Appeal to top NC court pits Second Amendment against education safety concern

Banning guns from places of education in North Carolina seems like a clear dictate in state law. Yet the North Carolina Supreme Court could take up a case testing the limits of that ban in light of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

The dispute reminds us that government officials’ interpretations influence how laws are enforced. Judges step in when the government makes mistakes.

The case that interests us dates back to June 2021.

Joseph John Radomski III was homeless. He kept his belongings in his car. Among those items were multiple guns.

Seeking medical treatment, Radomski drove his car — with the guns — to UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill. Parking in a lot near the hospital, Radomski clearly had guns on university property.

He never removed the guns from his vehicle. There is no evidence anyone saw the guns. People learned about the guns only after a phone call to campus authorities about Radomski’s parked car.

A police officer dispatched to the parking lot found Radomski. He admitted to having guns in the vehicle. That was enough to prompt a charge under NCGS § 14-269.2(b), which creates a crime for “any person knowingly to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, any gun, rifle, pistol, or other firearm of any kind on educational property or to a curricular or extracurricular activity sponsored by a school.”

A jury convicted Radomski in September 2022. A judge suspended the sentence of five to 15 months in prison and placed Radomski on a year of supervised probation.

But the state Court of Appeals threw out the conviction. Appellate judges ruled the state law unconstitutional in Radomski’s case.

“When the application of a statute impedes conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it is presumptively unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Hunter Murphy. “To overcome this presumption, the State must demonstrate that its regulation is consistent with, or analogous to, this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

“The State failed to demonstrate that regulating Defendant’s possession of firearms, which were kept within a vehicle that was parked in the university hospital parking lot where Defendant was seeking emergency medical care, is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” Murphy added.

The Appeals Court issued that decision on May 21. Two weeks later, the state Supreme Court temporarily blocked the appellate ruling.

Now the state government hopes the high court will reverse appellate judges’ ruling permanently. “This commonsense law ensures the safety of students, teachers, and others on campus,” government lawyers wrote. “At the same time, North Carolina’s school-safety law protects Second Amendment rights.”

Lawyers defending Radomski’s conviction pointed to the gun law’s 22 exceptions, including a concealed-carry permit holder’s right to “store handguns securely in vehicles on educational property.”

“The General Assembly has carefully balanced preserving public safety in the most sensitive of places with individual constitutional rights,” the state argued. “The Court of Appeals declined to respect that balance. It held that the Second Amendment requires the State to allow firearms in a parking lot next to a student-health facility, a college football stadium, and an undergraduate dormitory at the center of a public university campus, because the parking lot is also next to a university-run hospital.”

The Office of Appellate Defender disagreed. Its latest court filing referenced the US Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“Despite the State’s claims otherwise, the Court of Appeals’ decision in this case broke no new legal ground: it faithfully followed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, this Court’s guidance to decide statutory and constitutional issues narrowly, and our appellate courts’ well-established guidance regarding sufficiency claims that requires the State to present substantial evidence of each element of an alleged crime,” appellate defenders wrote.

Radomski’s lawyers distinguished his case from others involving guns at schools.

“It is mercifully rare that an unhoused person living out of a car containing all his belongings, including weapons inaccessible and buried under his home goods and clothing, is reported to police as suspicious by an unnamed caller while said person is parked in an open air parking lot to seek urgent medical care for serious ongoing medical issues,” appellate defenders wrote. “Accordingly, this unique set of circumstances is unlikely to repeat itself, let alone become an issue of significant public interest.”

It’s not clear whether the state Supreme Court will take Radomski’s case.

Regardless of its outcome, the dispute reminds us that laws can prompt competing interpretations. Courts must strike a balance between protecting safety and preserving fundamental rights.

Mitch Kokai is senior political analyst for the John Locke Foundation.