Legislature about to make a serious mistake with S 124 | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    The Winston Salem Journal Tuesday had an article from the Associate Press that summarizes the current status of gun legislation moving through the Legislature. You can read the article by clicking here.

    What the article does not cover is S 124 which has been placed on the Senate calendar for Wednesday (6-12-13) for concurrence with changes made in the House. The bill should be sent back to committee. Here's why:

    S 124 as it now stands will make it a felony for a person to: Unless covered under some other provision of law providing greater punishment, any person who willfully or wantonly discharges or attempts to discharge a firearm within any occupied building, structure, motor vehicle, or other conveyance, erection, or enclosure with the intent to incite fear in another shall be punished as a Class F felon."

    The problem with the wording in the bill is obvious. It makes it a felony for a homeowner to defend his home, family, vehicle and business that is occupied. That means, obviously, that if someone is breaking into your house and there are other people in your home etc. it becomes a felony if you fire a warning shot, much less shoot the intruder.

    We inquired of Senator Bill Cook about his position on the bill and he replied: "I asked the bill's author about the applications of this bill to cases of home defense where an intruder forces his way into my home and I fire a warning shot. The author said that the "Castle Doctrine" would take precedence, and no prosecutor would ever charge a home owner for protecting himself or his family." Frankly, we don't believe that. The reason we don't is because that is not what the bill says. Under the Rules of Statutory Interpretation a court is bound to apply a law as it is written. Only where there is ambiguity do the courts go to "legislative intent" to discern what legislators thought when they passed the law. This bill is not ambiguous. It is as clear as a bell, regardless of whether it says what the author, and those who voted for it, meant for it to say. It is the explanation by the author that is muddled. As this bill is written, it is a felony to discharge a weapon within any occupied building etc. To say "no prosecutor would ever charge a homeowner for protecting himself or his family" is simply conjecture and un-necessary. The wording of the bill needs to be made clear. Typically, the way they handle this is with wording such as "except as provided for in NCGS Article 14 of Chapter 14 (the Castle Doctrine), a person who discharges a firearm within an occupied building that puts people in risk of injury with wanton disregard for their safety or is intended to incite fear on the part of a person or persons having a full legal right to be present shall be punished as a Class F felon."

    Our point is simple. We accept the author of the bill's intent to make it a felony for a person to walk into a Wal-mart and start shooting TV screens. No problem there. But this bill tramples on the right of self-defense, even in public places. And as for the argument that "no prosecutor would bring charges..." perhaps this legislator should call George Zimmerman and ask him about that.

    The intent here may be worthy, but the method is flawed. The bill should be re-worked before final passage or vetoed by the Governor.

    Sen. Norm Sanderson did not respond to our request for an explanation of why he was a primary sponsor of this bill.