AG 2011 01 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2009 bills as Lp . protection based on the kind of surface it is applied to." (33 The court also alluded to a 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center finding that 36 % of Americans aged 18- 25, 40% of those aged 26 -40, and 10% of those aged 41 -64 had at least one tattoo. The Hermosa Beach case is at variance with over a half dozen federal and state court cases from around the country. One of those cases is State v. White, 348 S. C. 532, 560 S.E.2d 420 (2002), a South Carolina Supreme Court case in which a tattoo artist was convicted of violating a South Carolina statute prohibiting tattooing except by a licensed physician for cosmetic or reconstructive purposes. (At the time South Carolina was one of four states with a similar prohibition.) The South Carolina court concluded that tattooing was not a form of speech but instead was a form of conduct by the person applying the tattoo that was not sufficiently communicative in character to merit First Amendment protection. What relevance does a federal case from California have for North Carolinians ?. Did the author of this blog spend too much time on vacation earlier this month on the southern California beaches? Tattooing has increased dramatically in North Carolina during the last decade. By one estimate the number of tattoo businesses in North Carolina increased 45% in 2009. Yet leaders and local government officials in some smaller towns remain uncomfortable with tattoo parlors and the culture that they represent. Hermosa Beach -style bans on tattooing are not uncommon in North Carolina. .E a zoning -based tattoo parlor ban were challenged in North Carolina, however, courts might not need to base a decision on constitutional grounds. A local ban in North Carolina on tattooing would be invalid because such a ban would be preempted by state law. G.S. 160A -174 I which establishes standards for preemption, lists situations in which an ordinance is inconsistent with North Carolina (or federal) law and is thus preempted. G.S. 160A- 174(b)(2) provides that an ordinance is inconsistent with state law if the ordinance "makes unlawful an act, omission, or condition which is expressly made lawful by State or federal law." Does North Carolina. law make tattooing expressly lawful in our state? It certainly seems to. G.S. 130A -283 (61 establishes a limited regulatory framework administered through the Department of Environment and. Natural Resources, acting through local health departments. Tattooing permits are required for anyone who engages in the activity of tattooing, as defined in G.S. 130A -283. Technical, non - discretionary standards are set forth in sections of the North Carolina Administrative Code for obtaining a tattoo permit. Such a permit is personal to the holder and allows that person to engage In tattooing only at a particular location. Also,. 14- 400 T it a misdemeanor in this state for anyone to tattoo anyone else who is under 18 years of age. North Carolina's. public policy as reflected in its regulatory framework is not intended "to provide a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation." (G..S. 160A- 174(b)(5)). That suggests a different basis for state preemption and a more ambitious role for Page 331 bttp://sbgweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/localgovt/?p=3233&p_Tint7- 12/6/20.10 .� Ik .E a zoning -based tattoo parlor ban were challenged in North Carolina, however, courts might not need to base a decision on constitutional grounds. A local ban in North Carolina on tattooing would be invalid because such a ban would be preempted by state law. G.S. 160A -174 I which establishes standards for preemption, lists situations in which an ordinance is inconsistent with North Carolina (or federal) law and is thus preempted. G.S. 160A- 174(b)(2) provides that an ordinance is inconsistent with state law if the ordinance "makes unlawful an act, omission, or condition which is expressly made lawful by State or federal law." Does North Carolina. law make tattooing expressly lawful in our state? It certainly seems to. G.S. 130A -283 (61 establishes a limited regulatory framework administered through the Department of Environment and. Natural Resources, acting through local health departments. Tattooing permits are required for anyone who engages in the activity of tattooing, as defined in G.S. 130A -283. Technical, non - discretionary standards are set forth in sections of the North Carolina Administrative Code for obtaining a tattoo permit. Such a permit is personal to the holder and allows that person to engage In tattooing only at a particular location. Also,. 14- 400 T it a misdemeanor in this state for anyone to tattoo anyone else who is under 18 years of age. North Carolina's. public policy as reflected in its regulatory framework is not intended "to provide a complete and integrated regulatory scheme to the exclusion of local regulation." (G..S. 160A- 174(b)(5)). That suggests a different basis for state preemption and a more ambitious role for Page 331 bttp://sbgweb.sog.unc.edu/blogs/localgovt/?p=3233&p_Tint7- 12/6/20.10