Incorrect, as noted, it passed with a substantial majority, just not enough to override the coming veto.
NC concealed carry without permit - hope for veto
- Thread starter dben002
- Start date
- Status
Deke Thornton
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2025
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 17
NC is currently a "shall issue" state, meaning it's not up to the whim of the county sheriff whether to issue a CC permit as long as you're not a convicted felon and haven't been dishonorably discharged. The permitting process here is pretty easy and not prohibitively expensive.
The idea isn't to regulate criminals because we all know that won't happen, but to give citizens who may have never fired a gun before in their lives a quick reality check. The courts have repeatedly found that regulating a right does not equate infringing it. Requiring actual training would be better from a safety standpoint, but then you're getting closer to infringement by raising the bar. I'm gonna make a wild guess that most of us on this forum are lifelong gun guys, but a lot of folks who want a CC permit are not. I think making sure people can handle a firearm with a very basic level of safety and proficiency and telling them that a CC permit doesn't make it OK to wave a gun around when somebody steals their parking space is good for everyone.
Case in point: a former colleague carried concealed as part of working with a church group that helped abused women leave their abusers. He was carrying one day when he saw a woman struggling with a large man who was attempting to take a bag away from her. She screamed, "HELP, I'M BEING ROBBED!!!!" Nate ran to help her, and as he did so he assessed the situation: the man wasn't assaulting the woman, he was just grabbing the bag. There was no threat immediate to the woman's safety, so he didn't draw his weapon.
Seconds later, about half a dozen cops descended on the scene... and arrested the woman. She was part of an organized retail theft ring, and the large man was an undercover police officer. Had Nate drawn his weapon, things would have ended badly for him. But, because of the instruction in his CC class, he knew not to.
I'm always going to come down on the side of firearm education being a good thing.
The idea isn't to regulate criminals because we all know that won't happen, but to give citizens who may have never fired a gun before in their lives a quick reality check. The courts have repeatedly found that regulating a right does not equate infringing it. Requiring actual training would be better from a safety standpoint, but then you're getting closer to infringement by raising the bar. I'm gonna make a wild guess that most of us on this forum are lifelong gun guys, but a lot of folks who want a CC permit are not. I think making sure people can handle a firearm with a very basic level of safety and proficiency and telling them that a CC permit doesn't make it OK to wave a gun around when somebody steals their parking space is good for everyone.
Case in point: a former colleague carried concealed as part of working with a church group that helped abused women leave their abusers. He was carrying one day when he saw a woman struggling with a large man who was attempting to take a bag away from her. She screamed, "HELP, I'M BEING ROBBED!!!!" Nate ran to help her, and as he did so he assessed the situation: the man wasn't assaulting the woman, he was just grabbing the bag. There was no threat immediate to the woman's safety, so he didn't draw his weapon.
Seconds later, about half a dozen cops descended on the scene... and arrested the woman. She was part of an organized retail theft ring, and the large man was an undercover police officer. Had Nate drawn his weapon, things would have ended badly for him. But, because of the instruction in his CC class, he knew not to.
I'm always going to come down on the side of firearm education being a good thing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2020
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 2
We have several large firearms stores, with training facilities and ranges, in our area. I asked the staff at two of them to estimate the percentage of new firearms owners that actually attend training and come to the range to practice. The non-scientific survey answer is about 20%. The staff at a firearms store can readily identify a new shooter.Personally I believe that everybody should have to show that they have successfully completed at least a basic NRA style firearms safety and shooting course before buying a firearm from an FFL because if you can't handle a firearm well enough to do this I don't want you around me with one.
Why? Well untrained and poorly trained people with firearms, even if they're upright law abiding folks, scare and make me more nervous than criminals because they're actions are unpredictable whereas with a criminal you pretty much know what they're planning to do.
Now before someone responds with "requiring training is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment" let's take a close look at the wording of the Amendment.
