Could a North Carolina home-schooled teenager who used a hunting rifle on family property under a parent's supervision lose their learner's permit or driver's license under the 'Lose Control, Lose Your License' law?

Plain-English summary

In 1999 the General Assembly enacted "Lose Control, Lose Your License," a sanction tying teenagers' driving privileges to their conduct in school. If a student under 18 brought a weapon to school, brought drugs or alcohol to school, or physically assaulted a teacher, and the school took specified disciplinary action, the student lost their driver's license or learner's permit for a year. The law was set to take effect July 1, 2000. Critically, the statute extended the rules to home schools, not just public and private schools.

That last detail produced a practical worry. A home-schooled student living on family land in rural North Carolina might regularly use a hunting rifle on the property, often under a parent's direct supervision, sometimes for the purpose of safety lessons. Was the home school the equivalent of "school property" under the new law? Did a parent's permission count as something other than a "disciplinary action"? Could the student lose their driving privileges for behavior the parent had expressly authorized?

R. Glen Peterson, General Counsel to the Department of Administration, asked the AG to apply the statute to that hypothetical. Senior Deputy AG Grayson Kelley, Special Deputy Thomas Ziko Jr., and Assistant AG Thomas Lawton said the student did not lose driving privileges in that scenario.

The reading turned on the precise text of the trigger. G.S. § 20-11(n1)(1)d defined "enumerated student conduct" as one of three behaviors "that results in disciplinary action." Subsection 2 of that paragraph then identified one of the three behaviors as "the bringing, possession, or use on school property of a weapon or firearm that resulted in disciplinary action under G.S. 115C-391(d1) or that could have resulted in that disciplinary action if the conduct had occurred in a public school." The AG read the master clause ("results in disciplinary action") as the controlling element. The subordinate clause about hypothetical public-school discipline did not stand alone; it modified what counted as a weapon-related triggering event, but only when the conduct had actually resulted in disciplinary action in the first place.

"Disciplinary action" itself was tightly defined in G.S. § 20-11(n1)(1)c as expulsion, suspension for more than 10 consecutive days, or assignment to an alternative educational setting for more than 10 consecutive days. A parent who gives a child permission to use a firearm on family property has not expelled, suspended, or reassigned the child. There was no disciplinary action. Without one, the statute's predicate failed and the student's license was safe.

The AG was careful to add the symmetric point: if a home-school parent did take statutorily defined disciplinary action against the student for a weapon-related incident, the law would apply. The home-school exemption did not depend on the home-school status itself, but on the absence of any matching disciplinary act.

The opinion drew on the standard rules of statutory construction. Citing Stevenson v. Durham (1972) and State v. Blackstock (1985), the AG noted that legislative intent controls and is gleaned from the statute's language, spirit, and aim. The legislation's overall design rewarded school attendance and good behavior while preserving administrator discretion (including parental discretion in home-school settings) over what level of discipline made sense. That design was best served by reading the trigger to require actual disciplinary action.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. G.S. § 20-11(n1) and the related public-school discipline provisions in G.S. § 115C-391 (now reorganized into G.S. §§ 115C-390.1 et seq. after the 2011 student-discipline rewrite) have been amended significantly since 2000. The home-school and weapon-on-property questions in 2026 should be re-analyzed against the present statutory text.

Background and statutory framework

The Lose Control law's premise. Session Law 1999-243 created G.S. § 20-11(n1) to make driving privileges contingent on school behavior. The General Assembly's idea: a teenager who lost the right to drive for misbehavior at school had a powerful incentive to stay enrolled, attend, and avoid suspension. The statute extended to home schools to prevent parents from sidestepping the consequence by withdrawing the student from public or private school and reclassifying the household as a home school.

Three triggering behaviors. Subsection (n1)(1)d listed three categories of "enumerated student conduct" that, when accompanied by disciplinary action, triggered the license consequence:

1. Possession or sale of alcohol or a controlled substance on school property.
2. Bringing, possessing, or using a weapon or firearm on school property in a way that resulted in (or could have resulted in, if at a public school) disciplinary action under G.S. § 115C-391(d1).
3. Physical assault on a teacher or other school personnel on school property.

Each of these was subject to the master clause "that results in disciplinary action."

"Disciplinary action," tightly defined. Subsection (n1)(1)c restricted "disciplinary action" to three forms: expulsion, suspension of more than 10 consecutive days, or assignment to an alternative educational setting for more than 10 consecutive days. Anything short of that, including in-school suspension, a verbal warning, a parent-teacher conference, or a one-day-out, did not count.

Home-school discretion preserved. The legislative scheme deferred to the discretion of school administrators (including home-school administrators) to decide whether discipline was warranted. The AG read that design as evidence that the General Assembly did not intend to override a home-school parent's judgment about what constituted a disciplinable event on the home-school's grounds. If a parent did not consider supervised lawful firearm use on family land a disciplinable event, the statute followed the parent's judgment.

Statutory construction. The AG cited Stevenson v. Durham (1972) for the proposition that legislative intent is the controlling consideration, and State v. Blackstock (1985) for the same principle. Both decisions instructed courts to read statutes in light of their language, spirit, and intended effect. Read together, those rules pointed the AG toward giving full meaning to the master clause and not treating the subordinate "could have resulted in" language as an independent trigger.

