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
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wheat ambassador connecting dots between Kansas crop fields, Kenyan refugee camps
Justin Gilpin, CEO of the Kansas Wheat Commission for 16 years, is in Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress in support of the idea that international food assistance programs are a tool to fight hunger, build global markets and help Kansas farmers. (Jill Hummels for Kansas Reflector) TOPEKA — Justin Gilpin visited a remote, windswept camp in northern Kenya serving hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing conflicts in Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda and South Sudan. 'To be able to see that and witness that firsthand, it was emotionally exhausting for sure,' said Gilpin, chief executive officer of the Kansas Wheat Commission and Kansas Association of Wheat Growers. 'Seeing how many young people — that was probably the thing I wasn't prepared for.' Gilpin took part in a food distribution line serving more than 250,000 refugees. Their rations had been cut to 40% of the caloric-intake goal, he said. He was in Kenya during February, a period that coincided with movement by the administration of President Donald Trump to dismantle operations of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Since 1961, USAID facilitated delivery of food, water and medicine through a humanitarian program that also provided aid to farmers and promoted peace. On Monday, Gilpin joined about 400 others in Washington, D.C., for the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition's 2025 Impact Forum. Representatives of business, agriculture, faith, nonprofit and national security organizations gathered in advance of Tuesday meetings with members of Congress in a bid to promote U.S. diplomatic and development efforts in the world. In Gilpin's case, he planned to argue the United States must not lose its grip on initiatives dedicated to international agricultural market development and global food security. Consider this: Kansas needs to find foreign markets for half its annual wheat crop despite a period of unusually volatile economics. 'At the end of the day, the U.S. and the Kansas wheat farmers want an opportunity to participate in global trade with fair trade,' Gilpin said. 'We want to be able to address trade barriers that might exist around the world.' In February, U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran and U.S. Rep. Tracey Mann, both Kansas Republicans, introduced legislation to shift Food for Peace from USAID to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 'How do we maintain the integrity of that meaningful program? Can it fall under USDA?' Gilpin said in an interview. He said Food for Peace could to be reformulated to provide the Trump administration with confidence it was accountable to taxpayers. The program could be recast to demonstrate it made the United States both stronger and safer, he said. 'As long as it checks the boxes of what this administration wants to see out of foreign policy and foreign assistance … those are the kind of conversations we want to be a part of,' he said. Gilpin said his personal experience in Kenya offered insight into ways international assistance programs led by major food producing countries could promote societal stability. 'Humanitarian and emergency assistance is to help bring stability to people who have been displaced by things out of their control,' he said.
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans giving Trump wide leeway to keep National Guard in Los Angeles
Congressional Republicans are signaling they'll give President Donald Trump wide leeway in his deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles, potentially setting up a long federal presence in California amid fiery protests of the president's deportation policies. GOP leaders to the rank-and-file down to the libertarian-leaning Rand Paul offered no criticism Monday of Trump's tactics over the weekend. And some said they wouldn't put a timeline on the National Guard's presence in the state given the uncertainty of future demonstrations. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Semafor that 'I don't think they need to stay any longer than it takes to restore order.' Some of his colleagues said that could be a while, wary that protesters might try to wait out federal forces. 'It's like any military-style engagement where – when you have active combat ongoing, which is essentially what we have now – you can't put an arbitrary timeline on that,' Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., told Semafor. 'That's really giving the adversaries what they want.' The relatively unified message from Republicans is a contrast to the party's divisions during the nationwide racial justice protests in 2020. Back then, GOP leaders pursued a national police reform bill in response; five years later, Republicans see immigration enforcement as a clear success of Trump's first term. And they're not deviating in strategy, even as Trump takes a harder line quelling protests and expelling immigrants in the United States illegally. There's a major partisan dynamic playing out nationally: It's the president vs. