Baysden v. State
217 N.C. App. 20
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Baysden was convicted in 1972 of felonious possession of an unlawful weapon (sawed-off shotgun) and in 1977 of felonious sale of marijuana.
- Both prior convictions occurred decades ago and the shotgun was inoperable when found; no violence was shown by Baysden in relation to those offenses.
- Rights to possess firearms were restored by Virginia authorities (1982) and federally through a 1983 relief from federal disabilities under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c).
- Baysden moved to North Carolina in 1995, and throughout residence remained law‑abiding; he complied with firearms laws after the 2004 amendments precluded possession by felons.
- In 2010 Baysden challenged the Felony Firearms Act (§ 14‑415.1 et seq.) as unconstitutional on its face and as applied; the trial court denied summary judgment to Baysden, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment in Baysden’s favor on the as‑applied challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| As applied challenge to §14-415.1 under Article I, §30 | Baysden argues the act is an unreasonable regulation as applied to him. | The State argues the act is a rational, reasonably related public safety regulation. | As-applied challenge has merit; statute unconstitutional as applied to Baysden. |
| Facial challenge under Article I, §30 | Baysden contends the act is facially unconstitutional prohibiting arm possession by felons. | The State contends the act is facially rational and previously upheld. | Face challenge rejected; statute not facially unconstitutional. |
| Ex post facto and bill of attainder | Amendments increased punishment for past crimes without a judicial hearing. | Act is regulatory, non-punitive; amendments do not violate ex post facto or bill of attainder. | Already decided against Baysden; amendments do not render statute unconstitutional as ex post facto or bill of attainder. |
| Equal protection applicability | Act is overbroad and unconstitutional as to felons generally; seeks strict scrutiny. | Legislature created distinctions between violent and nonviolent felons; justified by public safety; no standing for broader claims. | Distinction between violent/nonviolent felons upheld; no standing for broader equal protection challenge; not needed to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dawson, 272 N.C.535, 159 S.E.2d 1 (N.C.1968) (right to bear arms subject to reasonable regulation)
- Britt v. State, 363 N.C.546, 681 S.E.2d 320 (N.C.2009) (as-applied challenge to 2004 act; five-factor test; Britt II)
- Britt I, 185 N.C.App. 610, 649 S.E.2d 402 (N.C.App.2007) (pre-2010 analysis; act non-punitive; ex post facto not violated)
- Whitaker I, 201 N.C.App. 190, 689 S.E.2d 395 (N.C.App.2009) (five-factor approach to as-applied challenges)
- Whitaker II, 364 N.C.404, 700 S.E.2d 215 (N.C.2010) (amendments permitting restoration but not changing core rational basis)
- State v. Buddington, N.C.App. , 707 S.E.2d 655 (N.C.App.2011) (record sufficient to evaluate as-applied challenge; no re-weighing facts)
- State v. Hanton, 175 N.C.App. 250, 623 S.E.2d 600 (N.C.App.2006) (out-of-state offense comparison; statutory interpretation not fact dispute)