Baysden v. State, 366 N.C. 370 (Jan. 25, 2013)

With one justice taking no part in consideration of the case, an equally divided court left undisturbed the following opinion below, which stands without precedential value:

Baysden v. North Carolina, 217 N.C. App. 20 (Nov. 15, 2011). Over a dissent, the court of appeals applied the analysis of Britt and Whitaker and held that the felon in possession of a firearm statute was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was convicted of two felony offenses, neither of which involved violent conduct, between three and four decades ago. Since that time he has been a law-abiding citizen. After his firearms rights were restored, the plaintiff used firearms in a safe and lawful manner. When he again became subject to the firearms prohibition because of a 2004 amendment, he took action to ensure that he did not unlawfully possess any firearms and has “assiduously and proactively” complied with the statute since that time. Additionally, the plaintiff was before the court not on a criminal charge for weapons possession but rather on his declaratory judgment action. The court of appeals concluded: “[W]e are unable to see any material distinction between the facts at issue in . . . Britt and the facts at issue here.” The court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s claim should fail because 2010 amendments to the statute expressly exclude him from the class of individuals eligible to seek restoration of firearms rights; the court found this fact irrelevant to the Britt/Whitaker analysis. The court also rejected the notion that the determination as to whether the plaintiff’s prior convictions were nonviolent should be made with reference to statutory definitions of nonviolent felonies, concluding that such statutory definitions did not apply in its constitutional analysis. Finally, the court rejected the argument that the plaintiff’s challenge must fail because unlike the plaintiff in Britt, the plaintiff here had two prior felony convictions. The court refused to adopt a bright line rule, instead concluding that the relevant factor is the number, age, and severity of the offenses for which the litigant has been convicted; while the number of convictions is relevant, it is not dispositive.