Does North Carolina's 1993 'safe and sane' pyrotechnics law override an older Forsyth County local act that defined pyrotechnics differently?

Plain-English summary

The opinion discusses House Bill 1089 (1993 Session Laws ch. 437), which changed statewide pyrotechnics law, and an older Forsyth County local act whose definition of pyrotechnics conflicted with it. The stored extract does not reproduce the new statewide definition or the local act.

The AG was asked whether items that fall outside the 1993 statewide definition of pyrotechnics could nevertheless be barred under the older Forsyth County local act.

The AG's answer: no. The two laws are irreconcilable, and the later statewide law impliedly repeals the inconsistent provisions of the older local act. Three sources support the conclusion:

1. The 1993 act's preamble shows clear statewide intent. The preamble cites the citizens' rights to celebrate holidays with safe and sane pyrotechnics, the loss of income to merchants when North Carolinians shop across the state line, and the loss of sales tax revenue. It states: "the General Assembly finds that the citizens of the State should be free to purchase and use safe and sane pyrotechnics." That is a clearly articulated statewide policy.

2. General rule on later statewide vs. older local acts. A later statewide statute that is irreconcilable with an older local act and reflects a clear legislative intent to apply throughout the state, with no exception, repeals the older local act by implication. R.R. Co. v. City of Raleigh (N.C. App. 1970, aff'd N.C. 1970). The same rule applies to a special statute that conflicts with a general statute. R.R. v. Gaston (N.C. 1931).

3. No express repeal required. "Any inconsistent provision is automatically repealed by implication since the definitions of pyrotechnics in the two laws are irreconcilable." D & W, Inc. v. City of Charlotte (N.C. 1966).

Practical effect: the AG said items excluded from the statewide definition should not be barred from sale, use, or possession by any local law. The opinion did not analyze other forms of local regulation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. Check current pyrotechnics statutes and local laws before relying on its conclusion for a present sale, use, or possession question.

Historical context: what the AG concluded

The opinion's surviving text begins mid-citation, suggesting the rendered page truncated the opening sentences. The substantive analysis works through the implied-repeal rule:

The surviving text begins mid-citation. The opening discussion is unavailable in the stored extract. The text that remains gives the rule for an irreconcilable later statewide law.

The exception: irreconcilable later statewide law with clear statewide intent repeals the local act. R.R. Co. v. City of Raleigh (N.C. App. 1970) is the leading case. The rule applies to both later statewide laws against earlier local acts, and later general statutes against earlier special statutes (R.R. v. Gaston).

The 1993 act's preamble satisfies the "clear statewide intent" requirement. The preamble's findings are framed in statewide terms: citizens of the State, merchants of this State, sales tax revenue to the State and local governments. The statewide reference is explicit and unambiguous.

No express repeal needed. D & W, Inc. v. City of Charlotte (N.C. 1966) confirms that conflicting provisions are repealed by implication; no explicit legislative reference to the older local act is required.

The bottom line: "Those excluded items are not pyrotechnics under State law and should not be barred from sale, use, or possession by any local law."

Common questions

Can a North Carolina county ban "safe and sane" pyrotechnics under an older local act?

According to this opinion, no. The 1993 statewide law's exclusions are controlling, and an older local act that defines pyrotechnics more broadly is impliedly repealed to the extent of the conflict.

What are "safe and sane" pyrotechnics under North Carolina law?

The opinion does not reproduce the list of excluded items. It says those excluded from the statewide definition should not be barred by local law. Check the relevant statute itself to identify the items.

When does a statewide law impliedly repeal a local act?

When two requirements are met: (1) the two laws are irreconcilable, and (2) the legislature's intent to apply the later statewide law throughout the state without exception is apparent (typically from preamble language, scope provisions, or context).

Did the AG decide whether local governments could impose other pyrotechnics rules?

No. The opinion addresses the conflicting definitions and says excluded items should not be barred from sale, use, or possession by local law. It does not assess time or place rules, permits, insurance, or fire-safety reviews.

What did the AG say about the Forsyth County act?

The AG said the inconsistent provisions of the older Forsyth County act were repealed by implication because its definition of pyrotechnics could not be reconciled with the 1993 statewide law. No express repeal was needed.

Background and statutory framework

1993 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 437 (House Bill 1089). The opinion quotes its preamble for a statewide policy allowing citizens to purchase and use safe and sane pyrotechnics. The surviving extract does not identify the General Statutes sections amended by the act.

Forsyth County local act (pre-1993). Defined pyrotechnics more broadly than the 1993 statewide law. Per the AG's analysis, the inconsistent portions are impliedly repealed by the 1993 act.

The opinion is signed by Jeffrey P. Gray (Assistant Attorney General, Law Enforcement Liaison Section) and Andrew A. Vanore, Jr. (Chief Deputy Attorney General). The AG at the time was Michael F. Easley.

Citations

• 1993 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 437.
• R.R. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 9 N.C.App. 305, 176 S.E.2d 21, aff'd, 277 N.C. 709, 178 S.E.2d 422 (1970).
• R.R. v. Gaston, 200 N.C. 780, 158 S.E. 481 (1931).
• D & W, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 268 N.C. 577, 151 S.E.2d 241 (1966).

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/conflicting-definitions-of-pyrotechnics-in-a-state-wide-and-a-local-act/

Original opinion text

The official page rendering begins mid-citation; the opening sentences identifying the requester and the question are not present in the retrieved text. The substantive analysis and conclusion are reproduced here.

[Earlier portion of the opinion not present in the retrieved page; the analysis that follows begins mid-sentence with a citation discussing the default rule that earlier local acts survive subsequent statewide enactments absent a clear contrary intent.]

[N.C. 741, 744, 208 S.E.2d 662, 665 (1974)]. However, a later statute of state-wide application will repeal a former local act where the two are irreconcilable and the legislative intent to make the later statute apply throughout the state without exception is apparent. R.R. Co. v. City of Raleigh, 9 N.C.App. 305, 308, 176 S.E.2d 21, 23, aff'd, 277 N.C. 709, 178 S.E.2d 422 (1970). The same is true for a special statute that is in conflict with a general statute. R.R. v. Gaston, 200 N.C. 780, 782, 158 S.E. 481, 483 (1931). So again, the legislative intent is key.

The 1993 pyrotechnics law, House Bill 1089, 1993 Session Laws, c. 437, has a preamble setting forth the public policy for the change in the general prohibition of the sale, use, or possession of all pyrotechnics. This public policy statement by the legislature considered the rights of the citizenry to celebrate holidays with "safe and sane pyrotechnics", the loss of income by the merchants of this State, and the loss of sales tax revenue to the State and local governments. In so doing, the General Assembly recognized that states bordering North Carolina allowed the sale of pyrotechnics and that North Carolina citizens were purchasing pyrotechnics in other states. The preamble then states, "the General Assembly finds that the citizens of the State should be free to purchase and use safe and sane pyrotechnics." It is our opinion that the intent of the legislature is clear: Those excluded items are not pyrotechnics under State law and should not be barred from sale, use, or possession by any local law.

A specific repeal of the Forsyth County act by the legislature is not necessary. Any inconsistent provision is automatically repealed by implication since the definitions of pyrotechnics in the two laws are irreconcilable. D & W, Inc. v. City of Charlotte, 268 N.C. 577, 590, 151 S.E.2d 241, 250 (1966).

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Andrew A. Vanore, Jr.
Chief Deputy Attorney General

Jeffrey P. Gray
Assistant Attorney General Law Enforcement Liaison Section