{ "id": 4102950, "name": "JUSTIN SHERRILL KELLY, Petitioner v. D. BRAD RILEY, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF CABARRUS COUNTY, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Kelly v. Riley", "decision_date": "2012-11-06", "docket_number": "No. COA12-273", "first_page": "261", "last_page": "268", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "223 N.C. App. 261" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "86 N.C. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275482 ], "year": 1882, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700", "parenthetical": "\"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, it is declared, shall not be infringed, while the latter may be prohibited.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/86/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "9" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574015 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "546" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 Cal.Rptr.3d 804", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr. 3d", "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "808", "parenthetical": "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.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 P.3d 1177", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "case_ids": [ 3689572 ], "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1190", "parenthetical": "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\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan-app-2d/42/0893-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Ga. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga.", "case_ids": [ 1373812 ], "year": 1846, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "251", "parenthetical": "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-defence [sic], or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga/1/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 U.S. 275", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8298391 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1897, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "281-82" }, { "page": "717" }, { "page": "281-82" }, { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/165/0275-01" ] }, { "cite": "627 F.3d 792", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 4072709 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "800" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/627/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "614 F.3d 85", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 3707189 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/614/0085-01" ] }, { "cite": "628 F.3d 673", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 4075360 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680" }, { "page": "680" }, { "page": "680" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/628/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "554 U.S. 570", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3677081 ], "weight": 9, "year": 2008, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" }, { "page": "657", "parenthetical": "emphasis omitted" }, { "page": "635" }, { "page": "657" }, { "page": "626" }, { "page": "678" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/554/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "543 S.E.2d 844", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "848" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135972 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "348" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14415.18", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "year": 2009, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "689 S.E.2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "592" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. App. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 4175288 ], "year": 2010, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "511" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/202/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14416.16", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 7, "year": 2011, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)" }, { "page": "(c)" }, { "parenthetical": "c" }, { "page": "(c)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.11", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 2011, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.18", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 7, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" }, { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(c)(2)" }, { "page": "(c)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 15, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(8)" }, { "page": "(b)(8)" }, { "page": "(b)" }, { "parenthetical": "b" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 696, "char_count": 18409, "ocr_confidence": 0.752, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.3557186152551751 }, "sha256": "ac61139f0b54169a3bd8ff5e3f446a0910fa54353684e36842f910d1cae1201a", "simhash": "1:c363222692bdcc30", "word_count": 2948 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:08:05.693184+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges ELMORE and STEPHENS concur." ], "parties": [ "JUSTIN SHERRILL KELLY, Petitioner v. D. BRAD RILEY, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF CABARRUS COUNTY, Respondent" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CALABRIA, Judge.\nJustin Sherrill Kelly (\u201cpetitioner\u201d) appeals from a District Court order affirming D. Brad Riley\u2019s decision while serving in his official capacity as Sheriff of Cabarrus County (\u201crespondent\u201d). Respondent denied petitioner\u2019s application for a concealed handgun permit. We affirm.\nI. Background\nOn 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\u2019s application was, \u201cHave 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\u2019 the form. There were twenty-five disqualifying criminal offenses on the list. The last one on the list stated \u201c[a]ny crime of violence found in Article 14 in the North Carolina General Statutes.\u201d Petitioner responded to the question by answering, \u201cno,\u201d 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\u2019s application, he was unaware of petitioner\u2019s 2001 assault conviction and issued petitioner a concealed handgun permit.\nPetitioner\u2019s initial concealed handgun permit had expired on 21 November 2010. On 19 January 2011, petitioner submitted 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, \u201cAssaults [Article 8 of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes].