Newly released polls: Most in NC oppose repealing permit requirement for carrying concealed handguns
A 7-year-old boy picks up a handgun during the 2022 National Rifle Association annual convention in Houston. The number of firearm deaths among children and teens in the United States have jumped 50% since 2019. ()
A significant majority of North Carolina residents oppose laws that would allow people to carry concealed handguns without a permit, according to polls released in recent days by Elon University and the advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.
Though it was conducted several months ago, the Everytown for Gun Safety survey, released Wednesday, found that a large majority of likely North Carolina voters (77%) were against removing permit requirements from concealed carry laws.
Global Strategy Group conducted a survey of 800 likely voters in North Carolina between September 4 and September 9, 2024 for Everytown for Gun Safety. The poll had a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.
The Elon University poll, released last Thursday, found that 54% of respondents opposed dropping the concealed carry permit while only 34% support such a change.
The Elon poll was conducted March 3 through 11, 2025, with a sample of 800 North Carolina adults and a margin of error of +/- 4.04%.
Poll director Prof. Jason Husser told NC Newsline he found it particularly noteworthy that a large percentage of Republicans had concerns about permitless carry and that less than half (48%) favor removing the requirement. While he noted that the survey did not explore the question in depth, Husser opined that 'many of the Republicans who have these permits feel like it was not that invasive or intrusive to have the process — they already went through it, and don't really see a need to change it.'
The analyses come as state legislators are debating Senate Bill 50 and House Bill 5, two measures aiming to enact what supporters call 'constitutional carry' — the idea that individuals should be able to carry concealed weapons without permits due to their Second Amendment rights.
Current North Carolina law requires individuals to obtain a permit from their local sheriff's office and undergo an eight-hour training course in order to carry a concealed firearm.
In addition to the bulk of North Carolinians opposing permitless carry, the Everytown polling found that 66% of gun owners did as well.
85% of women are against permitless carry, as are 66% of men, the Everytown survey found.
There was a similar trend when considering political party. 96% of Democrats, 77% of independents, and 60% of Republicans oppose permitless carry, according to the Everytown poll.
In each category surveyed across partisan, gender, racial, and education groups, more people were against permitless carry than in support.
'The data couldn't be clearer — North Carolinians don't want to live in a state where untrained, potentially dangerous individuals can carry hidden guns in our communities. This isn't just a policy issue; it's a matter of public safety,' said Wendy Brooks, a volunteer with the North Carolina chapter of Moms Demand Action, Everytown Survivor Fellow, and gun owner.
At the North Carolina state legislature, Senate Bill 50 passed the Senate on March 20 and is now in the House, while House Bill 5 awaits approval from another committee in the lower chamber.
On Tuesday, the House Judiciary 2 Committee approved House Bill 193, a measure that would allow handguns in private schools.
'If North Carolina lawmakers truly want to represent their constituents, including gun owners and Republicans, they should reject this reckless attempt to dismantle the concealed carry permitting system and instead focus on real solutions that will keep communities safe,' said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
17 minutes ago
- The Hill
House Republicans tee up tweaks to Trump megabill
House Republican leaders on Tuesday teed up changes to the 'big, beautiful bill' of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities that are slated to come up for a vote of the full chamber this week. The tweaks come after the Senate parliamentarian reviewed the sprawling package and identified provisions that do not comply with the upper chamber's procedural requirements for using the budget reconciliation process, which allows Republicans to circumvent a Democratic filibuster and approve the legislation by simple majority. Leaving the language in the bill risks losing the ability to pass the bill under budget reconciliation. The parliamentarian's process is known as the 'Byrd bath.' One House Republican described the House tweaks as preventing 'fatalities' from remaining in the bill when it hits the Senate. 'There are a small number, I mean, could count them on one hand, of fatalities that have been identified by the parliamentarian,' the GOP lawmaker said. 'Of course we can't transmit the bill with fatalities so those fatalities will be cured through a rule this week.' While the lower chamber is planning to strip those terms from the bill, party leaders are not giving up on the policy: House Minority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Senate Republicans will fight for the provisions when the bill hits the floor. 'We disagree; ultimately we're gonna try it again on the Senate floor,' Scalise told reporters. 