BILL POWERS

July 2, 2026

Can You Carry a Concealed Handgun Into a Business in North Carolina?

A North Carolina Concealed Handgun Permit generally allows you to carry a concealed handgun into a business that is open to the public unless the owner has prohibited firearms through a posted notice or a verbal instruction. That was the rule before the United States Supreme Court decided Wolford v. Lopez on June 25, 2026, and it remains the rule today.

The Court struck down a Hawaii statute, not a North Carolina one. It did not require restaurants, stores, hotels, or shopping centers to allow firearms. Instead, the decision reaffirmed a constitutional principle that matters nationwide. A state cannot treat firearms as presumptively prohibited on private property open to the public simply because the property is privately owned. The property owner still decides.

Headlines described the ruling as the Court striking down a Hawaii gun law. While accurate, that description does not answer the question most North Carolina readers are asking. Can a licensed permit holder lawfully carry a concealed handgun into a business that is open to the public? The answer depends less on Hawaii than on how the Second Amendment, North Carolina statutes, private property rights, and ordinary trespass law fit together.

June 29, 2026

The 2026 United States Supreme Court | Public Disputes and Institutional Trust

by Carolina Attorneys

For generations, the United States Supreme Court projected an image of institutional unity even when the Justices profoundly disagreed. While majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents revealed competing views of the Constitution, the Court itself rarely displayed internal friction in public. The 2026 Term has looked different.

Historically, disagreements belonged in the pages of the United States Reports, not during opinion announcements or through public exchanges between members of the Supreme Court.

There have always been strong personalities, competing judicial philosophies, and sharply divided votes. What makes the 2026 remarkable is not simply the number of 6 to 3 decisions or controversial constitutional questions. It is that Americans increasingly are seeing the disagreements themselves.

June 25, 2026

Two Pending DWI Charges in North Carolina | Indefinite Revocation

by Carolina Attorneys

Two pending DWI charges in North Carolina can create a license problem that comes as a shock, because a substantial consequence lands before either case is decided. The criminal exposure usually gets the attention. Jail, probation, community service, fines, court costs, substance abuse assessment, treatment, and insurance consequences may all be part of the discussion. The harder reality is what happens to the license while both cases remain pending.

Pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 20-16.5, a second pending DWI may keep the license revoked indefinitely, even after the first 30-day civil revocation has already ended. The driver is kept off the road before any conviction, on charges that have not yet been proven.

For many defendants, that result feels like a penalty imposed before the State has proven its case. The civil revocation is not without Due Process of Law. It rests on a judicial determination that the statutory conditions for civil revocation have been met, and the law provides a right to a hearing to contest it.

June 21, 2026

Embarrassment After Criminal Charges | How Shame Can Make a Bad Situation Worse

by Carolina Attorneys

Embarrassment after criminal charges may be one of the least discussed but most powerful forces affecting how a case unfolds. Long before a judge hears evidence or a jury enters the courtroom, a lot of defendants are already fighting a private battle with humiliation, regret, fear, damaged pride, and the sudden awareness that others may now see them differently.

Criminal charges can carry consequences beyond the legal system. They can affect family relationships, employment, professional licenses, reputations, friendships, and self-image. For many clients, the emotional fallout begins the moment they are arrested, served with a warrant, receive a citation or traffic ticket, learn they are under investigation, or see their name appear in a court file.

What surprises criminal defense lawyers is not the existence of embarrassment. It is what embarrassment sometimes causes defendants to do.

June 20, 2026

Juneteenth in North Carolina | Freedom, Citizenship, and the Long Arc of History

by Carolina Attorneys

Juneteenth, the Wilmington Coup of 1898, and the Wilmington Ten are separated by decades, yet each raises many of the same legal questions. What happens when constitutional rights exist on paper but are not fully protected in practice? What role should courts play when political pressure, public opinion, or government power collide with individual liberty? How should lawyers respond when the legal system itself becomes part of the controversy?

These events are frequently discussed through the lens of race, politics, or social change. Those subjects are undeniably part of the historical record. For lawyers, judges, and students of legal history, however, another perspective deserves equal attention. Each episode reveals something about the rule of law, due process of law, equal protection, voting rights, freedom of expression, and the ability of legal institutions to uphold constitutional principles during periods of conflict and uncertainty.

This article is not intended as a partisan argument. It does not seek to assign modern political labels to historical events. The political actors, parties, and public debates changed dramatically between 1865, 1898, and 1971. The constitutional principles at stake remained remarkably consistent.

June 18, 2026

Marijuana Use and Gun Rights in North Carolina | United States Supreme Court Hemani

by Carolina Attorneys

Can the government prohibit firearm possession based on marijuana use?

Marijuana use and firearm possession in North Carolina require a more careful legal analysis after the United States Supreme Court decided United States v. Hemani on June 18, 2026. The decision does not legalize marijuana in North Carolina. It does not allow anyone to carry a concealed handgun while impaired. It does not erase felony firearm bans. What it does is narrow the federal government’s power to treat every unlawful marijuana user as automatically too dangerous to own or possess a firearm.

