By: Deric Lostutter

Recently, during my migration from the backwoods of the Kentucky foothills to my home-state of North Carolina, a state in which I have not resided in over 10 years, I was curious to see how their open carry firearms laws compare to Kentucky’s. A few minutes after a google search I discovered that North Carolina at the surface seemed like a progressive state who respected the Constitution and the rights of its American citizens. North Carolina had no restrictions on assault weapons, and it even seemed to read that people with “purchase permits” issued by their respective county sheriff’s department, could purchase a handgun at the age of 18, 3 years sooner than Kentucky.

I called the Forsyth County Sheriff’s department, to find out if I could “open carry”, a practice that I had taken up in Lexington, Kentucky due to all the drug and gang violence, around my reclaimed home-town of Winston-Salem. I was forwarded to the pistol permit division in which a man on the other end told me that I did not have to have a North Carolina driver’s license to open carry, or display the weapon outside of concealment, such as a holster on the hip. Furthermore he described it as “an old west” kind of feel in the state, in which allowed me to “walk down main street with it if I wanted to.”

It sounded good enough, however I was curious to see what laws there were about possession of a firearm in different stores, buildings, and in my vehicle. Upon a brief google search, I discovered various laws in which the willpower of the police state has snatched up our inherent rights to keep and bear arms to fight off oppressive governments, or even groups of thugs. Furthermore I discovered a law in which the local government and police departments, could profit from an otherwise free (at least in Kentucky), background check from the ATF, in order to purchase a pistol. This is the one I will touch on first, because not only does it tax us on our constitutional rights to bear arms, but also provides the ever-growing police state with capital based of a draconian, and racist law known as the “Jim Crow Laws”

Ҥ 14-402. Sale of certain weapons without permit forbidden.

(a) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation in this State to sell, give away, or transfer, or to purchase or receive, at any place within this State from any other place within or without the State any pistol unless: (i) a license or permit is first obtained under this Article by the purchaser or receiver from the sheriff of the county in which the purchaser or receiver resides; or (ii) a valid North Carolina concealed handgun permit is held under Article 54B of this Chapter by the purchaser or receiver who must be a resident of the State at the time of the purchase.

It is unlawful for any person or persons to receive from any postmaster, postal clerk, employee in the parcel post department, rural mail carrier, express agent or employee, railroad agent or employee within the State of North Carolina any pistol without having in his or their possession and without exhibiting at the time of the delivery of the same and to the person delivering the same the permit from the sheriff as provided in G.S. 14-403. Any person violating the provisions of this section is guilty of a Class 2 misdemeanor.”

So, not only is commercial sale of firearms restricted to a third party sheriff’s office’s discretion, this affects the average American citizen from private sales to another individual, unless of course the purchaser first pays his “taxes” to the local “boys in blue.”

This statute in otherwise progressive North Carolina laws, stems from what are known as the “Jim Crow Laws”. Jim Crow Laws are laws which were enacted after the Reconstruction period of the southern United States. Based upon racial segregation, the law remained in effect until 1965, when the former Confederate state allowed African-Americans “separate but equal” status. The Jim Crow laws mandated the segregation of pretty much everything. From schools, to transportation. Eateries and even the United States Military were also once segregated.
The Jim Crow laws followed the 1800-1866 law dubbed the “Black Codes”, which stripped the civil rights and liberties of African American citizens. After 1954 when Brown v. Board of Education declared school segregation unconstitutional, a change swept the nation which later introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The draconian “pistol permit” process which was designed to restrict the access of handguns to African-Americans, stayed in effect throughout the civil rights movement.
The name Jim Crow is thought to have originated from the caricature of blacks performed by white actor Thomas Rice, who would dress up in “blackface” around the mid 1800’s. A satire, as it was referred to, criticized President Andrew Jackson’s populist policies. As a result of the fame of Rice, “Jim Crow” became slang for “Negro” in southern legislature and in the south all together.

Let’s touch base on how this ties in with gun control. The “Black Codes”, enacted in the 1800’s restricted firearm possession by the “freedmen” or freed slaves of legal standing. The laws made it easier for the first gun control advocates of the United States of America, the Ku Klux Klan, to confiscate the weapons of the freedmen, which in turn made it easier to terrorize and even lynch the African-American citizens.

President Grant would later serve as president of the National Rifle Association, prosecuting Klansmen, and declaring martial law when necessary to quell the violence they caused.

The 14th amendment to the constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, forbids any state to deny the “equal protection” of laws, which simply put overturns gun control statutes written on racist tones.