'We disagree with the parliamentarian… but you can't take the risk on any of them. You cannot take the risk because if any one of them is ruled on the Senate floor to be fatal, it's a 60-vote bill. The whole bill is a 60-vote bill — you can't take that risk.' The full House will vote on approving those changes this week, with the adjustments tacked on to a 'rule' resolution — a procedural measure that governs debate for legislation. The rule making the fixes to the megabill will also tee up the terms of debate for unrelated legislation to claw back $9.4 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. It advanced out of the Rules Committee on a party-line, 8-4 vote Tuesday evening. Rule resolutions are typically passed along party lines and are tests of party loyalty, but Republicans sometimes buck leadership and vote against the procedural rules in protest of process or policy. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) — one of two House Republicans who voted no on the bill when it passed the Hoise last month — voiced his disapproval of making the changes to the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' via a rule in a post on X. 'Nancy Pelosi once said the House needed to vote for a bill to find out what was in it. Today @SpeakerJohnson said 'hold my beer.' He just announced he's using the Rules Committee to change the text of the Big Beautiful Bill a week after we voted on it!' Massie said. While House Republicans have already passed the bill in the lower chamber they have not officially transmitted it to the Senate — enabling them to make the fixes via the rule mechanism. Republicans are using the special budget reconciliation to push the megabill through Congress while avoiding the Senate's 60-vote cloture rule, enabling them to pass the bill on party lines without support from Democrats. The tweaks in the House come as party leaders are holding out hope that they can enact the package by July 4, which was their self-imposed deadline. Trump, however, opened the door to the process blowing past that timeline, saying 'if takes a little longer, that's okay.'

USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns
'Political props': From deployment to a parade, Trump's use of military prompts concerns Show Caption Hide Caption See how Los Angeles protests intensified over one weekend What started as a small protest over immigration raids on Friday ballooned into large demonstrations throughout the weekend. Here's what happened. President Donald Trump is sending the military into American streets in provocative ways, with a deployment to quell protests and a massive military parade, projecting power and celebrating troops while raising alarms among critics. Trump has long talked about wielding the military more aggressively for domestic purposes. He clashed with military leaders who resisted some of his requests during his first administration. Trump's approach to the military is coming into focus again during a week that began with the Commander-in-Chief deploying Marines and National Guard troops to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, and will end with the planned military parade celebrating the Army's birthday. 'I think Trump looks at the military as political props used to demonstrate his authority,' said former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton, now a frequent critic of the president. Trump's recent military actions and parade plans are drawing comparisons to authoritarian regimes. Newsom said Trump is acting like a 'dictator.' Administration officials have said the military is needed in L.A. to maintain order. Questioned by members of Congress about the troop deployment during a June 10 hearing, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth described the situation in L.A. as 'lawless' and said, 'President Trump believes in law and order.' "If we didn't get involved, right now Los Angeles would be burning," Trump said June 10 during an event in the Oval Office. In the past, Trump's views on the military and concerns about how he might wield troops domestically have generated bipartisan pushback. After Trump lost the 2020 election and refused to accept the results, all 10 living secretaries of Defense – Republicans and Democrats – signed a letter urging military leaders not to get involved in the election aftermath, signaling apprehension that Trump would use the military in ways they described as 'dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional.' Former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn suggested in a television interview after the 2020 election that the president could invoke martial law and seize voting machines to rerun the election, which former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper later described in his book as 'scary.' Trump asked Flynn about the martial law idea during a White House meeting in December 2020, according to media reports. With that backdrop, Democrats and other Trump critics are raising concerns about the potential consequences of Trump's decision to send troops to Los Angeles, his planned parade and future military escalations he might consider. During his first term, military leaders sometimes pushed back on his suggestions, people who 'we may euphemistically call, 'the adults in the room,'" said William Banks, a constitutional law professor emeritus at Syracuse University and founding director of the Institute on National Security and Counter Terrorism. 