December 14, 1994
Honorable Wayne Sexton 123 Irving Road Stoneville, North Carolina 27048
RE: Advisory Opinion; N.C.G.S. §14-410, et.seq.; Public-Private Laws 1937, c. 130; conflicting definitions of pyrotechnics in a state-wide and a local act.
Dear Representative Sexton:
We respond to your letter received by this office on November 28, 1994, regarding N.C.G.S. §14-410, et. seq. (the State pyrotechnics laws), and a Forsyth County "ordinance" prohibiting the manufacture, sale, purchase, or possession of any pyrotechnic. In your letter you ask whether the State law supersedes the local act.
Prior to 1993 all pyrotechnics, with one exception, were outlawed in our State. A 1955 amendment excluded toy pistol caps from the definition of "pyrotechnics" found in N.C.G.S. §14-414. (Session Laws 1955, c. 674, s.1; copy of which is enclosed.) In 1993, the General Assembly amended Article 54 of Chapter 14, effective December 1, 1993. Specifically, N.C.G.S. §14-414, entitled "Pyrotechnics defined; exceptions", was amended to further exclude six categories of items from the prohibitions of sale, use or possession. (See, 1993 Session Laws, c. 437, s.1; copy of which is enclosed.)
The question now arises whether the 1993 amendment to the definition of pyrotechnics in the State law amends or repeals the Forsyth County act since it would be in conflict with current State law. For reasons which follow, it is our opinion that the Forsyth County act is inconsistent with current State law, and is therefore repealed by implication.
Numerous basic rules of statutory construction are applicable here. However, the doctrine of in pari materia is of major consideration. It is a doctrine of statutory construction that laws which are in pari materia, that is, which relate or are applicable to the same matter or subject, although enacted at different times must be construed together in order to ascertain legislative intent. Enactments of the legislature dealing with the same subject matter must be construed in pari materia, and harmonized, if possible. Any irreconcilable ambiguity should be resolved so as to effectuate the true legislative intent. It is the legislative intent that is the key here, and the two laws conflict in their definition of pyrotechnics.
Additionally, as a general rule, "a legislative act of local application is repealed only when a subsequent act of general application clearly expresses such an intent." Durham v. Mason, 285
- N.C.
- 741, 744, 208 S.E.2d 662, 665 (1974). However, a later statute of state-wide application will repeal a former local act where the two are irreconcilable and the legislative intent to make the later statute apply throughout the state without exception is apparent. R.R. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 9 N.C.App. 305, 308, 176 S.E.2d 21, 23, aff’d, 277 N.C. 709, 178 S.E.2d 422 (1970). The same is true for a special statute that is in conflict with a general statute. R.R. v. Gaston, 200
- N.C.
- 780, 782, 158 S.E. 481, 483 (1931). So again, the legislative intent is key.
The 1993 pyrotechnics law, House Bill 1089, 1993 Session Laws, c. 437, has a preamble setting
forth the public policy for the change in the general prohibition of the sale, use, or possession of
all pyrotechnics. This public policy statement by the legislature considered the rights of the
citizenry to celebrate holidays with "safe and sane pyrotechnics", the loss of income by the
merchants of this State, and the loss of sales tax revenue to the State and local governments. In so
doing, the General Assembly recognized that states bordering North Carolina allowed the sale of
pyrotechnics and that North Carolina citizens were purchasing pyrotechnics in other states. The
preamble then states, "the General Assembly finds that the citizens of the State should be free to
purchase and use safe and sane pyrotechnics." It is our opinion that the intent of the legislature is
clear: Those excluded items are not pyrotechnics under State law and should not be barred from
sale, use, or possession by any local law.
A specific repeal of the Forsyth County act by the legislature is not necessary. Any inconsistent
provision is automatically repealed by implication since the definitions of pyrotechnics in the two
laws are irreconcilable. D & W, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 268 N.C. 577, 590, 151 S.E.2d 241,
250 (1966).
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Jeffrey P. Gray
Assistant Attorney General Law Enforcement Liaison Section