NC Senate committee approves permitless carry of concealed firearms for residents 18 and older
(Photo by Aristide Economopoulos/NJ Monitor)
The North Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee voted Tuesday to approve a bill allowing gun owners to carry concealed handguns without obtaining a permit, sending it to another panel.
Senate Bill 50, which bears the title 'Freedom to Carry NC,' would authorize permitless concealed carry for individuals who are U.S. citizens, at least 18 years of age, and not otherwise prohibited by law, according to the bill's text.
Its primary sponsors are Sens. Danny Britt (R-Hoke, Robeson, Scotland), Warren Daniel (R-Buncombe, Burke, McDowell), and Eddie Settle (R-Alexander, Surry, Wilkes, Yadkin). Britt and Daniel are two of the Judiciary Committee's co-chairs.
Senate leader Phil Berger is backing the measure, he shared when sponsors filed it in February.
North Carolina law currently requires gun owners to obtain permits from their local sheriff's office in order to carry a concealed handgun. Concealed carry also requires a minimum of eight hours of training.
'We believe that our constitution is clear that law abiding citizens should be allowed to constitutionally carry,' Britt said. 'We believe they should be able to constitutionally carry without having to jump through the hoops that you do for a concealed carry permit.'
If passed into law, North Carolina would become the 30th state to allow what proponents call 'constitutional carry' — meaning concealed carry without a permit. The legislation would still allow concealed carry permits to be issued 'for the purpose of reciprocity when traveling in another state.'
States allowing permitless concealed carry are not limited to red states, the sponsors pointed out. While neighbors like South Carolina and Tennessee grant it, so do others like Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont.
The panel adopted an amendment clarifying that gun owners would be able to carry concealed handguns but not other types of firearms. Senators chose not to discuss this amendment.
Several witnesses gave brief testimony during the public comment portion of the meeting, providing perspectives from law enforcement, military veterans, and healthcare providers.
Beverly Falls, a retired physician and surgeon, said hospitals regularly practice crisis events.
She described the situation as a 'public health epidemic in this country' due to the vast number of guns. Falls said lax gun laws endanger the public as well as law enforcement.
'It's a tragedy when we have actual events such as mass shootings, where there are no survivors to even arrive at our emergency rooms,' Falls said. 'We need safety measures, not guns.'
Raleigh police officer Hattie Gandhi also spoke against the bill.
She shared a story from her time in law enforcement about how current law prevents violent crime by allowing officers to pursue and detain people who are suspected of carrying concealed weapons.
'Concealed carry permits protect police officers and the public,' she said.
Becky Ceartas, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCGV), suggested adding background checks to the legislation.
In 2023, the General Assembly removed the pistol purchase permitting system, allowing residents to purchase a handgun without getting a permit from a local sheriff.
'If Senate Bill 50 becomes law, it would mean that people as young as 18 years old, with no training and no background check, could carry a hidden loaded weapon in public,' Ceartas said. 'Make no mistake, if Senate Bill 50 passes, the research is clear: it will be paid for in North Carolinian lives.'
NCGV has noted that weakening or removing the concealed carry permitting requirements is associated with a 29% increase in firearm violent crime rates.