One of the key phrases is, "A well regulated militia" right? Contrary to what anti firearms folks say "well regulated" doesn't mean having the correct paperwork, stamps, or approvals from some government agency. In the context of the words' use when the Amendment was written "well regulated" means organized, equipped, and trained.
Militias, especially those of frontier settlements, were the original first responders and were suppose to respond to everything from attacks by Indians and criminal bands to floods, fires, or helping an injured or sick neighbor get in or harvest their crops.
In order to be effective they met regularly with someone in charge so they were organized to a degree instead of a mob and each militia member had to have a firearm and a certain amount of lead and powder and had to be competent with their firearms.
Organized, equipped, trained.
Since a lot of folks, especially in the frontier areas, still hunted for food and furs back then being competent with firearms was important for more than just defending yourself or your community.
I started shooting almost 70 years ago when I was 5 but before I ever touched a firearm my father; a hillbilly from SE Ohio and a life long shooter, hunter, and in later years an NRA certified firearms safety and shooting instructor and small caliber rifle bench competitor and coach, made sure that my brothers and I knew how to safely handle and effectively use them.
He started with explaining what each of his firearms were, what ammo they used, and how each one worked then took us along to the range with him to watch him and other people shoot and explained what he and they were doing.
When he thought we were ready he started us shooting with single shot 22 rifles and pistols and as we got bigger and more skilled introduced us to larger caliber firearms. To forget or fail to follow a rule resulted in a quick, and usually painful, reminder.
In 68 when I enlisted in the Marine Corps at 17 they were surprised and delighted with my firearms knowledge and shooting skills and refined them even further. My drill instructor would even use me as a training aid.
But does this mean that I think that there should be a law requiring training? No, but I do think it should be something pushed by responsible firearm owners, firearms sellers, and shooting ranges using peer pressure and incentives.
I also believe that training in firearms safety and shooting should be included in all schools taught in graduated stages as a voluntary extra curricular activity like football, baseball, and other sports.
I can understand why people purchase a firearm thinking it will keep them safe. Without adequate training they become as dangerous as the criminal. Yes, quality firearms, training and range time are expensive. Misuse of a firearm can be catastrophic.
With even minimal training a firearms owner will learn safety, proper grip and trigger control and be able to hit what they aim at. They will also be taught dry fire practice which is cheap. Additional training can familiarize them with the law. Then one must have range time to practice. Even if only a few times per year.
I went back to shooting 5 years ago after about a 50-year layoff. I started from the bottom with a basic pistol class and progressed through several defensive handgun classes and holster draw certification. I am at the range a minimum of twice a month and with a trainer either one-on-one, in a class or participating in drills several times a year. Not saying everyone should follow this regimen since this is just mine and it is an expense.
I believe, and many will disagree, that to own a firearm may be a right but it is also a significant responsibility. One must be trained and practice to be a responsible firearms owner.
I agree. I also think we need a bipartisan-created-and-proctored written test at the polls to ensure those voting have a basic knowledge of US history and jurisprudence. 3 hours should be sufficient; 90% passing score. I mean, for those of you Dems out there, seething through a Trump Administration, what's mo'dangerous than The Vote?Personally I believe that everybody should have to show that they have successfully completed at least a basic NRA style firearms safety and shooting course before buying a firearm from an FFL because if you can't handle a firearm well enough to do this I don't want you around me with one.
Why? Well untrained and poorly trained people with firearms, even if they're upright law abiding folks, scare and make me more nervous than criminals because they're actions are unpredictable whereas with a criminal you pretty much know what they're planning to do.
Now before someone responds with "requiring training is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment" let's take a close look at the wording of the Amendment.
One of the key phrases is, "A well regulated militia" right? Contrary to what anti firearms folks say "well regulated" doesn't mean having the correct paperwork, stamps, or approvals from some government agency. In the context of the words' use when the Amendment was written "well regulated" means organized, equipped, and trained.
