In mid-August, Ed Ellison, Cape Fear Academy's head of school, sent out a message to parents announcing two things: first, the school had secured a School Resource Officer from the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office; second, Randy Johnson was retiring from his position as Director of Security after three years to “seek other opportunities.”
The timing of the two announcements was not an accident — and according to Johnson, it involved an act of retaliation by Sheriff Ed McMahon, who was Johnson’s boss for years when he served as a deputy. McMahon strongly denies that.
In the weeks and months leading up to Johnson’s retirement, Cape Fear Academy (CFA) had approached the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office (NHCSO) to secure a School Resource Officer (SRO).
The deputy was intended to complement Johnson, not replace him, according to Ed Ellison, head of school for CFA.
The deal would cost CFA around $68,000, which covers salary and benefits, and the SRO would work in an NHCSO uniform, along with county-funded vehicle and equipment. SROs are provided at the discretion of the Sheriff on a case-by-case basis; NHCSO says it considers each school equally, and is currently providing four SROs to private schools.
However, Sheriff McMahon told the school that Johnson — his former deputy — was in violation of state law G.S. 14-269.2 which forbids carrying weapons on school campuses and other educational property — and also lays out a host of exceptions.
In many cases, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials with questions about applying the law consult their local District Attorney’s office. And, according to District Attorney Ben David, his office did share an interpretation of the law with NHCSO, although he declined to share that analysis with the public.
However, in his communication with CFA, McMahon didn’t cite the District Attorney’s office.
Instead, he cited legal analysis provided by the North Carolina Sheriff’s Association (NCSA), an influential organization representing the state’s 100 sheriffs. McMahon served as president in 2022, wrapped up a one-year term as NCSA chairman in July, and is currently 1st vice president.
McMahon confirmed he had consulted the District Attorney's office, but didn't answer questions about what guidance the DA had offered or why he hadn’t cited it, choosing to cite the NCSA guidance instead.
Emails shared by Johnson and Ellison show that McMahon used that guidance from the Sheriffs' Association to tell CFA that unless Johnson was disarmed, the school couldn’t have an SRO.
Johnson protested that he was lawfully allowed to carry his weapon at work on CFA campus — under not one but two separate exemptions, including one laid out by federal law. He asked Ellison to get a second opinion from CFA’s attorney and the North Carolina Association of Independent Schools. But Ellison chose not to dispute McMahon’s interpretation.
“I wasn't thrilled with the idea of disarming Randy [Johnson],” Ellison told WHQR. “But I felt honestly, legally, I didn't have a choice. And so when we did that, I said, ‘Randy, I don't want to fire you. So I'll allow you to be here. But you can't be armed.’”
Alleged retaliation
Johnson stayed on as security director, unarmed, for about two weeks, while CFA worked out the deal for an SRO. Ultimately, he resigned, saying that carrying a firearm had been intrinsic to the job description when he accepted the position. He also said that he would have felt unsafe being unable to defend himself or the students at CFA without a firearm.
Johnson told WHQR he felt his hand had been forced and that, while he had technically resigned, he felt he’d been pushed out in an act of retaliation.
He noted that he had carried his firearm on campus for years, including frequent events where he worked alongside NHCSO deputies who had been hired as additional security. Johnson said he felt no one had ever taken issue with his firearm because they knew he was lawfully carrying it — but that the SRO request gave McMahon leverage.
“Yes, I do feel it was retaliatory because there was never an issue until the quid pro quo agreement was mentioned,” Johnson said. “They wanted to take away my ability to carry my firearm as Director of Security because of my past litigation involving a successful Title IX complaint that put into question the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office and New Hanover County Schools district handling of sexual assaults.”
Johnson had filed a Title IX complaint against the New Hanover County Schools based on issues dating back to 2015. His daughter was assaulted off campus by a fellow studentfrom the school she attended, telling her she could transfer to J.C. Roe — the district’s disciplinary school — if she felt unsafe.
Five years later, an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education forced the district to admit serious Title IX failures, including by Sheriff McMahon’s longtime friend, former Deputy Superintendent Dr. Rick Holliday.
McMahon recognized Holliday’s ‘long partnership’ with the NHCSO with an award, rankling many because Holliday was resigning under public scrutiny and multiple allegations as part of civil and criminal investigations into the school district's administration).
“They’re all good friends,” Johnson said. “This was definitely done because of personal issues between us.”
At the time, Johnson was already a veteran officer with over 20 years of service. He said that he’d served for years without issue, but after he started advocating for his daughter — which meant challenging Holliday, at the time the district’s Title IX coordinator — the working environment soured. He retired after 14 years at NHCSO in 2020.
McMahon said there was absolutely no truth to allegations that his actions were retaliatory.
Reversing course
All of this is complicated by the fact that after interviewing legal experts, the general counsel at NCSA, the head of CFA, and others, WHQR was able to establish that Sheriff McMahon’s directive was wrong.
