The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled that a trial judge was wrong in 2024 to dismiss a charge of possession of a firearm by a felon in a Forsyth County case. The defendant had challenged the charge as unconstitutional based on recent US Supreme Court rulings in gun-rights cases.
Winston-Salem police stopped Darius Lamar Williams in 2023 because of an expired vehicle registration, according to the Appeals Court opinion. Searching the vehicle, authorities found a gun and evidence of cocaine.
The stop led police to charge Williams with one felony drug count and of possession of a firearm by a felon.
Williams “had been convicted of seven felonies between 2000 and 2005, all relating to the possession or sale of cocaine except a possession of a firearm by a felon conviction in 2000,” Judge John Arrowood wrote Wednesday for a unanimous three-judge Appeals Court panel. “Defendant had also been convicted of seven misdemeanors between 2004 and 2014, including violation of a domestic violence protection order and a charge of communicating threats.”
Williams filed a motion in June 2023 to dismiss the gun charge based on his rights under the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. He updated his motion in July 2024, citing the US Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“The trial court granted defendant’s motion, concluding that defendant was a protected person under both Constitutions; that the Bruen decision therefore required the State to demonstrate the existence of a historical analogue to the felon in possession statute existing around the years 1797 and 1867 (the years the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified, respectively); that the State failed to do so; and that defendant’s rights under both Constitutions were violated by the application of the statute to his conduct,” Arrowood wrote.
The state appealed that decision.
“[W]e proceed to review ‘the historical scope of the Second Amendment’ to determine ‘what is and is not protected by the constitutional text[,]’ and whether N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 as applied to defendant is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Arrowood wrote. “On the first step, we find the Fourth Circuit’s analysis and reasoning in Hunt instructive, namely that the ‘pre-existing right’ codified by the Second Amendment protects firearm possession by law-abiding citizens, but not necessarily by convicted felons.”
“This is consistent with Bruen which provided that ‘two ordinary, law-abiding, adult citizens’ were part of ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment, as was their right to bear arms in public for self-defense, which the Supreme Court recognized as a ‘pre-existing right,’” Arrowood explained.
“In this case, defendant had been convicted of six felonies relating to the possession or sale of cocaine, as well as seven misdemeanors, including violation of a domestic violence protection order and communicating threats. Defendant has not received a pardon for any of these convictions, nor have any of the convictions been declared unlawful,” the Appeals Court opinion continued.
“Accordingly, defendant is unable to establish that he is a ‘law-abiding citizen’ protected by the Second Amendment; pursuant to Bruen and Rahimi, N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 is presumptively lawful as applied to defendant,” Arrowood wrote. “We hold the trial court erred by concluding that defendant ‘is included in the Second Amendment protected people category as a law abiding and responsible person,’ and his as-applied challenge, arguing that his rights were violated by the application of § 14-415.1(a), must necessarily fail.”
“The State also argues the trial court erred in concluding that N.C.G.S. § 14-415.1 was unconstitutional as applied to defendant under the North Carolina Constitution. We agree,” Arrowood added.
Appellate judges compared Williams’ case to state precedents in cases known as Whitaker and Britt.
“By employing both the factors and a holistic view of defendant’s criminal history, we agree with the State that defendant hews much closer to the defendant in Whitaker than in Britt,” Arrowood wrote. “Defendant has been convicted of seven felonies and seven misdemeanors since 2000, the year he turned 18, more than twice the number of felonies in Whitaker and more convictions overall, including four misdemeanor controlled substance convictions nine years after his last felony.”
“Defendant does not have a history of lawful firearm possession, as he was convicted of attempted possession of a firearm by a felon in 2000,” the judge added.
“A critical distinction between both the Britt and Whitaker defendants, and defendant here, is the former’s absence of a history of violence, while the latter has two convictions indicating a propensity for violence,” Arrowood wrote.
“When applying the necessary lens of ‘public peace and safety’ to defendant’s criminal record, we find that, rather than being a law-abiding, peaceful citizen whose rights should not be subject to a single non-violent crime, defendant has demonstrated a sometimes violent disregard for the laws of this State and the peace of its communities,” the Appeals Court opinion added. “The only factor working in defendant’s favor is the 20-year period since his last felony conviction. However, when this factor is viewed in light of the entirety of his criminal record, and the fact that he did not remain conviction-free in the years following, it does not alter our conclusion that defendant’s as-applied challenge to the statute on state constitutional grounds must fail.”
Judges John Tyson and Jeff Carpenter joined Arrowood’s opinion.
The post Appeals Court restores defendant’s felon firearm possession charge appeared first on Carolina Journal.