Preview:

NO. COA12-273
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:                                                                      6 November  2012
JUSTIN SHERRILL KELLY,
Petitioner
v.                                                                          Cabarrus County
No.  11 CVD  1165
D. BRAD RILEY, in his official
capacity as SHERIFF OF CABARRUS
COUNTY,
Respondent
Appeal  by  petitioner  from  order  entered  15  November  2011  by
Judge  Martin  B.  McGee  in  Cabarrus  County  District  Court.    Heard
in the Court of Appeals  12 September  2012.
Diener   Law,   by   Cynthia   E.   Everson,   for   petitioner-
appellant.
Cabarrus  County  Attorney  Richard  M.  Koch,  for  respondent-
appellee.
CALABRIA, Judge.
Justin   Sherrill   Kelly                                                   (“petitioner”)   appeals   from   a
District  Court  order  affirming  D.  Brad  Riley’s  decision  while
serving  in  his  official  capacity  as  Sheriff  of  Cabarrus  County
(“respondent”).    Respondent  denied  petitioner’s  application  for
a concealed handgun permit.    We affirm.




-2-
I.    Background
On                                                                            24  October                                   2005,  petitioner  sought  a  concealed  handgun
permit.     In  North  Carolina,  applicants  for  concealed  handgun
permits  are  required  to  answer  a  number  of  questions.    Question
number  nine  on  petitioner’s  application  was,  “Have  you  ever  been
adjudicated  guilty                                                           .  for  one  or  more  crimes  of  violence
constituting  a  misdemeanor,  including  but  not  limited  to,  a
violation  of  the  disqualifying  criminal  offenses  listed  on  the
reverse  side  of”  the  form.    There  were  twenty-five  disqualifying
criminal  offenses  on  the  list.    The  last  one  on  the  list  stated
“[a]ny  crime  of  violence  found  in  Article                               14  in  the  North
Carolina   General   Statutes.”                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Petitioner   responded   to   the
question  by  answering,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      “no,”  even  though  he  had  been  convicted
                                                                              of  assault  on  a  female  in  May                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             2001,  which  was  a  misdemeanor
under  Article                                                                                                              8  of  Chapter                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    14  in  the  North  Carolina  General
Statutes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          After   petitioner   completed   the   application,   he
                                                                              submitted   it   to   respondent.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       When   respondent   reviewed
                                                                                                                            petitioner’s  application,  he  was  unaware  of  petitioner’s                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2001
                                                                                                                                                                                             assault  conviction  and  issued  petitioner  a  concealed  handgun
permit.
                                                                                                                                                                                             Petitioner’s  initial  concealed  handgun  permit  had  expired
on                                                                            21  November                                  2010.    On                                                                                                                            19  January                                                                                                                                        2011,  petitioner  submitted




-3-
another  application  and  was  again  required  to  answer  questions.
The  list  on  the  back  of  the  application  had  been  revised  since
his  initial  application  in                                                 2005.                                                             Number  twenty-five  on  the
revised  list  of  disqualifying  criminal  offenses  read,                   “Assaults
[Article  8  of  Chapter  14  of  the  General  Statutes].”    Petitioner
answered                                                                      “no”   to   the   same   question   on   the   front   of   the
application  that  he  had  answered  on  the  previous  one.     The
question  was  whether  he  had  ever  “been  adjudicated  guilty  .  .  .
for  one  or  more  crimes  of  violence  constituting  a  misdemeanor,
including,  but  not  limited  to,  a  violation  of  the  disqualifying
criminal  offenses  listed  on  the  reverse  side  of”  the  form.    On
20  January                                                                   2011,  respondent  notified  petitioner  that  he  was
ineligible  for  a  permit  and  his  application  for  renewal  had  been
denied  pursuant  to  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.12(b)(8).    According
to  respondent,  petitioner’s  previous  conviction  for  assault  on  a
female  in  violation  of  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-33(c)(2)  from  14  May
2001 disqualified him from having a concealed handgun permit.
On                                                                            1  April                                                          2011,  petitioner  filed  a  petition  for  judicial
review  alleging  that  the  Sheriff’s  Department  of  Cabarrus  County
refused  to  issue  a  concealed  handgun  permit  because  an  incorrect
statute  was  applied  in  reviewing  his  application  for  renewal  of
a  concealed  handgun  permit.     Specifically,  petitioner  alleged