Initially, when asked about the requirement that Johnson be disarmed, NHCSO responded with the same Sheriff’s Association guidance that had been sent to CFA.
However, the general counsel for the Sheriff’s Association had told WHQR in emails and phone interviews that, in fact, Johnson was legally carrying — an interpretation shared by an expert at the University of North Carolina’s School of Government.
Several days after receiving NHCSO’s initial response, WHQR followed up with this information. Sheriff McMahon then gave a very different answer.
“Thank you for bringing this to my attention. After carefully reviewing the information, I realized I was incorrect,” McMahon responded by email through a spokesperson, adding that he had also contacted CFA to notify them of his error.
But how did this happen — especially since NCSA’s own general counsel, who had provided McMahon with the legal analysis, agreed that Johnson was within his legal rights to carry a weapon?
What federal and state law says
Three years ago, when Johnson was hired at Cape Fear Academy, one of the requirements was that he be eligible to carry a weapon on campus under a federal law known as LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act) or HR218.
The details of the exemption can be confusing, since it involves several statutes working in conjunction. But, according to Professor Jeffrey Welty, an expert on criminal law who has worked with the UNC School of Government for 15 years, the bottom line is that a ‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’ (QRLEO) as defined by HR218 can carry on campus.
Hiring under HR218 isn’t uncommon; a quick search of online job posting sites shows that several other private schools around the state, including St. Mark Catholic School here in Wilmington, have recently hired or are currently hiring security director positions and listing HR218 qualifications on the job applications.
One of the qualifications of this is that QRLEOs have to meet the same annual firearm proficiency standards as active law enforcement officers. This can be done through a law enforcement agency or state-certified firearms instruction.
While many law enforcement agencies hold the certificate for retired employees for a period of time, documents provided by Johnson show NHCSO notified him that it would no longer hold his, less than a month after he left.
So, he earned his certification at the Holly Ridge Police Department, where Police Chief Mike Sorg — also a longtime former NHCSO deputy — confirmed Johnson is employed as a reserve officer. Johnson told WHQR he actually saved Cape Fear Academy money on private certification this way.
Because of his role at Holly Ridge PD, Johnson is also considered an active duty law enforcement officer under the law — which is another exemption to the state law, allowing him to carry on campus.
In a series of phone interviews and email exchanges, Eddie Caldwell — general counsel and lobbyist for the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association — confirmed repeatedly that under state and federal law Johnson was allowed to lawfully carry a weapon on Cape Fear Academy.
Caldwell told WHQR that he had authored the guidance on 14-269.2 to McMahon.
“The Association's response to NHCSO was sent in July and was originally drafted by me on my iPhone while out of the office in response to a telephone inquiry I received, the details of which I cannot recall verbatim today,” Caldwell said.
But, although Caldwell insists that guidance was clear and accurate, it’s hard to argue it wasn’t confusing, at best.
NCSA’s guidance to Sheriff McMahon read:
G.S. 14-269.2 prohibits persons from possessing firearms on school campuses, including private schools, unless specifically authorized by one of the exceptions to this rule set out in G.S. 14-269.2(g). There is no exception for private security guards, or any other private person, to have a firearm on a private school campus when school activities are being held.
Therefore, it is unlawful for a private security guard, who is not a sworn law-enforcement officer within their own jurisdiction, to possess a firearm on the campus of a private school when school activities are being conducted. This is correct even if the armed security guard has a permit from the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board.
The only exception for possessing firearms on private school property by non-law-enforcement officers applies when the school is also used for religious services and the exemption only applies when the school premises are NOT being used for curricular or extracurricular activities, for school-sponsored activities, or for any programs for minors conducted by entities unaffiliated with the religious institution.
Caldwell is not new to the interpretation of legal issues around law enforcement. He has worked for NCSA since the mid-90s, and currently makes around $400,000 a year as the organization’s general counsel and registered lobbyist, according to the most recent IRS filing in 2022.
Apples to apples
It’s not clear why Caldwell brings up security guards in the first paragraph. Ellison confirmed that CFA never considered Johnson’s role to be a security guard. While Johnson was required to carry a firearm in the case of an emergency situation, most of his role was administrative — developing strategies and policies, coordinating with other departments, and ensuring legal compliance for safety issues.
It’s true that if Johnson was considered a security guard he would need to be licensed by the state’sPrivate Protective Services Board — but that was not the issue McMahon ultimately brought up with the school, and it wouldn't preclude him from legally carrying as either a qualified retired or currently sworn law enforcement officer.
It’s also not clear why Caldwell brought up the issue of ‘jurisdiction’ in the second paragraph:
Therefore, it is unlawful for a private security guard, who is not a sworn law-enforcement officer within their own jurisdiction, to possess a firearm on the campus of a private school when school activities are being conducted.