Militias, especially those of frontier settlements, were the original first responders and were suppose to respond to everything from attacks by Indians and criminal bands to floods, fires, or helping an injured or sick neighbor get in or harvest their crops.
In order to be effective they met regularly with someone in charge so they were organized to a degree instead of a mob and each militia member had to have a firearm and a certain amount of lead and powder and had to be competent with their firearms.
Organized, equipped, trained.
Since a lot of folks, especially in the frontier areas, still hunted for food and furs back then being competent with firearms was important for more than just defending yourself or your community.
I started shooting almost 70 years ago when I was 5 but before I ever touched a firearm my father; a hillbilly from SE Ohio and a life long shooter, hunter, and in later years an NRA certified firearms safety and shooting instructor and small caliber rifle bench competitor and coach, made sure that my brothers and I knew how to safely handle and effectively use them.
He started with explaining what each of his firearms were, what ammo they used, and how each one worked then took us along to the range with him to watch him and other people shoot and explained what he and they were doing.
When he thought we were ready he started us shooting with single shot 22 rifles and pistols and as we got bigger and more skilled introduced us to larger caliber firearms. To forget or fail to follow a rule resulted in a quick, and usually painful, reminder.
In 68 when I enlisted in the Marine Corps at 17 they were surprised and delighted with my firearms knowledge and shooting skills and refined them even further. My drill instructor would even use me as a training aid.
But does this mean that I think that there should be a law requiring training? No, but I do think it should be something pushed by responsible firearm owners, firearms sellers, and shooting ranges using peer pressure and incentives.
I also believe that training in firearms safety and shooting should be included in all schools taught in graduated stages as a voluntary extra curricular activity like football, baseball, and other sports.
As an actual NC resident with a dog in the fight, here is my take on it.
1. The current NC concealed carry permit as it stands may offend some folks as it requires:
- a finger print based background check;
- a check with the two mental health hospitals in NC;
- 4 hours of training on firearms safety;
- 4 hours of training on the laws on concealed carry and more importantly, the use of deadly force in North Carolina; and
- live fire qualification.
The latter is fairly open to the discretion of the instructor but most use or borrow heavily from various law enforcement qualification courses. At a minimum it lets the instructor see the applicant is able to safely load, handle and fire a handgun.
2. Many people get their noses bent out of shape over a training requirement. I'm not sure what their objection is to ensuring people who want to conceal carry in public understand how to safely carry a self defense handgun, have some understanding of the pros and cons of different carry methods, and most importantly are aware of when deadly force can be used in self defense in NC.
There are exemptions to the training, for example having evidence of military training on your DD214. However that can be very problematic.
For example a guy came into the gun shop and talked about he had recently been in a convenience store paying for something with a $20 bill, when someone reached around him, grabbed the $20 and ran out the door. A guy next to him, a concealed carry permit holder commented that if that had happened to him, he'd have shot the guy.
Now...I wasn't sure how much of that was alpha male posturing or small wedding tackle compensation, but it was misinformation that needed to be immediately addressed. I commented that if he had, he'd be in jail and looking at a long prison term for murder. I had to point out that in NC you *cannot* use deadly force to prevent a property crime and that it also can get into the weeds around issues such as whether someone in breaking into your attached garage, versus your unattached garage and whether you can assume they intended to commit a crime of violence versus a property crime. I also pointed out you cannot shoot someone who is retreating, even after they stole your $20.
It struck me as a case where this idiot, DD214 or not, really needed to sit through a training session on NC self defense law.
3. In states with reasonable permit and vetting requirements concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen.
Studies have been done in several states with CCW permit requirements over the last decade or so showing that concealed carry permit holders are 6-7 times less likely to commit an felony or misdemeanor crime than a law enforcement officer (which doesn't reflect well on LEOs today), who are in turn 3 times less likely to commit crimes than the general public (which is at least partial credit to LEOs). In other words, a CCW permit holder is roughly 20 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public.