-4-
that  his  application  was  denied  without  a  hearing  and  for  a
reason  other  than  those  stated  in  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                   §                                                   14-415.18.
Petitioner  also  alleged  that  the  Concealed  Handgun  Permit  Act
was  unconstitutional  as  applied  to  him.     On                         30  August                                          2011,
after  determining  the  Sheriff’s  Department  of  Cabarrus  County
was  not  the  real  party  in  interest,  respondent  was  substituted
for the Sheriff’s Department of Cabarrus County.
On                                                                          15  November                                        2011,  after  a  hearing  in  Cabarrus  County
District  Court,  the  trial  court  concluded  that  petitioner  did
not  qualify  for  a  concealed  handgun  permit  because  his  prior
conviction  for  assault  on  a  female.    Therefore,  the  trial  court
affirmed  respondent’s  decision  to  deny  petitioner  a  concealed
handgun  permit.     However,  the  trial  court  did  not  rule  on  the
constitutionality  of  the  statute,  but  found  that  petitioner
preserved that issue for appellate review.    Petitioner appeals.
II. Application for a Concealed Handgun Permit
In  North  Carolina,  Article  54B  of  Chapter  14  of  the  General
Statutes  provides  the  requirements  for  an  individual  to  qualify
for  a  concealed  handgun  permit.                                         First,  an   application  is
submitted  to  the  sheriff.     If  the  individual  qualifies  for  a
permit  based  upon  the  criteria  in  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                   §                                                   14-415.12,
then  the  sheriff                                                          “shall  issue  a  permit  to  carry  a  concealed




-5-
handgun  .  .  .  ”  and  “[t]he  permit  shall  be  valid  throughout  the
State  for  a  period  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  issuance.”
N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  14-415.11  (2011).    The sheriff, however,
shall deny a permit to an applicant who
(8)   Is   or   has   been   adjudicated
guilty  of  .  .  .  one  or  more  crimes
                                                                              of                                                             violence                                                            constituting                                         a
                                                                                                                                             misdemeanor,   including   but   not
                                                                                                                                             limited   to,   a   violation   of   a
                                                                              misdemeanor   under   Article                                                                                                                                                           8   of
                                                                              Chapter                                                        14                                                                  of    the    General
                                                                              Statutes.
                                                                              N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  14-415.12(b)(8)  (2011).
                                                                                                                                             An  individual  seeking  to  renew  a  concealed  handgun  permit
must  sign  an                                                                                                                                                                                                   “affidavit  stating  that  the  permittee  remains
                                                                              qualified  under  the  criteria  provided  in  this  Article                                                                                                                                                   .”
N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                             §                                                              14-415.16(b)                                                        (2011).                                              Notwithstanding  the
applicant’s  affidavit,  the  sheriff  is  still  required  to  make  an
independent   determination   regarding   whether                             “the   permittee
remains  qualified  to  hold  a  permit  in  accordance  with  the
provisions  of  G.S.                                                          14‑415.12.”    N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                               §                                                                   14-415.16(c)
(2011).     The  sheriff  is  required  to  renew  the  permit  only          “if
the  permittee  remains  qualified  to  have  a  permit  under  G.S.  14-
415.12.”    N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  14-415.16(c)  (2011).




-6-
Thus,  both  initial  and  renewal  applications  require  the
sheriff  to  determine  whether  an  applicant  has  violated  any  of
the  disqualifying  criminal  offenses  under  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-
415.12.     Specifically,  if  the  applicant  has  been  adjudicated
guilty  of  a  disqualifying  criminal  offense,  the  applicant  is
barred  from  issuance  of  a  permit  under  the  provisions  of  N.C.
Gen.  Stat.                                                                §                           14-415.12(b),  and  the  sheriff  is  required  to  deny
their  application  regardless  of  whether  the  applicant  is  seeking
a new permit or a renewal permit.
III. Denial of Application for Concealed Handgun Permit
Petitioner  contends  that  the  trial  court  applied  the  wrong
statutory   provisions   in   upholding   the   sheriff’s   denial   of
petitioner’s  19  January  2011  application  for  a  concealed  handgun
permit.    We disagree.
                                                                                                                                                                  “Issues  of  statutory  construction  are  questions  of  law,
                                                                                                                                                                  reviewed  de  novo  on  appeal.”    McKoy  v.  McKoy,  202  N.C.  App.  509,
511,                                                                       689  S.E.2d                 590,                                                       592                                                                            (2010).    Petitioner  contends  that  his
                                                                                                                                                                  renewal  application  was  governed  by  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.18.
                                                                           This  statute,  entitled                                                                                                                                              “Revocation  or  suspension  of  permit,”
                                                                           states, in relevant part:
(a)  The  sheriff  of  the  county  where  the
permit  was  issued  or  the  sheriff  of  the
county  where  the  person  resides  may  revoke  a
permit  subsequent  to  a  hearing  for  any  of