The legislation now heads to the Senate Rules Committee.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
Nationwide injunctions are un-American — the Supreme Court must halt them now
Seventy-seven million Americans elected Donald Trump last November. They elected him to make us safer, to restore law and order, and to return common sense to our country. Since his inauguration, President Trump has carried out his promises to the American people, issuing executive orders on a range of policy objectives. That's how it should work in our country — the people choose the president and the president directs the executive branch to enact his agenda. In the opening months of the second Trump administration, however, we've seen a new resistance to Trump's policies. This resistance is anti-democratic and contrary to the rule of law. And it's coming from within the federal judiciary. Since Trump took office, federal district court judges have issued more than 40 nationwide injunctions blocking his agenda. That's on top of 64 issued during his first term, representing a majority of all the nationwide injunctions ever issued in American history. Often filed by liberal activists before sympathetic judges in carefully selected jurisdictions, a nationwide injunction enjoins conduct across the entire country. In this way, it departs from the proper role of a court in adjudicating a particularized dispute between clearly identified parties. Nationwide injunctions have no basis in American legal traditions or English common law. They violate principles of judicial restraint. And their increased use has serious consequences for constitutional order. The Constitution limits judicial power to only those 'cases' and 'controversies' before the courts. That makes sense. Judges shouldn't be issuing decisions that constrain people who never even set foot in the courtroom. But with a nationwide injunction, one federal judge can block a policy affecting millions, creating a judicial policy veto that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Beyond these clear constitutional problems, nationwide injunctions hurt the uniform and efficient administration of justice. These injunctions, especially when issued as temporary restraining orders, don't allow for thorough fact-finding, meaning appellate courts wind up reviewing an incomplete and inaccurate record. They also unfairly benefit special-interest plaintiffs who file identical suits in multiple jurisdictions, because the plaintiffs need only succeed in convincing one court, while the government must successfully defend every case in every jurisdiction. The rise of nationwide injunctions, and their obvious abuses during the first four months of the Trump administration, demand a response. In the House of Representatives, we've passed a bill drafted by Rep. Issa that would restrict a federal judge's ability to issue a nationwide injunction. It's up to the Senate to send it to the president's desk. The Judiciary Committee and its Courts Subcommittee, which we respectively chair, have held hearings and done oversight about the abuse of nationwide injunctions. We've urged congressional appropriators to use the power of the purse to force the judiciary to make reforms. And our work isn't done. But the institution that's best positioned to stop the abuse of nationwide injunctions sits just across from the Capitol Building. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week about nationwide injunctions in an immigration case. That appeal gives the court a chance to rein in the abuse of such injunctions and force lower-court judges to stick to their proper constitutional role. In his confirmation hearing before the Senate, Chief Justice John Roberts famously equated the job of a judge to that of a baseball umpire — calling balls and strikes, and nothing more. Applying his metaphor, a nationwide injunction would mean that an umpire's ball-and-strike call in Cleveland would apply to the game in San Diego, in Houston, and everywhere else. That wouldn't fly in our national past-time and it shouldn't be acceptable in our nation's courtrooms. Our nation is the greatest because 'We the People' have the ultimate authority. We are blessed to live in a democracy where the policy decisions are made by those elected to office — not by unaccountable bureaucrats or unelected judges. The policy agenda of a president elected by 77 million people shouldn't hinge on the separate approvals of 677 unelected district court judges. The Supreme Court must end the abuse of nationwide injunctions. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) oversees the House Judiciary Committee; Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) chairs its Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Incumbents return to office in Bluefield city election
bluefield — There were no surprises in Bluefield's municipal election. The incumbents ran unopposed and were re-elected, according to unofficial returns. Voter turnout in the city was light, according to City Clerk Anthony Heltzel. The election was held Tuesday with voters casting ballots in three different districts. The results will be canvassed on June 9 at 9 a.m. In District 1, Treyvon Simmons was re-elected with 38 votes. In District 2, Mayor Ron Martin was re-elected with 46 votes. In District 3, Daniel Wells was re-elected with 29 votes. Simmons, Martin and Wells will serve another four-year term on the Bluefield Board of Directors. 'I'm deeply honored to have the opportunity to serve a third term on the Bluefield City Council,' Ron Martin, the city's current mayor, said. 'Though uncontested, I don't take this lightly — continued trust of Bluefield's citizens means everything. I'm committed to working hard every day to move Bluefield forward and make our city the best it can be for all who call it home.' Heltzel said the remaining incumbents on the city board won't be up for re-election until 2027. They include at-large board members Matt Knowles and Peter Taylor. But a new law passed earlier this year by the West Virginia Legislature could impact that election. Senate Bill 50 was signed into law by Gov. Patrick Morrisey earlier this year. It will require all towns and cities in West Virginia to hold their elections on the same day that statewide general or primary elections are held. 'Now the city of Bluefield will have to do that, but we aren't for sure when that will be implemented yet,' Heltzel said. 'So it may effect when the next election is.' Heltzel said the city can't extend term limits of elected board members. He said the city hopes to receive more information and guidance with regards to the new law in the future. Contact Charles Owens at cowens@