That's generally believed to be a product of both being vetted as a non criminal, and also having skin in the game in terms of not wanting to lose that permit and additional privilege to carry concealed.
If we start letting anyone carry concealed, they now have no skin in the game in terms of losing that permit and that ability, on top of a lack of training and knowledge on the use of deadly force.
As it stands now, CCW permits in NC are tied to DMV records. That means that the single time I have been stopped in NC, the highway patrol trooper already knew I had a permit before he ever got to the window of my vehicle. I announced my status as required by law and he told me to just leave it in the holster. He added he liked pulling over permit holders as he knew they were well vetted and were the safest traffic stops he made. As a former LEO from SD, I agree with his assessment.
If we now allow permit-less concealed carry, that level of vetting and related office safety is no longer present. And the increase in people carrying concealed who lack training will inevitably mean someone threatens or shoots someone in "self defense" when there is not adequate (if any) justification.
4. For the rest of us with permits, the blow back of bad self defense shoots or crimes committed by people legally conceal carrying won't end well for us.
It could threaten our privilege to conceal carry in general, and more immediately our ability to carry in businesses. After the farm animal stupid 2A demonstrations a decade or so ago, many businesses down here posted specifically against "open carry", but were silent on the issue of concealed carry and did not ban all firearms carry. Those businesses did so in large part because of the vetting process for permit holders. Remove that requirement and many will rethink their firearms policies.
Even in places like shopping malls that ban all carry, I have never seen any real effort to stop concealed carry beyond posting a sign and giving lip service to it. As noted above, properly permitted concealed carry permit holders pose less risk than LEOs. But again, remove that permit requirement and those businesses will have to rethink their enforcement policies. It's not much of a stretch to see metal detectors or other measures in the future.
5. Owning a handgun and passing a NICS check to buy it doesn't mean a person is *still* not a prohibited person.
Once you buy a gun, if you are convicted of an offense that would preclude buying another firearm, there isn't usually someone who is going to come looking for it to confiscate it. However, if you have a permit and are convicted of an offense that now makes you prohibited from concealed carry you will have to surrender that permit.
Worse, NC repealed its pistol purchase permit requirements a couple years ago. The rationale was a purchase permit for a handgun was valid for 5 years and a person's status could change in that time. So of course rather than shortening it to 30, 60 or even 90 days, they just abolished it. Now, anyone 21 or older can legally buy a handgun from a private citizen, and does not have to present a valid purchase permit or a concealed carry permit to verify they are not a prohibited individual.
6. If you read SB 50 as passed it will actually further limit places where concealed carry permit holders can carry a concealed handgun by removing some of the exceptions.
There's no upside, and in fact downside to this law for people who have or still pursue a concealed carry permit going forward.
7. There are problems that need to be addressed in legislation in NC.
- People are being charged and convicted in NC because a firearm might be fond in a traffic stop in a car where it was covered by a coat, food wrapper, etc. and is thus "concealed", when it would be "not concealed" if it were just laying there in plain sight. If they are otherwise in legal possession of the handgun and its not relevant to the traffic stop, it should not be a chargeable offense (At present, if an officer has any common sense and reasonable discretion they would not arrest based on that anyway, but those LEOs are becoming less common and/or are just given less discretion.)
- Criminals who are conceal carrying during the commission of a crime far more often than not are not charged with the offense anyway. It goes away as part of a plea bargain. In the big picture that means illegally carrying a concealed firearm has no legal consequence for a criminal. Changing the law as proposed doesn't fix that issue.
1. The current NC concealed carry permit as it stands may offend some folks as it requires:
- a finger print based background check;
- a check with the two mental health hospitals in NC;
- 4 hours of training on firearms safety;
- 4 hours of training on the laws on concealed carry and more importantly, the use of deadly force in North Carolina; and
- live fire qualification.
The latter is fairly open to the discretion of the instructor but most use or borrow heavily from various law enforcement qualification courses. At a minimum it lets the instructor see the applicant is able to safely load, handle and fire a handgun.