-7-
the following reasons:
(1)  Fraud  or  intentional  or  material
misrepresentation  in  the  obtaining  of  a
permit.
(2)   Misuse   of   a   permit,   including
lending  or  giving  a  permit  to  another
person,  duplicating  a  permit,  or  using
a  permit  with  the  intent  to  unlawfully
cause harm to a person or property.
(3)  The  doing  of  an  act  or  existence  of
a   condition   which   would   have   been
grounds  for  the  denial  of  the  permit  by
the sheriff.
(4)  The  violation  of  any  of  the  terms
of this Article.
(5)  The  applicant  is  adjudicated  guilty
of  or  receives  a  prayer  for  judgment
continued  for  a  crime  which  would  have
disqualified                                                                 the                                            applicant   from
initially receiving a permit.
A                                                                            permittee  may  appeal  the  revocation,  or
nonrenewal   of   a   permit   by   petitioning   a
district   court   judge   of   the   district   in
which                                                                        the                                            applicant   resides.   The
determination  by  the  court,  on  appeal,  shall
be   upon   the   facts,   the   law,   and   the
reasonableness of the sheriff's refusal.
N.C. Gen. Stat.  §  14-415.18(a)  (2009).
Petitioner  seizes  on  the  word                                            “nonrenewal”  in  the                          final
paragraph  of  the  statute  to  argue  that  the  preceding  language  in
the  statute  should  also  be  read  to  apply  to  nonrenewals.    Based
upon  this  interpretation,  petitioner  argues  that                        (1)  he  was




-8-
entitled  to  a  hearing  before  respondent  denied  his  renewal
application;  and  (2)  respondent  could  only  deny  his  application
based  upon  one  of  the  five  reasons  listed  in  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §
14-415.18(a).
Petitioner  is  mistaken.     The  plain  language  of  N.C.  Gen.
Stat.                                                                        §                                      14-415.18(a)  makes  clear  that  the  initial  portions  of
the  statute  upon  which  petitioner  relies  only  apply  when  the
sheriff  “revoke[s]  a  permit.  .  .                                        .”    Id.    The  word  “nonrenewal”
appears  only  in  the  last  section  of  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                 §                                      14-
415.18(a),  in  a  paragraph  which  explains  how  a  permittee  may
appeal  either  a  revocation  or  a  nonrenewal  to  a  district  court
judge.  Accordingly,  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                      §                                      14-415.18(a)  is  only
applicable  to  nonrenewals  in  the  context  of  establishing  the
procedure for an appeal to the district court.
Moreover,   petitioner’s   argument   completely   ignores   N.C.
Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.16,  which  specifically  governs  “[r]enewal  of
[a  concealed  handgun]  permit.”    That  statute  does  not  require  a
hearing  prior  to  the  nonrenewal  of  an  applicant’s  concealed
handgun  permit.    Instead,  the  statute  provides  that  a  concealed
handgun  permit  should  only  be  renewed  “if  the  permittee  remains
qualified  to  have  a  permit  under  G.S.                                  14-415.12.”     N.C.  Gen.
Stat.  §  14-415.16  (c)  (2011).




-9-
In  the  instant  case,  petitioner’s  permit  had  expired  and
had  not  been  revoked  prior  to  its  expiration.     Therefore,  the
criteria  for  revoking  a  permit  under  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.18
did   not   apply   to   petitioner’s   renewal   application.               When
petitioner  applied  to  renew  his  concealed  handgun  permit,  the
sheriff  was  required  to  determine  whether  petitioner  met  the
                                                                             requirements  of  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      §                                        14-415.12.     See  N.C.  Gen.
Stat.  §  14-415.16(c).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Under  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.12,  the  sheriff  “shall  deny
                                                                                                                                       a   permit   to   an   applicant   who[,]”   inter   alia,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                “has   been
adjudicated  guilty  of                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               .  one  or  more  crimes  of  violence
constituting  a  misdemeanor                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   [including]  a  violation  of  a
misdemeanor   under   Article                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           8   of   Chapter                                                                                                                      14   of   the   General
Statutes                                                                                                                                                                                            .”    N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    §                                  14-415.12                             (b)(8)                 (2011).
                                                                                                                                                                                                    Petitioner  was  adjudicated  guilty  in  Cabarrus  County  of  assault
                                                                                                                                                                                                    on  a  female  pursuant  to  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-33(c)(2)  on  14  May
                                                                                                                                                                                                    2001.    Assault  on  a  female  is a crime  of  violence  amounting  to  a
                                                                             misdemeanor  violation  under  Article                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            8  of  Chapter                                                                    14  of  the
General   Statutes.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Thus,   petitioner   did   not   meet   the
                                                                                                                                                                                                    requirements  of  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.12  and,  as  a  result,  he
                                                                                                                                                                                                    was  not  entitled  to  a  renewal  of  his  permit  under  N.C.  Gen.
Stat.                                                                                                                 §   14-415.16.                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Accordingly,  respondent  properly  denied




