Introduction

State v. O. W. Kernen, 181 N.C. 574 (1921), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of North Carolina that addresses the constitutionality of statutes regulating the open carry of firearms. The case arose when O. W. Kernen was charged under a public-local statute for carrying an unconcealed pistol without obtaining the required permit. This decision delves into the interplay between state constitutional provisions and legislative attempts to regulate the carrying of arms in public spaces.

Summary of the Judgment

In this case, Kernen was indicted on two counts: one for carrying a concealed weapon and another for carrying a pistol openly off his premises without a permit. The specific statute in question mandated that individuals carry firearms concealed unless they obtained a permit upon stating their purpose, paid a $5 license fee, and provided a $500 bond. Kernen was found guilty under this statute, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina overturned the conviction, deeming the statute unconstitutional. The court held that the regulation exceeded the legislative authority regarding police regulation and infringed upon the state constitutional right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court referenced several key precedents to support its decision:

• S. v. Speller, 86 N.C. 697: Distinguished between the right to keep and bear arms and the regulation of concealed weapons.
• S. v. REAMS, 121 N.C. 556 and S. v. Boone, 132 N.C. 1108: These cases further elaborated on the constitutional protections surrounding the right to bear arms.
• U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542: Reinforced the principle that the Second Amendment restricts only federal authority, not state power.

Additionally, the court cited common law distinctions and other state cases, such as Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 155, to differentiate between what constitutes "arms" under the constitution and other forms of weapons not protected under the same provision.

Legal Reasoning

The crux of the court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting the state constitutional provision: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," with a specific proviso allowing the legislature to enact statutes against carrying concealed weapons. The court determined that while concealed carry could be regulated, the statute in question went beyond this by imposing permits, fees, and bonds for carrying unconcealed pistols, which are explicitly included within the definition of "arms."

The court emphasized the historical context of the right to bear arms, highlighting its fundamental role in enabling citizens to defend against tyranny and unlawful force. By requiring permits and fees for unconcealed carry, the statute effectively disarmed law-abiding citizens without providing a clear legislative interest justifying such restrictions.

Moreover, the court argued that the practical enforcement of such regulations would be ineffective, especially in emergency situations where immediate action is required, thereby rendering the statute not only unconstitutional but also pragmatically void.

Impact

This judgment significantly reinforced the protective scope of the state constitutional right to bear arms in North Carolina. By invalidating the permit and fee requirements for carrying unconcealed pistols, the decision limited the extent to which state and local legislatures can regulate the open carry of firearms. Future cases in North Carolina concerning firearm regulations must now navigate within the boundaries established by this ruling, ensuring that any restrictions do not infringe upon the constitutional protections affirmed in State v. Kernen.

Additionally, this case underscores the importance of distinguishing between concealed and unconcealed carry in legislative frameworks, a differentiation that may influence firearm regulation debates in other jurisdictions with similar constitutional provisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Ex Vi Termini

The Latin phrase ex vi termini translates to "from the meaning of the words." In legal contexts, it refers to interpreting statutory language based strictly on the ordinary meaning of its terms, without considering external factors or the legislature's intent beyond the text.

Arms vs. Weapons

The court made a clear distinction between "arms" and other "weapons." "Arms" are defined as instruments used for offense and defense, such as pistols, rifles, and shotguns, which are traditionally carried by individuals. In contrast, items like brass knuckles or slung-shots, while technically weapons, do not fall under the protected category of "arms" as they are generally carried concealed and do not serve the same role in personal defense or the protection of liberty.

Constituent Parts of the State Constitution

Article I, Section 24 of the North Carolina Constitution explicitly protects the right to keep and bear arms. The proviso within this section allows the legislature to impose regulations specifically against the practice of carrying concealed weapons but does not extend such regulatory power to the open carry of arms. This nuanced provision was pivotal in the court's decision to strike down the statute regulating unconcealed pistol carry.

Conclusion

State v. Kernen stands as a seminal case in North Carolina's legal history, reaffirming the robust protection of the constitutional right to bear arms. By invalidating the statute that imposed permit and fee requirements on the open carry of pistols, the Supreme Court of North Carolina clarified the limits of legislative authority in regulating arms. This decision underscores the enduring significance of the right to bear arms as a safeguard against tyranny and a fundamental aspect of personal liberty.

The judgment not only influences how future firearm regulations are shaped and challenged but also exemplifies the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights against legislative measures. As such, State v. Kernen remains a critical reference point for legal scholars, practitioners, and policymakers engaged in the discourse surrounding gun rights and regulatory frameworks.