\u201d Petitioner answered \u201cno\u201d 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 \u201cbeen 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\u201d 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. \u00a7 14-415.12(b)(8). According to respondent, petitioner\u2019s previous conviction for assault on a female in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-33(c)(2) from 14 May 2001 disqualified him from having a concealed handgun permit.\nOn 1 April 2011, petitioner filed a petition for judicial review alleging that the Sheriff\u2019s 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 that his application was denied without a hearing and for a reason other than those stated in N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 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 Sheriffs Department of Cabarrus County was not the real party in interest, respondent was substituted for the Sheriffs Department of Cabarrus County.\nOn 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\u2019s 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.\nII. Application for a Concealed Handgun Permit\nIn 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. \u00a7 14-415.12, then the sheriff \u201cshall issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun ...\u201d and \u201c[t]he permit shall be valid throughout the State for a period of five years from the date of issuance.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.11 (2011). The sheriff, however,\nshall deny a permit to an applicant who\n(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.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12(b)(8) (2011).\nAn individual seeking to renew a concealed handgun permit must sign an \u201caffidavit stating that the permittee remains qualified under the criteria provided in this Article ....\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16(b) (2011). Notwithstanding the applicant\u2019s affidavit, the sheriff is still required to make an independent determination regarding whether \u201cthe permittee remains qualified to hold a permit in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 14-415.12.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16(c) (2011). The sheriff is required to renew the permit only \u201cif the permittee remains qualified to have a permit under G.S. 14-415.12.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14416.16(c) (2011).\nThus, 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. \u00a7 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. \u00a7 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.\nIII. Denial of Application for Concealed Handgun Permit\nPetitioner contends that the trial court applied the wrong statutory provisions in upholding the sheriff\u2019s denial of petitioner\u2019s 19 January 2011 application for a concealed handgun permit. We disagree.\n\u201cIssues of statutory construction are questions of law, reviewed de novo on appeal.\u201d 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. \u00a7 14-415.18. This statute, entitled \u201cRevocation or suspension of permit,\u201d states, in relevant part:\n(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 the following reasons:\n(1) Fraud or intentional or material misrepresentation in the obtaining of a permit.\n(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.\n(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.\n(4) The violation of any of the terms of this Article.\n(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.\nA 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 sheriffs refusal.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14415.18(a) (2009).\nPetitioner seizes on the word \u201cnonrenewal\u201d 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 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. \u00a7 14415.18(a).\nPetitioner is mistaken. The plain language of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.18(a) makes clear that the initial portions of the statute upon which petitioner, relies only apply when the sheriff \u201crevoke[s] a permit. ...\u201d Id. The word \u201cnonrenewal\u201d appears only in the last section of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 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. \u00a7 14-415.18(a) is only applicable to nonrenewals in the context of establishing the procedure for an appeal to the district court.\nMoreover, petitioner\u2019s argument completely ignores N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16, which specifically governs \u201c[r]enewal of [a concealed handgun] permit.\u201d That statute does not require a hearing prior to the nonrenewal of an applicant\u2019s concealed handgun permit. Instead, the statute provides that a concealed handgun permit should only be renewed \u201cif the permittee remains qualified to have a permit under G.S. 14-415.12.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16 (c) (2011).\nIn the instant case, petitioner\u2019s permit had expired and had not been revoked prior to its expiration. Therefore, the criteria for revoking a permit under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.18 did not apply to petitioner\u2019s 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. \u00a7 14-415.12. See N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16(c).\nUnder N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12, the sheriff \u201cshall deny a permit to an applicant who],]\u201d inter alia, \u201chas 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 . . . .\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12 (b)(8) (2011). Petitioner was adjudicated guilty in Cabarrus County of assault on a female pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 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. \u00a7 14-415.12 and, as a result, he was not entitled to a renewal of his permit under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16. Accordingly, respondent properly denied petitioner\u2019s application, and the trial court did not err in upholding respondent\u2019s denial of petitioner\u2019s January 2011 application for a concealed handgun permit. This argument is overruled.\nIV. Constitutional Violation\nPetitioner also argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12, as applied to petitioner, violates the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. We disagree.\n\u201c[D]e novo review is ordinarily appropriate in cases where constitutional rights are implicated.\u201d Piedmont Triad Reg\u2019l Water Auth. v. Summer Hills, Inc., 353 N.C. 343, 348, 543 S.E.2d 844, 848 (2001).