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, a top Trump foil and possible White House candidate in 2028. That helps make it easy for Republicans to back Trump's military moves in the blue state. 'Whether or not it's my first choice? My first choice would be that there isn't any of this violence and that local police would take care of it. Local police are always better than when we use federal police,' Paul told reporters. Trump is escalating the federal presence in California, temporarily deploying hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles as well. In theory, the president could then invoke the Insurrection Act to order the Marines to join local law enforcement in stifling demonstrations. 'I hope it doesn't come to that, but at some point, if it does, it does,' Sheehy said. 'There appear to be foreign people waving foreign flags, attacking local, state, federal law enforcement, physically throwing rocks at them trying to destroy the vehicles trying to kill them and hurt them. So if that's not an insurrection, I don't know what is.' The most senior Republican senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, said he supported Trump's handling of the situation thus far, calling it 'proper' to order the National Guard to protect federal property, citing vandalization and damage to the Oregon courthouse during protests in 2020. 'Safety of the American people is the responsibility of governors and presidents,' Grassley said. 'The bottom line is, if a Democrat state and a Democrat mayor can't have a peaceful demonstration, then it's our responsibility to step in.' Some Republicans declined to address Newsom's Monday dare for Trump border czar Tom Homan to arrest him after Homan vowed to spare no elected official if he sees laws violated. Not all, though. 'Newsom has calculated that this is beneficial to him, standing up for Trump, inviting him and goading him into arresting him … he might give him what he asks for,' Cornyn said. Democrats decried Trump's actions and said he seemed to only be provoking greater confirmation between protesters and law enforcement. Most importantly, though, they said Trump is trying to distract from the unpopularity of his tax bill and its health care cuts. 'He wants to divert the attention from his big, beautiful bill. It's not getting very good reviews,' said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill. 'So he's drawing attention to Los Angeles.' California is filing suit against the president over the troop deployment, per the Washington Post.
San Francisco Chronicle
21 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
GOP House Homeland chairman Green to retire from Congress early
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — The House Homeland Security Committee's chairman, Republican Rep. Mark Green of Tennessee, announced Monday that he will retire from Congress once the House votes again on the sprawling tax and budget policy bill backed by President Donald Trump. In a statement, Green said he was offered a private sector opportunity that was 'that was too exciting to pass up' so he informed House Speaker Mike Johnson on Monday of his retirement plans. The move comes more than a year after Green announced he wouldn't run again in 2024, but changed his mind when fellow Republicans implored him to stick around. Green's next election would have been in 2026. Green voted for Trump's sweeping legislation when it passed the House last month. The bill is now in the Senate's hands, and would need to return to the House for agreement on any changes. Trump wants the bill on his desk for his signature by July 4. Green's delayed departure could help with the GOP's narrow margins in the House. Republican leaders need every vote they can get on their big tax bill, which they managed to pass last month by a single vote and will have to pass again once changes are made in the Senate. They now have a 220-212 majority. 'It was the honor of a lifetime to represent the people of Tennessee in Congress," Green said. "They asked me to deliver on the conservative values and principles we all hold dear, and I did my level best to do so.' Green's seat will be decided in a special election. The timing will depend on when he leaves office. Ahead of his 2024 reelection, Green had announced that February 2024 he would not run again. The decision was revealed a day after the impeachment of then-President Joe Biden's Homeland Security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. But many fellow Republicans had called on him to reconsider, and he jumped back into the running just two weeks later. He was unopposed in the Republican primary and then defeated Democrat Megan Barry — the former Nashville mayor who resigned in 2018 in scandal — by more than 21 percentage points in November 2024. Green, 60, has served since 2019 in the 7th Congressional District, which was redrawn in 2022 to include a significant portion of Nashville. The city was carved up three ways in the 2022 redistricting so Republicans could flip a Democratic district in Congress that had covered Music City, which they successfully did. Green flirted running for governor in 2017, but suspended his campaign after he was nominated by former President Donald Trump to become the Army secretary. He later withdrew his nomination due to criticism over his remarks about Muslims and LGBTQ+ Americans.
