Gun-rights attorney Tom Grieve says a major part of the legal argument used to defend modern “sensitive places” gun restrictions may rest on a historical citation that was never actually a North Carolina law.
In a recent video, Grieve argued that federal courts did not deliberately invent history, but that some judges and legal researchers may have treated a private 1792 legal reference book as if it were an officially enacted state statute. According to Grieve, that mistake has been used in post-Bruen litigation to support restrictions on carrying firearms in places such as parks, transit systems, schools, hospitals, stadiums, and government buildings.
The claim is significant because the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen changed the framework for evaluating many gun laws. As Grieve described it, governments defending firearm restrictions now have to show that those restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, rather than relying only on modern public-safety arguments.
Grieve’s central point was that the historical evidence matters enormously under that test. If a court relies on a law that was never actually enacted, he argued, then the legal reasoning built on top of it becomes much weaker.
Bruen Put History At The Center Of Gun Cases
Grieve began by explaining why historical research has become so important in Second Amendment cases.
Before Bruen, courts often weighed gun restrictions through modern legal tests that considered government interests, public-safety claims, and how heavily a law affected a constitutional right. The 2022 Supreme Court ruling shifted the focus toward history and tradition.
Under the approach Grieve described, a government defending a gun restriction must identify a historical analogue showing that similar restrictions were accepted during the relevant periods of American history.
That has created a fierce argument over which years matter most.
Grieve said gun-control supporters often favor more recent historical periods because later laws can look closer to modern firearm restrictions. Gun-rights advocates, he said, generally argue that the founding era and early Republic should carry the most weight because those periods are closest to the adoption of the Second Amendment.
“That’s going to be important,” Grieve said, because the time period a court chooses can determine whether a historical example looks persuasive or irrelevant.
The dispute is not just academic. In sensitive-places cases, the question is whether governments can prohibit firearms in large categories of public locations by pointing to older laws that allegedly imposed similar restrictions.
The 1792 Book At The Center Of The Argument
According to Grieve, the controversy centers on a 1792 publication by François-Xavier Martin, a French-born lawyer who compiled a private legal reference guide titled A Collection of the Statutes of the Parliament of England in Force in the State of North Carolina.
Grieve said Martin’s book included the 1328 English Statute of Northampton, an old law that restricted going armed in certain public settings, including fairs and markets.
But Grieve emphasized that Martin’s publication was not itself enacted by North Carolina lawmakers. He described it as a private compilation of English statutes, not an official North Carolina code.
That distinction is the heart of his argument.
In Grieve’s telling, some post-Bruen court decisions and legal databases appear to have treated Martin’s book as proof that North Carolina had formally adopted a broad law against carrying weapons in public.
He cited research by Second Amendment scholar Stephen Halbrook, whose law review article, Grieve said, traced how the citation entered modern gun litigation and was then used by courts as a historical analogue for sensitive-places restrictions.
Grieve said the Duke Center for Firearms Law database listed the reference in a way that made it appear to be a North Carolina legislative enactment. He argued that the cited chapter did not contain the broad public-carry restriction attributed to it.
The allegation is not that judges knowingly fabricated a statute. Grieve repeatedly framed it as a historical mistake that became accepted and repeated once it appeared in legal sources courts trusted.
Still, he argued that a mistake repeated by multiple courts can have consequences just as serious as a deliberate one.
What North Carolina’s Actual Law Said
Grieve contrasted the disputed citation with what he described as North Carolina’s actual law.
He said a genuine 1741 North Carolina statute, later reenacted in 1791 and reflected in state law books for decades, directed constables to arrest people who rode or went armed “offensively.”
That word, Grieve argued, changes the entire legal meaning.
According to his explanation, merely carrying a firearm was not a crime under the historical North Carolina law. The conduct had to be offensive or intended to terrorize others.
Grieve cited the 1843 North Carolina Supreme Court case State v. Huntly, which he said made that distinction explicit by treating armed conduct as unlawful only when done in a threatening or terrorizing way.
“That word offensively is doing all the legal work,” Grieve said.
His point was that a law against going armed in a manner that terrorizes people is very different from a general ban on carrying weapons in broad public areas.
That difference may sound narrow, but under the Bruen framework it could be decisive. Courts are not simply looking for any old law involving weapons. They are supposed to determine whether historical restrictions are genuinely analogous to modern ones.
If the historical law punished threatening conduct rather than ordinary possession, Grieve argued, then it may not support a modern rule banning licensed gun owners from carrying in entire categories of public places.