-10-
petitioner’s  application,  and  the  trial  court  did  not  err  in
upholding   respondent’s   denial   of   petitioner’s   January                 2011
application  for  a  concealed  handgun  permit.     This  argument  is
overruled.
IV. Constitutional Violation
Petitioner  also  argues  that  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.12,  as
applied  to  petitioner,  violates  the  Second  Amendment  of  the
United States Constitution.    We disagree.
“[D]e  novo  review  is  ordinarily  appropriate  in  cases  where
constitutional  rights  are  implicated.”     Piedmont  Triad  Reg’l
Water  Auth.  v.  Summer  Hills,  Inc.,  353  N.C.  343,  348,  543  S.E.2d
844,  848  (2001).
The  Second  Amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution
provides  that                                                                  “[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.”    U.S.  Const.  amend.  II.
This  language  guarantees  the  “pre-existing”  “individual  right  to
possess  and  carry  weapons  in  case  of  confrontation.”    District
of  Columbia  v.  Heller,  554  U.S.  570,  592,  171  L.  Ed.  2d  637,  657
(2008)  (emphasis  omitted).    In  Heller,  the  Supreme  Court  struck
down  a  District  of  Columbia  law  that  placed  a  ban  on  the




-11-
possession  of  handguns  in  the  home.  Id.  at  635,  171  L.  Ed.  2d  at
657.
Since  the  Supreme  Court’s  ruling  in  Heller,  several  Federal
Circuit  Courts  of  Appeal  have  developed  a  two-part  analysis  for
challenges  to  the  Second  Amendment.    United  States  v.  Chester,
628  F.3d  673,  680  (4th  Cir.  2010);  United  States  v.  Marzzarella,
614  F.3d  85,  89  (3d  Cir.  2010);  United  States  v.  Reese,  627  F.3d
792,                                                                            800                                                  (10th  Cir.   2010).   When  applying  this  analysis,  the
first  question  is                                                             “whether  the  challenged  law  imposes  a  burden
on  conduct  falling  within  the  scope  of  the  Second  Amendment’s
guarantee.  This  historical  inquiry  seeks  to  determine  whether
the  conduct  at  issue  was  understood  to  be  within  the  scope  of
the  right  at  the  time  of  ratification.”  Chester,                         628  F.3d  at
680.  If  not,  the  law  is  valid  and  the  inquiry  is  complete.  Id.
If  so,  the  law  is  evaluated  under  the  appropriate  form  of
“means-end  scrutiny.”  Id.     We  find  Chester,  Marzzarella  and
Reese  persuasive,  and  we  will  also  apply  the  two-part  analysis
to  determine  if  the  burden  imposed  by  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                  §                                                    14-
415.12 violates petitioner’s constitutional rights.
As  an  initial  matter,  we  must  determine  whether  a  permit  to
carry  a  concealed  handgun  is  protected  by  the  Second  Amendment.
Petitioner  argues  that  he  has  a  fundamental  right  protected  by