What was the South’s response? Enacting “class warfare” by imposing ludicrous laws aiming at disarming the freedmen. Such laws included banning inexpensive firearms, reserving them only for the wealthy, while others imposed what we have today in North Carolina, licensing systems and carry restrictions.

Now you may suggest that I am “reaching” or grasping at straws, but a Supreme Court justice from Florida later denounced the laws stating “these laws were never intended to be applied to the white population” (Watson v. Stone, 1941).

Not only does North Carolina restrict the purchasing of firearms with for-profit permit systems piggy-backed off of racist archaic laws, they also restrict the right to bear arms, as provided to us by the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. The “progressive” state bans carrying a firearm at constitutionally protected assemblies, and protests. They also ban carrying at parades, funeral processions, or any other legal demonstration. The laws listed below also prevent people protecting themselves in times of distress, such as the recently highlighted Baltimore Riots, and what would even be carrying on your own property such as a party with a noise violation (disturbance involving three or more people.)

You may not carry a weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or other demonstration, except for guns carried on a rack in a pickup truck. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-277.2.)

You may not carry a weapon during civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance involving three or more people. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-288.20.)

These laws completely molest, disregard, and pretty much destroy the civil liberties given to us by our founding fathers. They strip us of our rights to protect ourselves based on the greed and agendas of our racist government and its predecessors, to disarm the poor, to disarm the free thinkers, and to disarm the different. We cannot sit idly by any longer, content with our rights being stripped for “security purposes”.

Legislators,

We The People demand you overturn these unjust laws, and for-profit schemes, and respect the constitution you were sworn to uphold.

“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.” –Benjamin Franklin

On September 24, 2013, former Florida A&M football player Jonathan Ferrell crashed his car into some trees at 2:30 a.m. in a subdivision outside Charlotte, N.C. Having lost his phone, the 24-year old knocked on a woman’s door seeking help but she thought he was a burglar.

The worried woman dialed 911 and three Charlotte-Mecklenburg county police officers arrived at the scene. When Ferrell approached them, one of the officers, Randall Kerrick, drew his firearm and shot 12 rounds, Reuters reports. Ten of them hit Ferrell, ending his life.

In January, police charged 29-year old Mr. Kerrick with voluntary manslaughter hours after the shooting. The jury selection for his trial is set to begin Monday.

If convicted, Kerrick may face up to 11 years in prison, The Associated Press reports. Kerrick, who is white, was with two more experienced African-American officers, who did not reach for their guns, according to Reuters.

Former Police Chief Rodney Monroe said Kerrick had used excessive force and the case’s evidence warranted his arrest. In turn, Ferrell’s family sued Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, its police department, and Mr. Monroe. In May they received a $2.25 million settlement.

Kerrick’s attorneys claim Ferrell had ignored orders to stop approaching the officers and to lie on the ground. According to The Associated Press, their testimony will show that Ferrell had been smoking marijuana and drinking before the crash. Yet, according to Reuters, a toxicology report from November found no traces of drugs in Ferrell’s system and a blood-alcohol level below the legal limit for driving.

A few weeks ago, the defense attorneys tried to change the trial’s venue, claiming the case’s publicity would thwart the officer’s chances of getting a fair trial in the county, but the judge denied their request.

At face value, this case may sound familiar to some. Ferrell’s case predates highly publicized incidents in Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island, N.Y., in which black men were killed by white officers, igniting a national conversation on race relations and police brutality.

More recent cases have continued to fuel the issue, including that of a South Carolina police officer who fatally shot an unarmed African-American man in April. Though that officer was charged, officers in some high-profile incidents have not been indicted.

But several factors set Ferrell’s case apart from other incidents, and they help explain why this case didn’t spark national demands for justice.

For one thing, Charlotte-Mecklenburg County’s has had fewer problems with race relations and civil rights in the past than Staten Island or Ferguson, says Gloria J. Browne-Marshall, an associate professor focusing on the Supreme Court and constitutional law at New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice.

What’s more, she adds, when prosecutors presented Ferrell’s case to the court, they collaborated with the State Bureau of Investigation, as opposed to solely working with the district attorney. “Bringing in that third party, that outside source, is very important in these cases,” says Prof. Browne-Marshall.

A separate investigator looking at the case with “clearer eyes” is exactly what the Ferguson trial lacked. Not only did Ferguson involve a tight-knit relationship between the district attorney and the court, the district attorney in Ferguson looked at the case “half-heartedly,” Browne-Marshall says. “In [Ferrell’s] case, we have the prosecutor as an advocate seeking an indictment.”

