to undermine the legislature’s stated intent of regulation and serves instead as an unconstitutional punishment. I would also hold that the application of the statute to [defendant] violated [defendant’s]] due process rights. I recognize that “the right of individuals to bear arms is not absolute, but is subject to regulation.” Johnson, 169 N.C. App. at 311, 610 S.E.2d at 746 (quoting State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 546, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968)). . . . The major differences between the 1995 and current versions of the statute lead me to conclude that the statute in its current form is no longer a reasonable regulation. Instead, I would hold that the current statute operates as an outright ban, completely divesting [defendant] of his right to bear arms without due process of law. Cf. id. (<HOLDING>). In enacting the 2004 amendment, the
holding that the johnson defendant was not completely divested of his right to bear arms as the then current nc gen stat  144151 allowed him to possess a firearm at his home or place of business holding that there was a sufficiently direct relationship between restricting the defendants selfemployment as a roofer and his bank fraud conviction when the defendant used his roofing business to facilitate the fraud and after his initial sentence he failed to provide information about his business activities to his probation officer holding that to enhance a sentence because of the defendants use of a firearm the jury must find the defendant guilty of a crime involving a firearm or otherwise specifically find that a firearm was used holding that the defendant had consented where he allowed the police officers into his apartment building and allowed the officers to follow him into his apartment without impediment or objection to the entry of the police holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time