'I think his senior people today are of a far different caliber," Banks said. "Put pejoratively, they're sycophants.' Mulling the Insurrection Act Some Legal experts question whether Trump has the authority to circumvent Newsom and deploy the California National Guard under the law he's using. California has sued to stop Trump's deployment. 'It's sort of wading into uncharted legal territory, and it raises a lot of legal questions and concerns, frankly, the way that he is using this law,' said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. Looming over the discussion is the Insurrection Act, which Trump sought to invoke during his first term. It gives the president wide leeway to use troops domestically. Trump is using federal troops to protect federal property and law enforcement in L.A. The Insurrection Act would give him expanded authority to use troops for policing, experts say. 'The Insurrection Act is dangerously broad… something close to a blank check if he chooses to take the political hit for invoking it,' said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Congress adopted the Posse Comitatus Act in 1878, barring the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement unless authorized, such as through the Insurrection Act. It reflects 'a centuries-old principle in Anglo-American law against military interference in civilian affairs,' Goitein, of the Brennan Center, said. 'If the leader of a country can turn the military inward against the people, that has great implications for individual liberties,' Goitein added. 'It is a step on the path to tyranny, if not an indication of tyranny itself.' Trump mulled invoking the Act during a White House event on June 10. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." The Insurrection Act has been invoked 30 times, most recently in May 1992 by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California Gov. Pete Wilson to police rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King. Presidents from both parties have considered invoking the act against the wishes of state governors, such as during civil rights conflicts during the 1950s and 1960s. More recently, some Democrats urged former President Joe Biden to deploy the National Guard to remove razor-wire barriers that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott installed along the border with Mexico, but he didn't. Banks said Trump appeared to be edging back from invoking the Act, which could have long-term consequences. 'It could be corrosive,' Banks said. Bolton, Trump's former aide, predicted any effort by Trump to use the Insurrection Act would end up in court, but said, "I also don't think we should get paranoid and just engage in speculation about what he might do." Trump has been careful to steer clear of the Insurrection Act so far, Bolton noted. 'Can't you just shoot them' Esper, the former Defense secretary, resisted Trump's efforts to invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. Esper's book describes an Oval Office meeting with Trump, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley and other administration officials on June 1, 2020, as 'probably one of the most significant meetings a secretary of defense ever had with a commander in chief.' During the meeting, which occurred amid protests in Washington, D.C., and around the country following the death of George Floyd – an unarmed Black man killed by Minneapolis police – Trump repeatedly brought up the Insurrection Act and pushed to use active-duty troops to quell protests, Esper wrote. 'Can't you just shoot them Just shoot them in the legs or something,' Trump said, according to Esper. 'I didn't have to look at General Milley to know his reaction,' Esper wrote. 'I was sure it was the same as mine: Utter disgust at the suggestion, and a feeling we were only minutes away from a disastrous outcome.' Esper wrote that Trump eventually 'backed down.' His book details other concerns about Trump's approach to the military, including a proposal for a July 4 celebration in 2020 featuring a fleet of military vehicles that he worried would politicize the military. Milley told Trump's chief of staff that such displays were 'not what the United States does – it was what authoritarian states like North Korea do,' according to Esper. The same concerns have been raised about Trump's military parade planned for June 14, which will celebrate the Army's 250th anniversary with tanks and other vehicles rolling through the streets of the nation's capital. Trump's 79th birthday is the same day. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, called it a "dictator-style military parade." 'There's nothing wrong with military parades when there's reason for them, but the fact it's Trump's birthday on Saturday is not a good reason for it,' Bolton said. Trump said on June 10 that the parade would be "fantastic" and warned people protesting would be met with "very heavy force." "It's going to be an amazing day," he said. "We have tanks, we have planes, we have all sorts of things. And I think it's going to be great. We're going to celebrate our country for a change."


Washington Post
35 minutes ago
- Washington Post
House votes to repeal D.C. laws on noncitizen voting, police discipline
House lawmakers voted Tuesday to repeal a pair of D.C. laws that have been friction points for years between the deep-blue city and Republicans in Congress: a law allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections and another that prohibits the D.C. police union from bargaining on officer discipline. The two efforts would still have to pass in the Senate.