He Was Charged With ‘Going Armed to the Terror of the Public’

[Averageman]

http://heavy.com/news/2015/07/bryan-...med-to-terror/

Going armed to the terror of the public is a class 1 misdemeanor. A person guilty of the charge “arms himself with an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purpose of terrifying others and goes about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to the people,”according to the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

Doesn't this simply curtail then any "Right" to open carry?

According to the 2012 post on the blog, which is run by the University of North Carolina School of Government, the crime was charged in 340 cases in 2011.
It seems to be used rather often.

North Carolina allows open carry of legally owned weapons, but the Cross Creek Mall, but guns are not allowed at the Cross Creek Mall.

Visitors are asked to refrain from, “carrying or displaying weapons of any kind except those carried by certified law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties,” according to the mall’s code of conduct.

I've been to a couple of Malls, I have yet to see a posted "code of conduct" in any of them.

[darr3239]

Sounds like they came up with the law to address those who would brandish weapons while driving down a roadway. Doesn't seem to apply in this case, unless there is more written in that law.

Also, proving his intent to terrify may be hard if he was only out for a photo shoot, like he said. You would need something in his speech or actions to show intent otherwise.

Either way, it was an ignorant thing to do.

[jpmuscle]

Unusual and dangerous weapon... Bits like that always get me. Everything is a weapon usual, unusual, or otherwise. FFS...

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

Going armed to the terror of the public is a class 1 misdemeanor. A person guilty of the charge “arms himself with an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purpose of terrifying others and goes about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to the people,”according to the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog.

To be guilty they have to show that he had intent to terrify others, which doesn't seem to be the case.

[usmcvet]

To be guilty they have to show that he had intent to terrify others, which doesn't seem to be the case.

I agree. I don't think he committed a crime. From what I've read he shouldn't have been arrested. People being scared doesn't make this a crime.

[Frailer]

Yes, let's castigate this veteran for exercising a fundamental, inalienable, constitutionally-protected Right.

It's possible to exercise a fundamental right and be stupid at the same time.

[Trajan]

I fully support the "no gun" sign these days. Prevents (half intelligent) idiots from open carrying. This idiot decided to open carry at a place with the sign. He wanted attention, and he got it.

To the people complaining: doesn't the mall owner have property rights?

The only issue I have with this is labeling the AR-15 as an "unusual" weapon

[chuckman]

It's a BS law and a half decent lawyer will get the charge tossed. My buddy used to be a Durham County ADA (just up the road from Fayetteville), he does not think it will stick but thinks the in the hands of the wrong politics/DA they can find something else to make it stick.

[Hmac]

This mall is posted. I doubt he'll get convicted of "Going Armed to the Terror of the Public" since they won't be able to prove intent, but sounds like he has a problem with carrying a weapon in a place that's legally posted. Both are Class I misdemeanors.

[SteyrAUG]

If you are going to open carry a rifle, you damn well better have your Gay Pride shirt on.