NC nears permitless carry approval, final vote pending
Two bills concerning constitutional carry were passed out of committee on Tuesday, potentially allowing permitless carry for individuals 18 and older in North Carolina, according to WTVD.
The proposed legislation, backed by Sen. Danny Britt, aims to eliminate the current requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit, including the firearms safety course and associated fees. Supporters argue it aligns with open carry laws, while opponents raise concerns about public safety.
'We believe that our Constitution is clear that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to constitutionally carry,' said Sen. Danny Britt, a Republican representing Hoke, Robeson, and Scotland counties.
Sen. Lisa Grafstein, a Democrat from Wake County, expressed opposition, stating, 'When you take away the training that people need to get these firearms, it just means more people who shouldn't be carrying are carrying.'
ALSO READ: Security officers at some Charlotte parks could soon carry guns
Currently, obtaining a concealed carry permit in North Carolina requires individuals to be 21 years old, complete a firearms safety course, and pay an $80 fee, among other conditions. The new bill seeks to remove these requirements for those 18 and older.
The debate around the bill included discussions on crime statistics from states with similar laws. Twenty-nine other states, including many in the southeast, have enacted constitutional carry laws.
During public comment, two members of law enforcement, including Sheriff Birkhead, opposed the measure, citing concerns for officer and public safety.
Grass Roots North Carolina, an advocacy group, supported the bill, with member Karen Raines stating, 'Allowing good citizens to permitless carry enables one to fulfill that role until law enforcement arrives.'
The passage of these bills out of committee marks a significant step in the legislative process, with similar legislation already filed in the House. The debate continues as stakeholders weigh the implications for public safety and individual rights.
VIDEO: Security officers at some Charlotte parks could soon carry guns
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
2 hours ago
Trump officials are visiting Alaska to discuss a gas pipeline and oil drilling
JUNEAU, Alaska -- The Trump administration is sending three Cabinet members to Alaska this week as it pursues oil drilling in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and reinvigorating a natural gas project that's languished for years. The visit by Department of Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin comes after Trump signed an executive order earlier this year aimed at boosting oil and gas drilling, mining and logging in Alaska. It also comes amid tariff talks with Asian countries that are seen as possible leverage for the administration to secure investments in the proposed Alaska liquefied natural gas project. Their itinerary includes a meeting Sunday with resource development groups and U.S. Sens. Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski in Anchorage before heading to Utqiagvik, an Arctic town on the petroleum-rich North Slope where many Alaska Native leaders see oil development as economically vital to the region. The federal officials also plan to visit the Prudhoe Bay oil field Monday — near the coast of the Arctic Ocean and more than 850 miles (1,368 kilometers) north of Anchorage — and speak at Republican Gov. Mike Dunleavy's annual energy conference Tuesday in Anchorage. While it's not unusual for U.S. officials to visit Alaska during warmer weather months, Dunleavy's office said the officials' visit is significant. Dunleavy, a Trump ally, said he is thankful for an administration that 'recognizes Alaska's unique value.' Government and industry representatives from a number of Asian countries, including Japan, are expected to participate in a portion of the trip, reflecting pressure from the U.S. to invest in the pipeline — despite skepticism and opposition from environmental groups. In Alaska, some environmentalists criticized the agenda for Dunleavy's conference. Highlighting fossil fuels alongside renewable or alternative energy make 'energy sources of the past look more legitimate at a conference like this," said Andy Moderow, senior policy director with the Alaska Wilderness League. 'I think we should be looking at climate solutions that work for Alaskans, not trying to open up places that industry is taking a pass on, namely the Arctic refuge,' he said. Trump has long taken credit for provisions of a 2017 tax law championed by Alaska's congressional delegation that called for two oil and gas lease sales in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain by late 2024. The first one remains the subject of ongoing litigation, with the main bidder a state corporation that saw its seven leases later canceled by then-President Joe Biden's administration. A judge in March ruled Biden's administration overstepped, and the Interior Department, in line with Trump's executive order, is working to reinstate the leases. There weren't any bids in the second sale, held under Biden and blasted by the state as overly restrictive. Debate over drilling in the refuge — home to polar bears, musk ox, birds and other wildlife — has long been a flashpoint. Indigenous Gwich'in leaders consider the coastal plain sacred land, noting its importance to a caribou herd they rely upon. Many North Slope Iñupiat leaders who support drilling in the refuge felt their voices were not heard during the Biden era. During the Trump officials' visit, they also hope to make a case for additional development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which Trump has advocated, and for being included in planning decisions. Nagruk Harcharek, president of Voice of the Arctic Iñupiat, an advocacy group whose members include leaders from the region, called the officials' visit 'a step in the right direction.' For years, the state has sought to develop its stores of North Slope natural gas as a way to provide affordable energy to more residents and bolster revenues via exports. But cost concerns, shifts in direction, competition from other projects and questions about economic feasibility have stymied progress. Oil companies have long reinjected gas that occurs with oil deposits on the slope to produce more oil, which remains Alaska's economic lifeblood. The latest gas proposal calls for a roughly 810-mile (1,300-kilometer) pipeline that would carry gas from the North Slope to port and a facility that would process and export liquefied natural gas to Asian countries. In a March speech to Congress, Trump touted his ongoing support of the 'gigantic natural gas pipeline." He said countries like Japan and South Korea 'want to be our partner, with investments of trillions of dollars each.' No firm commitments from countries have been made. The company advancing the project — in partnership with a state corporation — is in a stage of refining cost estimates, previously pegged at around $44 billion for the pipeline and related infrastructure, before final decisions are made on whether to move forward with the project. While Dunleavy has likened Trump's friendly approach to energy development as 'Christmas every day,' Alaska's fortunes remain tightly linked to the volatility of oil prices, which are down sharply from a year ago, squeezing state revenues. State lawmakers across party lines overwhelmingly passed a resolution urging Congress to provide Alaska with 90% of royalty revenues for oil and gas leases in the Arctic refuge, arguing the U.S. government reneged on past promises for such a share. The resolution also asked for that to be extended to the petroleum reserve. Alaska's tax structure allows companies like ConocoPhillips Alaska — which is pursuing a massive oil project known as Willow in the reserve — to write off a portion of their development costs against production taxes they incur elsewhere on the North Slope. While lawmakers widely support Willow, they also have argued a change in federal royalty share would address a hit to state revenues created by production in the reserve.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
