cold.

If you trust the human race, get rid of any gun that you do not use for hunting, and in my state a tact shotgun can not be used to hunt with.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

I guess maybe it would have been your duty to shoot the police then, to protect yourself from them, eh?

Why would you guess something like that? Is that the first thing that comes to your mind?

The police work for the citizens, yes. In this case the majority of citizens on this forum feel that the police did their job properly.

No, the police DO NOT "work for the citizens." The police are supposed to serve the citizens, but the police work for the Executive branch of government.

In case you haven't noticed, the Executive branch is not particularly sympathetic to the citizenry — in fact, the Department of Justice has been sued for murdering citizens before.

How often are Executive enforcers convicted for murdering citizens? Very seldom, indeed. In fact, the DOJ has refused to convict many enforcers by reason of Executive immunity.

So I guess you are just S.O.L. unless you want to rise up against the majority of citizens here.

It has occurred to me that the "majority of citizens here" are not responsible and conscientious gun owners at all; but are, rather, shills for the anti-gun movement. I've seen other professed "gun sites" where the membership is loaded with anti-gunners.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

If you trust the human race, get rid of any gun that you do not use for hunting, and in my state a tact shotgun can not be used to hunt with.

Where did I say that I trust the human race? Can you link me to that statement? I said that I have issues with American gun owners mistrusting each other — which is going to lead to the loss of our RIGHTS to keep and bear arms.

There is no place in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution where it says citizens may keep and bear arms FOR HUNTING ONLY. It doesn't mention hunting at all. Neither does it mention crime-fighting.

Specifically, the Second Amendment says that the citizens may keep and bear arms to ENSURE a FREE STATE. That means taking up arms against other human beings who are attempting to REMOVE your freedoms.

It means taking up arms and fighting your own government when necessary, just as the Founders fought their (British) government. Because an oppressive government does not want the citizens armed.

It's the FIRST order of business for a tyrannical government to DISARM the citizens.

It sounds as though a great many of you are not merely "law-abiding" gun owners, but are very severely misinformed about your own rights as gun owners. So much so, it seems, that you can't recognize unconstitutional activities by the government, even when they DO infringe on your right to keep and bear arms.

It's not your "duty" as citizens to mindlessly obey the 23,000 federal and local gun-control laws that exist to REMOVE your rights. It is your duty as American citizens to FIGHT these laws — through the ballot — and likewise vote out the politicians who are STEALING your rights, day-by-day.

But it sounds as though there aren't too many fighters on this forum.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

When I started this thread, I asked a simple question — a question to which I already knew the answer.

My intent was to elicit the opinions of the forum members here regarding our RIGHTS to keep and bear arms.

As expected, the discussion quickly coalesced around "suspicious" behavior... Which is the socio-political climate that has evolved in America just over the last two decades, due to "terrorist" propaganda here and abroad.

This government has endeavored to turn Americans against one another, using the tools of fear and suspicion and mistrust. For that reason, I characterize our Central Government as the true terrorist entity in America.

They use fear to turn Americans against one another, to turn gun owners against one another, and to intimidate Americans into standing by and DOING NOTHING as their Liberty is rapidly eroded.

It should make you sick to your stomachs.

 

[nraynes]

Well, I'm NOT going to jump to the conclusion that somebody is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime because I see him on private property with what appears to be a firearm. I don't think like that. I'm not so fearful and suspicious that I mistrust the American gun owner.

Your right you only trust someone with a gun. However we all know BGs don't have guns.

what we have been saying is that even though you were not in the wrong, things still went as they should of in the since that you aren't in jail but the police still made sure nothing was wrong. You said yourself it wasn't a neighbour who reported you. They were watching out for who ever lived in the house because they didn't know! Deal with it they didn't want anyone hurt. That is why they reported it. If you don't like it move out to the middle of the woods or a huge farm away from everyone.

The biggest thing that bothers me about your argument is your picture that shows you holding a hand gun and a bar-fight Bowie against your neck which shows you not being so careful with them.

 

[Doc Mustang]

The thing that bothers me about Mr. Miller's arguement is it is really no arguement at all. He refuses to directly address points made against him and uses whatever flimsy seguay he can construct to allow him to propagate revolutionary rhetoric.

His arguement is full of inconsistancies. He purchases a gun for self defense, likely against other armed men. Yet he claims to trust every gun owner implicitly enough to leave them to do what they like.

He claim to follow "every" firarm safety rule and yet uses an avatar photo which appears to violate all of Col. Cooper's 4 rules and all but one of the NRA's 3 fundamental rules of firearms safety (or all three if the revolver is loaded).

He claims that he "never ponted the shotgun off of his property" a statement which could only be true if he always ponted it at the ground or suitable backstop or if his property extended to maximum theoretical range in every direction from wherever the shotgun was located.

From his rhetoric he appears to resent any form of central authority yet he practicaly purrs when the police admire his shotgun.

Last and perhaps the most severe. He claims to be about individual rights and yet appears to advocate revolution a political move which with one possible exception in history devolves into anarchy then tyranny. I am through with your rhetoric sir.

Good day

 

[FN1910]

When I started this thread, I asked a simple question — a question to which I already knew the answer.

Which is the true definition of a stupid question especially when you refuse to even listen to anyone else's answer.

My intent was to elicit the opinions of the forum members here regarding our RIGHTS to keep and bear arms.

No, as others have stated your intent was to gain compliance in your bashing of everyone involved for trying to help you out and justify your idiotic actions of running around in your front yard in the middle of the night playing with your gun. If you claim you weren't playing with it then just what do you call it when there was by your own admission no threat and you were showing it off to your friend and then to the cops. That my friend is playing with your gun.

As expected, the discussion quickly coalesced around "suspicious" behavior... Which is the socio-political climate that has evolved in America just over the last two decades, due to "terrorist" propaganda here and abroad.

"Suspicious behavior" from the man with a super-duper tactical shotgun with a super powerful blinding tactical flsahlight mounted on the end of it. Why in the world do you need such a thing if there is no need to be suspicious of anyone.

This government has endeavored to turn Americans against one another, using the tools of fear and suspicion and mistrust. For that reason, I characterize our Central Government as the true terrorist entity in America.

They use fear to turn Americans against one another, to turn gun owners against one another, and to intimidate Americans into standing by and DOING NOTHING as their Liberty is rapidly eroded.

It should make you sick to your stomachs.

 

[Charles Austin Miller]

The biggest thing that bothers me about your argument is your picture that shows you holding a hand gun and a bar-fight Bowie against your neck which shows you not being so careful with them.

And exactly WHAT is unsafe or careless about that pose? So I posed for a photo with Ruger 357 Mag and a Damascus head-cutter (blade out). So what?

What exactly scares or bothers you about that photo?