2. Many people get their noses bent out of shape over a training requirement. I'm not sure what their objection is to ensuring people who want to conceal carry in public understand how to safely carry a self defense handgun, have some understanding of the pros and cons of different carry methods, and most importantly are aware of when deadly force can be used in self defense in NC.
There are exemptions to the training, for example having evidence of military training on your DD214. However that can be very problematic.
For example a guy came into the gun shop and talked about he had recently been in a convenience store paying for something with a $20 bill, when someone reached around him, grabbed the $20 and ran out the door. A guy next to him, a concealed carry permit holder commented that if that had happened to him, he'd have shot the guy.
Now...I wasn't sure how much of that was alpha male posturing or small wedding tackle compensation, but it was misinformation that needed to be immediately addressed. I commented that if he had, he'd be in jail and looking at a long prison term for murder. I had to point out that in NC you *cannot* use deadly force to prevent a property crime and that it also can get into the weeds around issues such as whether someone in breaking into your attached garage, versus your unattached garage and whether you can assume they intended to commit a crime of violence versus a property crime. I also pointed out you cannot shoot someone who is retreating, even after they stole your $20.
It struck me as a case where this idiot, DD214 or not, really needed to sit through a training session on NC self defense law.
3. In states with reasonable permit and vetting requirements concealed carry permit holders are far less likely to commit crimes than the average citizen.
Studies have been done in several states with CCW permit requirements over the last decade or so showing that concealed carry permit holders are 6-7 times less likely to commit an felony or misdemeanor crime than a law enforcement officer (which doesn't reflect well on LEOs today), who are in turn 3 times less likely to commit crimes than the general public (which is at least partial credit to LEOs). In other words, a CCW permit holder is roughly 20 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public.
That's generally believed to be a product of both being vetted as a non criminal, and also having skin in the game in terms of not wanting to lose that permit and additional privilege to carry concealed.
If we start letting anyone carry concealed, they now have no skin in the game in terms of losing that permit and that ability, on top of a lack of training and knowledge on the use of deadly force.
As it stands now, CCW permits in NC are tied to DMV records. That means that the single time I have been stopped in NC, the highway patrol trooper already knew I had a permit before he ever got to the window of my vehicle. I announced my status as required by law and he told me to just leave it in the holster. He added he liked pulling over permit holders as he knew they were well vetted and were the safest traffic stops he made. As a former LEO from SD, I agree with his assessment.
If we now allow permit-less concealed carry, that level of vetting and related office safety is no longer present. And the increase in people carrying concealed who lack training will inevitably mean someone threatens or shoots someone in "self defense" when there is not adequate (if any) justification.
4. For the rest of us with permits, the blow back of bad self defense shoots or crimes committed by people legally conceal carrying won't end well for us.
It could threaten our privilege to conceal carry in general, and more immediately our ability to carry in businesses. After the farm animal stupid 2A demonstrations a decade or so ago, many businesses down here posted specifically against "open carry", but were silent on the issue of concealed carry and did not ban all firearms carry. Those businesses did so in large part because of the vetting process for permit holders. Remove that requirement and many will rethink their firearms policies.
Even in places like shopping malls that ban all carry, I have never seen any real effort to stop concealed carry beyond posting a sign and giving lip service to it. As noted above, properly permitted concealed carry permit holders pose less risk than LEOs. But again, remove that permit requirement and those businesses will have to rethink their enforcement policies. It's not much of a stretch to see metal detectors or other measures in the future.
5. Owning a handgun and passing a NICS check to buy it doesn't mean a person is *still* not a prohibited person.
Once you buy a gun, if you are convicted of an offense that would preclude buying another firearm, there isn't usually someone who is going to come looking for it to confiscate it. However, if you have a permit and are convicted of an offense that now makes you prohibited from concealed carry you will have to surrender that permit.
