March 17, 1997
Sheriff Mike Joyce Stokes County Sheriffs’ Office Post Office Box 118 Danbury, North Carolina 27016
RE: Advisory Opinion: Revocation of Concealed Handgun Permit; N.C.G.S. § 14-415.10, et. seq.
Dear Sheriff Joyce:
We reply to your recent inquiry whether you may issue a concealed handgun permit to a former concealed handgun permittee whose permit has been revoked by a sheriff in another county of our State.
For reasons which follow it is our opinion that such reissuance is not allowed in this circumstance. In your situation a licensed bail bondsman had his concealed handgun permit revoked by the Forsyth County Sheriff because the bondsman carried a firearm into a confinement facility in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-415.11. The bondsman has now moved to Stokes county and submitted an application for another concealed handgun permit.
It is a standard principle of statutory construction that the intent of the legislature controls in the interpretation of a statute. The intent and spirit of an Act are controlling in its construction. State
v. Hart, 287 N.C. 76, 213 S.E.2d 291 (1975). Statutes dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia, and harmonized if possible, to give effect to each. State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Lumbee River Electric Membership Corporation, 275 N.C. 250, 166 S.E.2d 663 (1969). N.C.G.S. § 14-415.23 provides that it is the intent of the General Assembly to prescribe a uniform system for the regulation of legally carrying a concealed handgun. Concealed handgun permits shall be valid throughout the state for a period of four years from the date of issuance. N.C.G.S. § 14-415.11(b). The clear intent of Article 54B (Concealed Handgun Permit Statutes) was to establish a uniform statewide system for issuing concealed handgun permits.
N.C.G.S. § 14-415.18 provides that such a statewide permit may be revoked by the sheriff of the county where the permit was issued or the sheriff of the county where the permittee resides if the permittee commits one of the violations set forth in that section. The permittee may appeal the revocation by petitioning a district court judge of the district in which the permittee resides. That the statute grants both the issuing sheriff and the sheriff of the county where the permittee resides revocation authority indicates that the actions of a permittee which caused a revocation of his permit operate as a statewide bar or impediment for Article 54B purposes.
The legislature appreciated the distinction between a permanent revocation and temporary suspension of a permit as evidence by their selective use of the terms in N.C.G.S. § 14-415.18. Had the legislature intended the revocation action of a sheriff to not have statewide effect, they would have limited the impact of such a revocation proceeding.
A revocation proceeding against a permittee held in one county should preclude the issuance of another concealed handgun permit in the other counties of North Carolina. A permittee has the
right to judicial review of the revocation proceeding by petitioning a district court judge. The
district court judge must review the facts and access the reasonableness of the sheriff’s decision.
Assuming that the district court upholds the revocation, the ruling applies statewide. Allowing a
permittee to reapply in each county after declining to pursue judicial review in the county of the
initial revocation would, in effect, allow a permittee to bypass and undermine the review process
designed specifically for Article 54B. A construction which will defeat or impair the object of a
statute must be avoided if that reasonably can be done without violence to the legislative
language. Re Hardy, 294 N.C. 90, 240 S.E.2d 367 (1987). While N.C.G.S. § 14-415.12(b) does
not specifically list a prior revocation as a basis to deny a permit, N.C.G.S. § 14-415.18 lists a
violation of Article 54B as a basis of revocation. Issuance of a concealed handgun permit under
these circumstances would be contrary to the intent of the legislation. Otherwise, the result would
be a permittee who could literally apply for, receive, and have revoked 100 separate concealed
handgun permits in North Carolina. We find nothing in the Article however which would
prohibit the reapplication for a permit after the expiration of the four year term of the permit.
We concur with your assessment that in this scenario, and in fairness to the applicant, that any
fees paid by the applicant be refunded.
Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General
John J. Aldridge, III
Assistant Attorney General Law Enforcement Liaison Section