Within the grand jury system, the prosecution can return as many times as it chooses when it seeks an indictment. In Ferrell’s case, the prosecution didn’t settle for the first grand jury when it said the case lacked evidence, Browne-Marshall says.

“The simple act of having a trial is seen as miraculous,” she notes. “That’s why people have lost faith in the criminal justice system when it comes to police-involved shooting cases.”

She adds that in any other shooting case, a criminal trial would not be unusual. But when an officer is the one pulling the trigger, reaching a trial is an arduous process. Though Kerrick’s trial doesn’t guarantee a specific outcome, Browne-Marhsall says it’s one example of a “working” criminal justice system.

“Justice means having a trial and having the evidence presented,” she says.

A former college basketball standout said North Carolina police drew a gun on him during a traffic stop and then asked him for an autograph.

Nolan Smith, a former Duke University guard was back in Durham to participate in a fantasy camp, posted a series of tweets about the Wednesday night incident.

“The encounter I had with the police tonight … Guns drawn, yelling, no questions asked. … Smh. … What’s really going on?” Smith posted shortly before 1 a.m. Thursday.

“Yes I have 4% Tint. … But I rolled the windows down right away. … And showed them I was harmless. They didn’t care. Guns were out. … Wow,” he posted several minutes later.

“Soon as they relaxed and asked questions. … They became fans,” posted Smith, who is black. “Chill you not getting a autograph now, you just pulled a gun on me. Smh.”

Police said they stopped Smith at 11:23 p.m. after trailing him for several blocks in his Chevrolet Tahoe because the windows were tinted.

The police report shows two officers approached the vehicle, one on the driver’s side and the other on the passenger side, and one of them unholstered his weapon because he could not see through the tinted windows into the back of the vehicle.

Officers issued Smith, who spent last season playing in the NBA’s D-League, a warning ticket for a tint violation.

A police department spokesman who identified himself only as “Anderson” told The Sporting News that the officers probably had a reason to justify pulling a gun, although he wasn’t sure why they actually did.

“It could have been a similar car whose description matched one of a bank robbery or a shooting,” the spokesman said. “It could have been the actions and behavior of the driver.”

“Tempers flare, and if the case went to court, an officer would need to be able to justify why he did that, but that’s why police officers have body cameras and the cameras in the car,” he added.

Durham police officers do not currently have body cameras, but the department held a “listening forum” two weeks ago to discuss the possibility of buying them.

The spokesman said pulling guns during a traffic stop was “normal behavior,” but he referred questions about whether autograph requests were permitted to the department’s community services officer, who did not respond to requests for comment.

This story written by Travis Gettys for RawStory

The city of Charlotte has reached a $2.25 million settlement in a lawsuit brought by the family of a black man shot to death by a white police officer in 2013.

City Attorney Bob Hagemann announced at a news conference Thursday that the Charlotte City Council unanimously approved the settlement with the family of Jonathan Ferrell. He said he expects the city to pay the family within a matter of days.

Hagemann said the settlement contains no admission of guilt.

“While we realize that money is an inadequate means of compensating Mr. Ferrell’s family, we feel that this was a fair and equitable settlement,” Hagemann said.

Charlotte Mayor Dan Clodfelter said he didn’t know what effect, if any, the settlement would have on Officer Randall Kerrick’s upcoming trial.

Georgia Ferrell, the dead man’s mother, issued a statement saying the settlement comes with mixed emotions.

“We are grateful that this case has been resolved, but it is devastating to know that nothing we do will ever bring Jonathan back,” she said.

Attorney Chris Chestnut described the settlement as “a necessary gesture by the city.”

“This is an issue that obviously has affected a number of communities, but few to none have managed it as well as the city of Charlotte,” Chestnut said. “And I think that Charlotte will prove to be a leader in this arena in moving our country forward toward increased unity and improving relations between law enforcement and community citizens.”

Ferrell was a black man who was shot and killed in September 2013 after he wrecked his car and knocked on the door of a house to get help. The person in the house called police.

Investigators say Kerrick, who is white, was the only one of three officers who responded to use his gun. Investigators say Kerrick fired 12 shots, 10 of which hit the unarmed Ferrell.

Defense attorneys for Kerrick issued a statement criticizing the settlement as being hasty.

“This rush to judgment also caused our elected City Officials, behind closed doors, to decide to spend precious (taxpayer) dollars on a civil settlement despite not having seen any of the evidence in this case and despite Officer Kerrick not having been found at all liable in the civil suit,” the statement said.

Kerrick is charged with voluntary manslaughter. His trial is scheduled for July 20.

Published by Yahoo News