To end the war in Ukraine, Trump should treat Putin the way he's treating Harvard
But if Trump used the same punitive tactics on Putin that he continues to inflict on universities and international students in the US, Russia's war against Ukraine might be coming to an end. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Unable to bend Harvard to his will, Trump has launched an onslaught of attacks against the university. They include Advertisement And since the Trump administration's assault on higher education is much bigger than Harvard, Secretary of State But it's a much different story in Trump's dealings with Putin. Even some Republican legislators who usually keep their lips buttoned when it comes to criticizing the president are prodding him to do more than say that he's 'disappointed' in Putin. Advertisement 'I believe president trump was sincere when he thought his friendship [with] Putin [would] end the war,' Republican Grassley went further. 'Pres Trump [should] take the decisive action [against] Putin that he takes [against] Harvard. Sanctions for Putin like no fed grants for Harvard.' Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as stalwart a Trump sycophant as they come, said in The Wall Street Journal that the Senate is willing to do what Trump so far has not: slap severe sanctions on Russia. 'As [Senate Majority Leader John] Thune said last week, if Mr. Putin continues to play games, the Senate will act,' Graham wrote. 'I'm hoping for the best, but when it comes to the thug in Moscow, we should all prepare for more of the same.' Trump has said that he's considering sanctions against Russia, but so far that's been a hollow threat. On his social media site, Trump said: 'What Vladimir Putin doesn't realize is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened in Russia, and I mean REALLY BAD. He's playing with fire!' There's about as much heat coming from the White House as from a televised holiday Trump is dithering as Ukrainians die, and Putin does whatever he wants. The president loves to portray himself as strong and decisive, but that's never been the case where Putin is concerned. Advertisement Even after Trump called Putin 'crazy' on social media and claimed that 'something happened to him,' the Kremlin reacted to him as if he were a child having a meltdown. Trump, Russian officials said, was experiencing 'emotional overload.' Whatever Trump is going through, it's not provoking him to hatch a decisive plan to confront Putin and force him to comply with a fairly negotiated plan to exit his war. Asked by a reporter on May 28 whether he believed that Putin 'actually wants to end the war,' the president gave a cryptic answer. 'I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks, within two weeks,' he said. If Putin is 'tapping us along,' Trump said his administration 'would respond a little bit differently.' It's unlikely anything will change in two weeks. When it comes to Putin, the president has the goalposts on wheels. It's easier for Trump to attack education and international students than to face down the dictator he has called a 'friend,' because when Putin flexes, Trump flinches. Renée Graham is a Globe columnist. She can be reached at
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
All things considered, NPR should pay its own way
Trump's executive order, titled 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,' began by noting how much has changed since the CPB was established in 1967. 'Today the media landscape is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options,' the order observes. 'Government funding of news media in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.' Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Trump is absolutely right about that . Advertisement The president is also right when he describes NPR and PBS as 'biased' and says they fall short of 'fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage.' To be sure, conservatives have complained about the leftist slant in public broadcasting for decades. But even NPR Advertisement Yet for all that, public broadcasting's leftward tilt is not a good reason to pull the plug on its government funding, which in fiscal year 2025 will total Certainly people in the news business have strong opinions about the stories and people they cover — it would be strange if they didn't. The ideal of objective, unbiased journalism may be admirable in the abstract. But in the real world, media companies attract employees who tend to share a similar worldview, and that worldview makes its way into their coverage. The Constitution guarantees the right of every media organization — including NPR, PBS, and their local affiliates — to publish or broadcast as they see fit. What it does not guarantee is the right to do so with government dollars. In a democratic society with a cherished tradition of an independent press, the very idea of But that's only one of the objections to using taxpayer funds to sustain public broadcasting. Advertisement Other radio and TV networks, from When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Public Broadcasting Act in 1967, it may have been plausible to argue that public broadcasting provided access to news and educational programming that listeners couldn't get anywhere else. But with the internet revolution, that argument lost all validity. Today, programs of every description are made available via In any case, such subsidies are unaffordable. With the federal budget running a $2 trillion deficit and the Advertisement I oppose any government funding of radio or TV Trump's executive order can't overturn NPR's subsidy, because the funds were appropriated by Congress. But This has nothing to do with NPR's lefty tilt, grating though it can be. Some of my best friends, to coin a phrase, work in public broadcasting, and much of what they produce is first-rate. NPR and its affiliates have broken no end of significant news stories and generated countless hours of intelligent, absorbing, informative content. The same is true of innumerable other media outlets, including the one you're reading now. Those outlets function every day of the year without tapping the federal Treasury. National Public Radio can too. Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
