State v. Ricehill

North Dakota Supreme Court
415 N.W.2d 481 (1987)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The right to keep and bear arms under the North Dakota Constitution is not absolute and is subject to reasonable regulation under the State’s inherent police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

Facts:

Elliot Ricehill was previously convicted of murder, a felony involving violence, and had been released from incarceration within the last ten years.
On or about March 7, 1986, Ricehill invited an acquaintance, Mark Schimetz, into his car.
While in the car, Ricehill showed Schimetz a rifle lying in the back seat and a revolver that he took from the glove compartment.
Schimetz later reported this encounter to the city police.
That same evening, Officer Harry Johnson stopped the car in which Ricehill was a passenger because it crossed the centerline.
During the stop, Officer Johnson observed an open can of beer at Ricehill's feet.
After arresting Ricehill for violating the open-bottle law, a search of the vehicle produced a rifle and a revolver from the locked glove compartment.

Procedural Posture:

Elliot Ricehill was charged in a North Dakota trial court with possession of a firearm by a person previously convicted of a felony.
A jury found Ricehill guilty of the charge.
The trial court entered a judgment of conviction based on the jury's verdict.
Elliot Ricehill (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does Section 62.1-02-01(1) of the North Dakota Century Code, which prohibits a person convicted of a violent felony from possessing a firearm for ten years, violate the right to keep and bear arms under Article I, Section 1 of the North Dakota Constitution?

Opinions:

Majority - Vande Walle, Justice

No. The statute does not violate the North Dakota Constitution because the right to keep and bear arms is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable regulation under the State’s police power. The court reasoned that while the constitution guarantees the right, the language 'shall not be infringed' does not prohibit all legislative limits. The State has a duty under its inherent police power to enact reasonable regulations to protect the public's health, safety, and welfare. The court found it 'patently reasonable' for the legislature to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who have previously committed serious crimes, as they have demonstrated a disposition to harm others and an unfitness to be entrusted with dangerous instrumentalities. The court cited similar conclusions from Michigan, Louisiana, and Colorado, which all held that prohibitions on firearm possession by felons are a legitimate exercise of the state's police power.

Analysis:

This is a landmark case for North Dakota as it provides the first judicial interpretation of the state's newly enacted constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The decision establishes the crucial precedent that this right is not absolute and is subject to the state's police power. By upholding the felon-in-possession statute, the court aligned North Dakota's jurisprudence with that of other states that balance individual rights against the compelling state interest in public safety. This ruling provides a foundational legal framework for evaluating future firearm regulations in the state, confirming that the legislature can impose reasonable restrictions, particularly on individuals who have demonstrated a propensity for violence.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Ricehill (1987)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"