TL;DR | Marijuana Use & Gun Rights in North Carolina After Hemani

June 18, 2026

How to Work With Your Criminal Defense Lawyer

by Carolina Attorneys

Learning how to work with your criminal defense lawyer can be difficult when you believe the accusation against you is unfair, exaggerated, or legally wrong. That reaction is human. A criminal charge can affect your record, your license, your job, your family, your reputation, your immigration status, and your sense of who you are. Even a traffic ticket can feel personal. When the stakes feel high, especially in cases like DUI, domestic violence, and drug charges, fear can come out as anger, anxiety can make every sentence feel like something to fight, and embarrassment can make even careful advice sound like criticism.

Key Tip | Lawyers want to help. Part of helping is being honest, even when it’s hard to hear. An important part of criminal defense involves explaining the law and clearing up misunderstandings about how the legal system really works.

That is why it makes sense to understand what your defense lawyer likely intends when the questions feel direct, the advice feels uncomfortable, or the conversation does not go the way you expected.

May 20, 2026

Traffic Ticket Infractions in North Carolina | Superior Court Jurisdiction

by Carolina Attorneys

On May 20, 2026, the North Carolina Court of Appeals decided State v. Myers, a case that may quietly create one of the stranger jurisdictional and constitutional problems in modern North Carolina traffic-stop litigation. The opinion itself appears relatively narrow at first glance. Superior Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate contested standalone traffic ticket infractions unless N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d) applies, even if those infractions are indicted alongside related felony and misdemeanor charges. Digging a bit deeper, the opinion more subtly raises a harder question for defense lawyers going forward. What happens when the alleged traffic infraction is not properly triable in Superior Court, yet that same alleged violation is the entire constitutional basis for the felony stop, detention, seizure, or arrest?

TL;DR: A New Hanover County jury convicted defendant of felony fleeing to elude arrest by motor vehicle and misdemeanor resisting a public officer. The jury also found them responsible for two traffic infractions, those being failure to signal a lane change and failure to carry a valid driver’s license. The Superior Court consolidated the misdemeanor conviction with the infractions and entered judgment. The Court of Appeals vacated the consolidated judgment, holding that Superior Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the contested standalone infractions because they were not lesser-included violations and the defendant did not admit responsibility. The fact that the infractions were included in an indictment returned by a grand jury did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

N.C.G.S. § 7A-253 sets forth that original and exclusive jurisdiction for the adjudication and disposition of infractions lies in District Court, except as provided in N.C.G.S. § 7A-271(d). Superior Court must submit an infraction to the jury when it is a lesser-included violation of a criminal action properly before the court. Superior Court may also accept an admission of responsibility to an infraction when it is either lesser-included or a related charge. Myers did not fit either category. The defendant did not admit responsibility, and the alleged infractions were not lesser-included violations of the felony or misdemeanor charges.

May 13, 2026

Proof of DWI Charges in North Carolina | Operation of a Vehicle

by Carolina Attorneys

Proof of DWI charges in North Carolina does not always require an officer to see the vehicle move or the defendant behind the wheel. In State v. Trexler, the North Carolina Supreme Court sets forth what evidence can prove the operation of a vehicle (a prima facie essential element of the offense) when law enforcement arrives after a crash and determines who was driving from statements, including confessions, physical and forensic evidence, witness observations, and the surrounding circumstances.

Trexler matters because of the State’s Burden of Proof. An overturned vehicle, signs of impairment, a breath test result, and a defendant’s statements may be enough in one case, but not so in another. The legal question (and factual inquiry) involves whether the evidence proves more than the defendant’s mere presence near a wrecked car supports a reasonable inference, sometimes predicated on circumstantial evidence, that the person charged actually drove while impaired.

TL;DR | Trexler, Prima Facie Proof of Operation, Corpus Delicti, and the State’s Burden

April 16, 2026

Road Rage in North Carolina | Self Defense

by Carolina Attorneys

In North Carolina, the line between “Standing Your Ground” and “Voluntary Manslaughter” can be thinner than a highway lane marker. While N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3 potentially provides robust protections for those defending themselves (and others from immediate bodily injury or harm), certain road rage incidents may not be subject to traditional self-defense claims.

Road-rage shootings and felony assaults with a vehicle as a “weapon” occasionally show up in North Carolina cases. They may involve a confrontation that starts on the road, escalates over time, and ends with the use of deadly force. Early narratives may frame what happened as self-defense or defense of others (such as passengers). Later scrutiny, especially when the timeline and physical evidence are examined, can lead to a very different legal conclusion.

North Carolina law does not treat “stand your ground” as a shortcut or absolute protection in every instance. Under N.C.G.S. § 14-51.3, use of deadly force may be justified only when it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. N.C.G.S. § 14-51.4 also removes protections in the event someone may have, in fact, provoked the confrontation.