We have examined G.S. 14-409 and the warrant under which defendant was charged in this case, and we agree with the ruling of the trial judge.
Affirmed.
Britt, J., concurs.
Graham, J., dissents.
No. 7011SC104
(Filed 24 June 1970)
Weapons and Firearms— machine gun, submachine gun or like weapon
Weapon described in a warrant as “a Universal Caliber 30 Ml Carbine, Serial No. 135258, capable of firing thirty-one (31) shots, by successive *602pulling of the trigger” is not a “machine gun, submachine gun or other like weapon” within the meaning of G.S. 14-409.
Gkaham, J., dissents.
Appeal by the State from McKinnon, J., 27 October 1969 Session, Lee Superior Court.
Defendant was charged in a warrant with the unlawful possession of a machine gun or sub-machine gun or other like weapon, to wit: a Universal Caliber 30 Ml Carbine, Serial No. 135258, capable of firing thirty-one (31) shots, by the successive pulling of the trigger. G.S. 14-409. The offense was alleged to have occurred on or about 2 September 1969. Defendant was tried in District Court on 9 September 1969, and from a verdict of guilty appealed to the Superior Court for trial de novo.
■ When the case was called for trial in Superior Court on 28 October 1969, defendant moved to quash the warrant because: (1) the weapon described in the warrant was not such a weapon as was covered by the statute; and (2) as applied to defendant the statute (G.S. 14-409) was void for vagueness. The trial judge ruled that the weapon as described in the warrant was not a “machine gun, sub-machine gun or other like weapon” within the meaning of G.S. 14-409. Based upon this ruling the trial judge quashed the warrant, an^; the. State appealed.
Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Jacobs for the State.
No appearance for defendant.
We have examined G.S. 14-409 and the warrant under which defendant was charged in this case, and we agree with the ruling of the trial judge.
Affirmed.
Britt, J., concurs.
Graham, J., dissents.