A few weeks ago, Connie posted some information here at BlueNC that sent me off on a digging expedition, and I subsequently posted my meager findings on an NC Policy Watch diary that dealt with the same subject matter. Being that I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, I decided to wait and see if anyone smarter than me (big crowd) would take the ball and run with it. But since I haven't seen any movement yet, plus the fact that I have the patience of a toddler, I decided to blog about what I see as a major issue with our State's highest court.

Many reading this are aware of the NC Supreme Court's recent ruling allowing a convicted felon to legally possess a firearm:

The ruling authored by Justice Edward Thomas Brady held that Britt should be able to own guns and that the state unfairly took away his right to own a firearm with a 2004 law that barred felons from owning firearms. Britt was convicted in 1979 of selling Quaalude pills, but he didn't have any further tangles with the law.

Though the opinion focused just on Britt's case, both sides of the gun control issue saw the ruling as significant because the state's highest court found that Britt had a right to bear arms that trumped the state's ability to restrict him from owning any weapons.

Brady wrote that the law was too broad in including nonviolent felons like Britt, who had otherwise been law-abiding and had owned guns for 17 years after he successfully petitioned in 1987 to have his civil rights restored, including owning a gun.

"He is not among the class of citizens who pose a threat to public peace and safety," Brady wrote.

Before I continue, I know there are many reading this who feel strongly about this issue, and I'm not going to try to dissuade you from speaking your mind in the comments. But before you do, please take the time to read the entire opinion(pdf), including the dissent:

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Patricia Timmons-Goodson said she was alarmed that her fellow justices ignored state law by giving Britt an exemption. She said the ruling made North Carolina the first jurisdiction to uphold a convicted felon's right to own firearms over a state's power to regulate gun ownership.

"Today's decision opens the floodgates wide before an inevitable wave of individual challenges to not only the Felony Firearms Act, but our statutory provisions prohibiting firearm possession by incompetents and the mentally insane," Timmons-Goodson wrote.

Now let's talk about the ethics I mentioned in the title of this diary. Whenever an officer of the court finds him or her self in a situation where they have even a potential conflict of interest with a case, sound ethics demand they remove (recuse) themselves from the proceedings. But don't take my word for it, here's a few snippets from the NC Code of Judicial Conduct:

canon 2.A. "A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary."

Canon 3.C. (Disqualification)(1)(a) "He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding"

I bring those rules up because, until today, I had suspected that Justice Brady, who wrote the Majority Opinion that not only granted a convicted felon the right to own a gun, but also eroded our elected officials' authority to protect the general public from harm, is also a gun dealer:

From the Brady Law Firm's website:

Phone (910) 323-5600
FAX (910) 323-5696

B. Dianne Brady
Mailing Address

The Brady Law Firm
325 Green Street
Fayetteville, NC 28301

And from a Fayetteville business directory:

Guns & Gunsmiths

North Carolina Arsenal
325 Green Street
Fayetteville, NC 28301-5027

Phone: 910-485-8000
Fax: 910-323-5696
View Map - North Carolina Arsenal

I used the word "suspected" above because info on the Internet about the North Carolina Arsenal is real thin. It shared the same street address as the Brady Law Firm, and even the same fax machine, but I thought it might be some multi-office location, or maybe the gun dealership was an old business that Justice Brady used to run. So I decided to drive down to my old stomping grounds in Fayette-Nam to check it out.

After walking around the Brady Law Firm building to make sure there was no other entrance, I entered the front door and encountered a receptionist at her desk. I told her I was looking for the North Carolina Arsenal, and she sort of rolled her eyes and replied, as best I can recall:

"That's a side-business operated by a judge, whose wife owns and operates this law firm. It's not a place you can just walk into like a store, you have to call on the phone."

Just to clarify, I said, "So I have to call the judge?", and she said, "Yes."

I probably could have gotten a little bit more info from her, but my main questions had been answered: a) The North Carolina Arsenal did exist and was still being "operated", b) Justice Brady was the one who personally operated it, and c) the folks who worked in the law office were aware of it.

Since he is apparently still an active gun dealer, Justice Brady should have recused himself from this case. Instead, he not only took part, he assumed a leadership role and spoke for not only his Supreme Court colleagues, but the entire State's judicial system as well.

In life, there are consequences. If you commit a felony, you lose some of your rights. If you are a judge who puts personal gain and ideology above ethics and rules, there should be consequences for you, too.