How The Citation Reached Federal Appeals Courts
Grieve said the alleged historical error became especially important in Antonyuk v. James, a major Second Circuit case involving New York’s sensitive-places laws.
According to Grieve, the Second Circuit relied on the disputed North Carolina citation when it concluded there was historical support for restricting firearms in public places. That conclusion, he said, helped support portions of New York’s broad restrictions on where licensed concealed-carry holders could take firearms.
He argued that the Third Circuit later relied on the Second Circuit’s analysis in Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey, extending similar logic to New Jersey’s sensitive-location restrictions.
Grieve also discussed the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez. He said that court recognized that Bruen had undermined some of the supposed North Carolina place restrictions, though it ultimately upheld California restrictions on other grounds.
The details of these cases are legally complex, but Grieve’s broader argument was straightforward: one shaky historical citation can travel quickly through the court system once judges begin citing one another.
That is a common feature of appellate law. A decision from one federal circuit may not control another circuit directly, but it can still become persuasive authority that judges, lawyers, and state officials use to support similar conclusions elsewhere.
Why Sensitive Places Matter So Much
Grieve argued that sensitive-places laws are among the most important fronts in the current Second Amendment fight because they can dramatically limit where a person may legally carry a firearm even if that person has a permit.
A state may technically recognize concealed carry, he said, while still banning firearms in so many public spaces that carrying becomes impractical.
“Short answer, they want to ban it everywhere,” Grieve said, referring to what he views as the goal of gun-control supporters.
That is his political interpretation, and supporters of sensitive-places restrictions would likely describe their position differently. They often argue that certain crowded, vulnerable, or government-controlled locations warrant special safety rules.
But Grieve’s concern is that broad categories can become a backdoor ban. If governments can label nearly every public place “sensitive,” he argued, then the right to carry exists mostly on paper.
The dispute shows why the historical question matters so much. A narrow historical rule against threatening people with weapons may not justify sweeping bans in parks, transit systems, restaurants, entertainment venues, and other ordinary spaces.
A Rehearing Could Change The Legal Landscape
Grieve said the Third Circuit has already granted rehearing en banc in Koons, meaning the earlier panel decision was vacated and the full court will reconsider the case.
That development matters because it gives the court a chance to revisit the history and decide whether the disputed North Carolina citation should continue to play any role in the analysis.
He also pointed to another Second Circuit case, Frey v. City of New York, where he said a different panel acknowledged that Bruen had weakened parts of the earlier Antonyuk analysis.
For Grieve, these developments show that the issue is still unsettled.
Federal appeals courts often have the final practical word in most cases because the Supreme Court hears only a small percentage of petitions. Grieve estimated the odds of Supreme Court review at roughly 1 to 2 percent, which is why he believes errors at the circuit level can have a long life.
“The courts are not final because they’re infallible,” Grieve said. “They are often infallible because they are functionally final.”
That is a pointed line, but it captures the frustration many litigants feel about appellate courts. Even when a legal argument is contested, a decision can shape policy for years if the Supreme Court declines to intervene.
The Debate Is Now About Historical Accuracy
Grieve’s conclusion was that the sensitive-places framework in several federal courts may be more vulnerable than it appeared if the historical citation he discussed does not hold up.
He said the issue is not merely whether people support or oppose gun control. It is whether courts are applying the historical test honestly and accurately after Bruen.
That is where the debate should remain.
Historical legal research is difficult, especially when courts are asked to interpret centuries-old statutes, private compilations, colonial practices, and early state laws. Errors can happen. But when those errors affect constitutional rights, courts have a responsibility to correct them rather than simply repeat them because they appeared in an earlier opinion.
Grieve said Halbrook’s research may give gun-rights advocates a new tool in challenging sensitive-places restrictions. Whether courts accept that argument remains to be seen.
For now, the larger lesson from Grieve’s video is that the fight over firearms is increasingly a fight over history itself: what laws actually existed, what they meant at the time, and whether modern restrictions truly have the historical support courts say they do.
Gary’s love for adventure and preparedness stems from his background as a former Army medic. Having served in remote locations around the world, he knows the importance of being ready for any situation, whether in the wilderness or urban environments. Gary’s practical medical expertise blends with his passion for outdoor survival, making him an expert in both emergency medical care and rugged, off-the-grid living. He writes to equip readers with the skills needed to stay safe and resilient in any scenario.