The symmetric trigger. The AG made clear that home-school students were not categorically immune. If a home-school parent decided supervised use of a weapon was a disciplinable event and imposed expulsion (which, in a one-student home school, might look like ending the home-school program), suspension over 10 days, or alternative-setting placement, the statute would activate. The exemption was about the absence of triggering disciplinary action, not about the home-school setting itself.

Common questions

Q: Did this opinion mean a home-schooled student could bring a firearm to a public-school event without losing their license?

A: No. The statute looked at conduct "on school property." Conduct on a public-school campus, even by a home-schooled visitor, would be on school property of a public school. The opinion addressed only home-school grounds, where the home-schooled student was the only student and the home was the school.

Q: Could a home-school parent voluntarily report the conduct to DMV?

A: The opinion did not address that. The statutory trigger required disciplinary action; reporting alone was not a disciplinary action under § 20-11(n1)(1)c.

Q: What if the parent grounded the student or imposed informal discipline?

A: Informal discipline did not fit the statutory definition. The statute required expulsion, suspension over 10 consecutive days, or alternative-setting assignment over 10 consecutive days. Informal grounding was outside that list.

Q: Did the opinion address what counted as "supervision" by a parent?

A: It did not draw a clear line. The factual setup in Peterson's letter described use under parental supervision on the parent's property with the parent's permission. The AG accepted those facts and ruled on them; the boundaries of "supervision" were left for case-by-case judgment.

Citations from the opinion

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)a.
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)c.
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d.
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d.2.
• N.C. Sess. Law c. 243 (1999)
• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-391(d1)
• Stevenson v. Durham, 281 N.C. 300, 188 S.E.2d 281 (1972)
• State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 333 S.E.2d 245 (1985)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/lose-control-lose-your-license-legislation-and-home-schools/

Original opinion text

R. Glen Peterson, General Counsel

N.C. Department of Administration, 1301 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-1301

Re: Advisory Opinion; "Lose Control, Lose Your License" Legislation and Home Schools; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d.2

Dear Mr. Peterson,

By memorandum dated April 28, 2000, you asked this office's opinion regarding the application of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d.2. to home school students. In particular, you asked whether the application of that statute would result in a one-year loss of the driver's license or learner's permit for a home school student who used a weapon or firearm in a lawful manner under the supervision of his or her parent/guardian on the property of the parent/guardian.

It is our opinion that, in the circumstances you describe, application of the statute would not result in the loss of the student's driver's license or learner's permit.

The "primary rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature controls the interpretation of a statute." Stevenson v. Durham, 281 N.C. 300, 303, 188 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1972). See also State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 240, 333 S.E.2d 245, 250 (1985) ("cardinal principle of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature is controlling"). That intent is ascertained by "consider[ing] the language of the statute, the spirit of the act, and what the act seeks to accomplish." Stevenson v. Durham, 281 N.C. at 303, 188 S.E.2d at 283.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d.2., which becomes effective on July 1, 2000, was enacted as part of the "Lose Control, Lose Your License" legislation. N.C. Sess. Law c. 243 (1999). This legislation expressly applies to home schools. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)a. Generally, the legislation links the availability of driving privileges for students under 18 to their performance and conduct in school by denying driving privileges to or revoking the driving privileges of students who engage in defined "enumerated student conduct." See generally N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1). The legislation not only encourages students to attend school and to perform and behave well in school, but also preserves the discretion of school administrators, including home-school administrators, to decide whether and what level of discipline is appropriate in particular circumstances.

Toward that end, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d. specifically and precisely defines "enumerated student conduct" as follows:

d. Enumerated student conduct. — One of the following behaviors that results in disciplinary action:

1. The possession or sale of an alcoholic beverage or an illegal controlled substance on school property.
2. The bringing, possession, or use on school property of a weapon or firearm that resulted in disciplinary action under G.S. 115C-391(d1) or that could have resulted in that disciplinary action if the conduct had occurred in a public school.
3. The physical assault on a teacher or other school personnel on school property.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d. (emphasis added). The statute unambiguously defines "enumerated student conduct" to be conduct which actually "results in disciplinary action." Id. We believe the statutory predicate of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d. — that the behavior actually "result[] in disciplinary action" — takes precedence over the later language in the subordinate clause of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)d.2. The statute also defines "disciplinary action" to be "[a]n expulsion, a suspension, for more than 10 consecutive days, or an assignment to an alternative educational setting for more than 10 consecutive days." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)(1)c.

Under the circumstances you have described, the parent/guardian has taken no disciplinary action; in fact, the parent has given permission for possession or use of the weapon. Thus, the conduct in question does not fulfill the statutory predicate and does not fall within the statutory definition of "enumerated student conduct" in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-11(n1)d. Of course, if the parent/guardian does take statutorily defined disciplinary action under appropriate circumstances, then the conduct would fall within the statutory definition of "enumerated student conduct," and the student would lose his or her driving privileges.

Therefore, it is our opinion that a student enrolled in a home school who lawfully uses a weapon on the property of the parent/guardian, with the parent/guardian's permission and under the parent/guardian's supervision, does not engage in "enumerated student conduct" which results in loss or denial of driving privileges.

Signed by:

Grayson G. Kelley, Senior Deputy Attorney General

Thomas J. Ziko, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General

Thomas O. Lawton III, Assistant Attorney General