Jurisdiction is not mentioned once in either the state or federal laws involved. Johnson’s exemptions hinge only on his being a qualified law enforcement officer—– which he is — and a sworn officer — regardless of where.
Despite being asked repeatedly why he or NCSA introduced the irrelevant issue of jurisdiction, Caldwell never provided a clear answer. He said only that it was “relevant to the circumstance I understood to be relevant to the original inquiry” — the question from McMahon about which Caldwell said he couldn’t remember the details.
Caldwell repeatedly claimed that his guidance covered one of the 22 exemptions to G.S. 14-269.2 and that while it wasn’t “exhaustive” it wasn’t inaccurate.
“So if he was a sworn law enforcement officer within his jurisdiction, he can carry a gun on campus. If he's a sworn law enforcement officer, outside of his own jurisdiction, he could also carry a gun on campus,” Caldwell said.
But, confusingly, Caldwell’s guidance didn't seem to be about an exemption that would allow Johnson to carry legally. It was about a situation where carrying would be “unlawful.”
Pushed, Caldwell resorted to analogy.
“It's not exhaustive. In other words, if I say, ‘Well, we had red apples for lunch,’ we may have also had green apples and yellow apples for lunch. But I didn't tell you no, that's not the whole story, or that's not all options — but that's accurate. So that's the way I read it is that what's here is accurate. It's not as exhaustive. It doesn't address all scenarios,” Caldwell said.
After several interviews, Caldwell admitted his message might not have gotten across clearly.
“I tell somebody, ‘we had red apples for lunch.’ And they make the assumption, perhaps a reasonable assumption, that we did not have green apples or yellow apples. But we did — I just didn't address that. That's just another option. So that's the way I would look at it as sort of a miscommunication,” Caldwell said.
Despite Caldwell’s insistence that his guidance was accurate and not misleading, Sheriff McMahon clearly took away the opposite message that Caldwell said he was conveying.
McMahon sent Caldwell’s guidance verbatim to CFA as evidence that Johnson was carrying unlawfully — and the irrelevant inclusion of jurisdiction played a major role in CFA’s decision to disarm Johnson. When Ellison informed Johnson that CFA couldn’t let him remain armed on campus, he specifically noted in an email that “the Sheriff will not enter into a contract with us for an SRO if anyone else on campus is armed, unless that person is a sworn law enforcement officer of the county (regardless of our interpretation of HR 218).”
And, when WHQR initially inquired about the situation, a NHCSO spokesperson sent Caldwell’s guidance, verbatim, to explain why the Sheriff’s Office had refused to provide an SRO while Johnson was armed.
When pushed one final time about the confusing nature of the guidance he had provided, noting that it had clearly been confusing to the parties involved as well as those WHQR consulted, Caldwell responded cryptically by email.
“You have not gotten anywhere close to finding out what really happened because evidently the person you're talking to hasn't shared the whole story with you and the school is not talking to you about it. But I'm not in a position to provide that information,” Caldwell said.
He declined to provide any other information to clarify these remarks.
Humpty Dumpty
While we may never know “what really happened” — as Caldwell alluded to — we do know the basics:
McMahon consulted the District Attorney’s office and the Sheriff’s Association about the legal issues of carrying a firearm on campus; McMahon chose to cite the NCSA guidance when informing Cape Fear Academy that its Director of Security was carrying illegally and that his office would not provide a School Resource Officer until he was disarmed; Johnson resigned, feeling that this was a retaliatory effort to force him out of his job. McMahon, when confronted with NCSA’s own reading of the law, reversed course, admitted he was mistaken, and informed CFA of his error.
When asked if he felt any responsibility for Johnson leaving his job, McMahon responded, “No, I am not responsible, I can’t comment on how someone feels nor should I.”
So, now what?
In an earlier conversation, after acknowledging there had been a “miscommunication,” Caldwell suggested that the events of the last several months could be undone.
“This guy's a sworn law enforcement officer and the school could hire him back and that would kind of put Humpty Dumpty back together again,” Caldwell said.
It seems that CFA held Johnson in high regard and bore him no ill will, as evidenced by the letter sent by Ellison to CFA families, announcing his retirement.
“Having served as our Director of Security for the past three years, Randy [Johnson] has helped us to implement stronger security systems and procedures. Well known and highly visible on campus, Randy has fostered connections and a sense of security that have enhanced our sense of safety at CFA. We are truly grateful for his hard work. While Randy is resigning from his security position, he is not leaving our community entirely. He will continue to coach the JV Boys Basketball team,” Ellison wrote.
Asked if CFA would offer Johnson his job back, Ellison declined to comment.
“Any further discussion about Randy Johnson's employment at CFA should be between him and the school,” Ellison said.
As of Wednesday morning, Johnson had not heard from CFA about the Director of Security position.
