Johnston v. State
224 N.C. App. 282
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the North Carolina Felony Firearms Act (Act) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him.
- Plaintiff had multiple prior felonies (1978 conspiracy to commit larceny, 1981 arson, conspiracy to burn a building, and fraud) and asserted his rights were restored by 1988.
- The trial court declared the Act unconstitutional as applied to plaintiff, denied state motions, and granted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor, preserving damages and fees issues for later.
- The State appealed the memorandum judgment as interlocutory, which the court treated as appealable due to substantial rights affected.
- The court analyzed federal and state substantive due process and procedural due process challenges, and reviewed relevant NC and federal case law on the Act’s constitutionality.
- The court ultimately reversed the trial court on several issues and remanded for additional evidence and findings under Whitaker/Britt/Baysden-like standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act violates federal substantive due process as applied | Plaintiff contends the Act is an unreasonable regulation applicable to him. | State asserts a substantial government objective; uses intermediate scrutiny per Chester to test fit. | Remand to apply Chester intermediate scrutiny with evidence. |
| Whether the Act violates North Carolina substantive due process as applied | Plaintiff argues the five Britt/Whitaker factors favor invalidation as applied. | State argues reasonable regulation; Britt/Baysden analysis supports constitutionality or remand for facts. | Remand for trial court to develop Whitaker factors with evidence. |
| Whether the Act violates procedural due process under federal or state constitutions | Procedural safeguards are insufficient for deprivation of liberty interests. | Public safety interest justifies summary procedures; Mathews/Henry balanced approach favors upholding procedures. | Procedural due process claims rejected at state and federal level; reversed and remanded only for substantive questions. |
| Interlocutory appealability and jurisdiction of the trial court | Interlocutory order should be dismissed as non-final. | Order affects substantial rights; appellate review is appropriate. | Interlocutory order affirmed as appealable; judgment remanded for additional proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Britt v. State, 363 N.C. 546 (2009) (factors for as-applied constitutional review under NC Constitution)
- State v. Whitaker, 201 N.C. App. 191 (2010) (five Whitaker factors for assessing reasonableness of the Act as applied)
- Baysden v. State, 718 S.E.2d 699 (2011) (focus on litigant’s conduct and not mere statutory labeling; remand guidance)
- United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) (two-part test for Second Amendment rights beyond core Heller scope)
- United States v. Moore, 666 F.3d 313 (4th Cir. 2012) (as-applied Second Amendment analysis; contextual: future defining rights)
- United States v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011) (felon in possession as-applied challenges and rights under McDonald/Heller)
- United States v. Williams, 616 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2010) (intermediate scrutiny appropriate for gun regulation)
- State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764 (1949) (Law of the Land approach and due process context in NC)