\nThe Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that \u201c[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.\u201d U.S. Const. amend. II. This language guarantees the \u201cpre-existing\u201d \u201cindividual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.\u201d 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 possession of handguns in the home. Id. at 635, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 657.\nSince the Supreme Court\u2019s 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 \u201cwhether the challenged law imposes a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment\u2019s 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.\u201d 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 \u201cmeans-end scrutiny.\u201d 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. \u00a7 14-415.12 violates petitioner\u2019s constitutional rights.\nAs 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 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.\nThe 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\u2019s definition of the term \u201cbear arms\u201d as used in the Second Amendment included the right of an individual to \u201ccarry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket,\u201d the Court\u2019s opinion clarifies that the scope of the \u201cSecond Amendment right is not unlimited.\u201d Heller, 554 U.S. at 584 and 626, 171 L. Ed. 2d at 653 and 678. Specifically, the Court recognized that it is \u201cnot a right to keep a weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[,]\u201d and acknowledged that previously courts have \u201cheld that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment and state analogues.\u201d Id. (citing Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846)(finding that an act that suppressed an individual\u2019s ability to carry \u201ccertain weapons secretly,\u201d was valid because it did not \u201cdeprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence [sic], or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.\u201d)).\nOther state courts that have analyzed this language have found that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual\u2019s right to conceal a weapon. See State v. Knight, 218 P.3d 1177, 1190 (Kan. App. 2009) (noting that the Heller Court\u2019s mention of prohibitions on carrying concealed firearms \u201cclearly shows that the Heller Court considered concealed firearms prohibitions to be presumptively constitutional under the Second Amendment\u201d); People v. Flores, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 804, 808 (Cal. App. 2008) (citing Robertson and Heller in holding that \u201c[g]iven this implicit approval [in Heller] of concealed firearm prohibitions, we cannot read Heller to have altered the [C]ourts\u2019 longstanding understanding that such prohibitions are constitutional.\u201d).\nThe Supreme Court of North Carolina has also recognized that \u201cthe right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation.\u201d 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) (\u201cThe distinction between the \u2018right to keep and bear arms,\u2019 and \u2018the practice of carrying concealed weapons\u2019 is plainly observed in the constitution of this state. The first, it is declared, shall not be infringed, while the latter may be prohibited.\u201d).\nIn the instant case, petitioner was denied a concealed handgun permit pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 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\u2019s right to possess a weapon, courts have also found that the Second Amendment does not extend to an individual\u2019s 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\u2019s right to carry a concealed handgun does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment, and N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12 is constitutional as applied to him. Since we have determined that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12 does not impose \u201ca burden on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment\u2019s guarantee^]\u201d there is no reason to evaluate the law under any level of constitutional scrutiny. Chester, 628 F.3d at 680. This argument is overruled.\nV. Conclusion\nPetitioner sought but failed to renew his concealed handgun permit because he did not qualify according to the criteria required by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.16, the statute entitled \u201cRenewal of permit.\u201d Furthermore, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-415.12 is constitutional as applied to the petitioner. Therefore, we affirm the trial court\u2019s order which concluded that respondent properly denied petitioner\u2019s application for a concealed handgun permit due to petitioner\u2019s conviction for assault on a female.\nAffirmed.\nJudges ELMORE and STEPHENS concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CALABRIA, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Diener Law, by Cynthia E. Everson, for petitioner-appellant.", "Cabarrus County Attorney Richard M. Koch, for respondentappellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JUSTIN SHERRILL KELLY, Petitioner v. D. BRAD RILEY, in his official capacity as SHERIFF OF CABARRUS COUNTY, Respondent\nNo. COA12-273\n(Filed 6 November 2012)\n1. Firearms and Other Weapons \u2014 concealed handgun permit renewal \u2014 applicable statutory provisions \u2014 petitioner failed to meet requirements\nThe trial court did not apply the wrong statutory provisions in upholding the sheriffs denial of petitioner\u2019s 19 January 2011 application for a concealed handgun permit. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-415.18(a) is only applicable to nonrenewals in the context of establishing the procedure for an appeal to the district court and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-415.16 specifically governs renewal of a concealed handgun permit. Petitioner did not meet the requirements of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-415.12 and, as a result, was not entitled to a renewal of his permit under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-415.16.\n2. Constitutional Law \u2014 Second Amendment \u2014 concealed handgun permit \u2014 not within scope\nPetitioner\u2019s right to carry a concealed handgun did not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment and N.C.G.S. \u00a7 14-415.12 was constitutional as applied to defendant.\nAppeal 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.\nDiener Law, by Cynthia E. Everson, for petitioner-appellant.\nCabarrus County Attorney Richard M. Koch, for respondentappellee." }, "file_name": "0261-01", "first_page_order": 271, "last_page_order": 278 }