State v. Ducker, COA24-373, ___ N.C. App. ___ (May. 7, 2025)

In this Buncombe County case, defendant appealed his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon, arguing G.S. 14-415.1 was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and Article I, § 30 of the North Carolina Constitution. The Court of Appeals found no error and affirmed the judgment.

Defendant was arrested in 2022 after the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Department received a report that he was openly carrying a handgun despite a felony conviction. At trial in 2023, defendant raised constitutional arguments, but the trial court denied his motion.

The Court of Appeals considered defendant’s issues in three parts, whether G.S. 14-415.1 was (1) facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, (2) unconstitutional as applied to defendant under the Second Amendment, or (3) unconstitutional as applied to defendant under the North Carolina Constitution. In (1), the court noted it had previously upheld G.S. 14-415.1 as constitutional under the analysis required by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), in the recent decision State v. Nanes, ___ N.C. App. ___, 912 S.E.2d 202 (2025). This previous decision, along with consistent federal court decisions, supported the court’s holding that G.S. 14-415.1 “is facially constitutional under both the United States and the North Carolina Constitutions.” Slip Op. at 8.

In (2), the court explained Nanes did not control as the defendant in that case was convicted of a different predicate felony. However, the court rejected the idea that it would be required to conduct a felony-by-felony analysis, pointing to the decision in State v. Fernandez, 256 N.C. App. 539 (2017), that “as-applied challenges to Section 14-415.1 [are] universally unavailing because convicted felons fall outside of the protections of the Second Amendment.” Slip Op. at 9-10. The court noted that the Fourth Circuit had revisited this issue post-Bruen in United States v. Hunt, 123 F.4th 697 (2024), and reached the same conclusion. As a result, the court concluded “[b]ecause we agree with the Fourth Circuit . . . we are bound by our decision in Fernandez and continue to hold Section 14-415.1 regulates conduct outside of the Second Amendment’s protections.” Slip Op. at 12.

Finally, in (3), the court explained that under Britt v. State, 363 N.C. 546 (2009), a five-factor analysis is required to “determine if a convicted felon can be constitutionally disarmed under [G.S.] 14-415.1.” Slip Op. at 13. After walking through the Britt factors in defendant’s case, the court concluded G.S. 14-415.1 was constitutional when applied to defendant, as “[i]t is not unreasonable to disarm an individual who was convicted of a felony, subsequently violated a domestic violence protective order, and chose to continue to carry a firearm in violation of the law.” Id. at 17-18.