-12-
the  Second  Amendment  to  carry  and  conceal  a  handgun  outside  the
home.                                                                          Respondent   argues   that   petitioner   does   not   have   a
fundamental  right  to  obtain  a  concealed  handgun  permit,  and  the
Second Amendment does not apply.
The  Supreme  Court  has  recognized  that  the  Second  Amendment
right  to  keep  and  bear  arms  is  not  infringed  by  prohibitions
against  carrying  concealed  weapons.     Robertson  v.  Baldwin,             165
U.S.  275,  281-82,  41  L.  Ed.  715,  717  (1897).    While  the  Heller
Court’s  definition  of  the  term  “bear  arms”  as  used  in  the  Second
Amendment  included  the  right  of  an  individual  to  “carry  ...  upon
the  person  or  in  the  clothing  or  in  a  pocket,”  the  Court’s
opinion  clarifies  that  the  scope  of  the  “Second  Amendment  right
is  not  unlimited.”    Heller,  554  U.S.  at  584  and  626,  171  L.  Ed.
2d  at                                                                         653  and                                                           678.    Specifically,  the  Court  recognized  that  it
is                                                                             “not  a  right  to  keep  a  weapon  whatsoever  in  any  manner
whatsoever  and  for  whatever  purpose[,]”  and  acknowledged  that
previously   courts   have                                                     “held   that   prohibitions   on   carrying
concealed  weapons  were  lawful  under  the  Second  Amendment  and
state  analogues.”  Id.                                                        (citing  Nunn  v.  State,                                          1  Ga.                                                    243,   251
(1846)(finding   that   an   act   that   suppressed   an   individual’s
ability  to  carry                                                             “certain  weapons  secretly,”  was  valid  because
it  did  not                                                                   “deprive  the  citizen  of  his  natural  right  of  self-




-13-
defence                                                                       [sic],  or  of  his  constitutional  right  to  keep  and  bear
arms.”)).
Other  state  courts  that  have  analyzed  this  language  have
found  that  the  Second  Amendment  does  not  protect  an  individual’s
right  to  conceal  a  weapon.    See  State  v.  Knight,  218  P.3d  1177,
1190  (Kan.  App.  2009)  (noting  that  the  Heller  Court’s  mention  of
prohibitions  on  carrying  concealed  firearms                               “clearly  shows  that
the  Heller  Court  considered  concealed  firearms  prohibitions  to
be  presumptively  constitutional  under  the  Second  Amendment”);
People  v.  Flores,                                                           86  Cal.Rptr.3d                                                   804,   808   (Cal.  App.   2008)
                                                                              (citing  Robertson  and  Heller  in  holding  that                                           “[g]iven  this
implicit  approval  [in  Heller]  of  concealed  firearm  prohibitions,
we  cannot  read  Heller  to  have  altered  the  [C]ourts'  longstanding
understanding that such prohibitions are constitutional.”).
The  Supreme  Court  of  North  Carolina  has  also  recognized
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);  see  also  State  v.  Speller,  86  N.C.  697,
700  (1882)  (“The  distinction  between  the  ‘right  to  keep  and  bear
arms,’  and                                                                   ‘the  practice  of  carrying  concealed  weapons’  is
plainly  observed  in  the  constitution  of  this  state.  The  first,




-14-
it  is  declared,  shall  not  be  infringed,  while  the  latter  may  be
prohibited.”).
In  the  instant  case,  petitioner  was  denied  a  concealed
handgun  permit  pursuant  to  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                               §                                          14-415.12  because
of  his  previous  conviction  of  assault  on  a  female.    While  courts
have  consistently  held  that  the  Second  Amendment  protects  an
individual’s  right  to  possess  a  weapon,  courts  have  also  found
that  the  Second  Amendment  does  not  extend  to  an  individual’s
right  to  conceal  a  weapon.    See  Robertson,                              165  U.S.  at                              281-82,
41  L. Ed. at  717;  Heller,  554 U.S. at  626,  171 L.  Ed.  2d at  678.
Therefore,   we   conclude   that   petitioner’s   right   to   carry   a
concealed  handgun  does  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  Second
Amendment,  and  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §  14-415.12  is  constitutional  as
applied  to  him.    Since  we  have  determined  that  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.  §
14-415.12  does  not  impose                                                   “a  burden  on  conduct  falling  within
the  scope  of  the  Second  Amendment’s  guarantee[,]”  there  is  no
reason  to  evaluate  the  law  under  any  level  of  constitutional
scrutiny.                                                                      Chester,                                   628   F.3d   at      680.   This   argument   is
overruled.
                                                                                                                          V. Conclusion
Petitioner  sought  but  failed  to  renew  his  concealed  handgun
permit  because  he  did  not  qualify  according  to  the  criteria




-15-
required  by  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                                                                                       §   14-415.16,  the  statute  entitled
                                                                          “Renewal  of  permit.”    Furthermore,  N.C.  Gen.  Stat.                                            §   14-415.12
is  constitutional  as  applied  to  the  petitioner.    Therefore,  we
affirm  the  trial  court’s  order  which  concluded  that  respondent
properly  denied  petitioner’s  application  for  a  concealed  handgun
permit due to petitioner’s conviction for assault on a female.
Affirmed.
Judges ELMORE and STEPHENS concur.

Download 12-273.pdf

South Carolina Law