Worse, NC repealed its pistol purchase permit requirements a couple years ago. The rationale was a purchase permit for a handgun was valid for 5 years and a person's status could change in that time. So of course rather than shortening it to 30, 60 or even 90 days, they just abolished it. Now, anyone 21 or older can legally buy a handgun from a private citizen, and does not have to present a valid purchase permit or a concealed carry permit to verify they are not a prohibited individual.
6. If you read SB 50 as passed it will actually further limit places where concealed carry permit holders can carry a concealed handgun by removing some of the exceptions.
There's no upside, and in fact downside to this law for people who have or still pursue a concealed carry permit going forward.
7. There are problems that need to be addressed in legislation in NC.
- People are being charged and convicted in NC because a firearm might be fond in a traffic stop in a car where it was covered by a coat, food wrapper, etc. and is thus "concealed", when it would be "not concealed" if it were just laying there in plain sight. If they are otherwise in legal possession of the handgun and its not relevant to the traffic stop, it should not be a chargeable offense (At present, if an officer has any common sense and reasonable discretion they would not arrest based on that anyway, but those LEOs are becoming less common and/or are just given less discretion.)
- Criminals who are conceal carrying during the commission of a crime far more often than not are not charged with the offense anyway. It goes away as part of a plea bargain. In the big picture that means illegally carrying a concealed firearm has no legal consequence for a criminal. Changing the law as proposed doesn't fix that issue.
I agree, but I don't also see the relevance to the this topic, as in NC your permit has no connection to the handgun(s) you choose to carry. NC is not like some of the New England states that require you to list specific (and a limited number of) handguns on your permit.
My 2 cents worth here. Concealed carry puts a lot of requirements on the carrier. Many people have no clue as to the repercussions in a shooting. Justified or not. Early in this discussion there was a statement about 18 to 20 year olds not being able to purchasing at an FFL.
This does not stop an 18 to 20 year old from owning and carrying a hand gun. They can legally own one, just not be able to purchase at an FFL. They can purchase from an individual, legally. The laws as written still make it illegal to carry OR own if you are cannot pass a back ground check. They are criminals and will continue to break the laws about carrying whether or not the permit less laws are passed.
M
This does not stop an 18 to 20 year old from owning and carrying a hand gun. They can legally own one, just not be able to purchase at an FFL. They can purchase from an individual, legally. The laws as written still make it illegal to carry OR own if you are cannot pass a back ground check. They are criminals and will continue to break the laws about carrying whether or not the permit less laws are passed.
M
In today's culture, it's true that many young people carry a handgun, concealed or not and it happens not only in the bigger cities, even the smaller ones here in NC. Just two weeks ago a group of young, armed gang affiliated "thugs' opened fire on a large house/pool party of equally young folks who were probably breaking many drinking/gun carrying laws on their own. Investigators are sure about all of that. One death and some injuries resulted. This incident happened in a quiet residential area in Hickory, NC, not what I would call a large city. My point is, this type of situation is all around us, no matter where you live. I carry open and would love to conceal carry without having to go through the ridiculous class or pay a fee just for the "privilege". I call that basically another tax and have had plenty of conversations with CC attendees who got very little out of the class. I myself confidently know gun safety as I've shot thousands of rounds in competitions over the years with plenty of supervised NRA/law enforcement type training happening along the way. The CC shooting part looks like a joke and I'm sure there a plenty of class facilitators who want this regulation to stay just for the income source. I live in a quiet community but the crime statistics are "moving in" on us with lots of transplants coming from Charlotte and of course the crime follows them here. I just want a chance (that I hope never happens) to discretely defend my wife and myself without having to appear to be a threat to all the "karens" at the local Food Lion. They are stupid, don't know the laws, are always wanting to start trouble and don't understand I can legally wear a gun in the store providing the business allows it. I'm in favor of the new legislation since I'm not stupid and I know these young thugs all carry and could care less about laws in general. They sure weren't thinking about any laws in Hickory the other night.
Go NC!
We had the same concerns when Oklahoma started carry permits in 1996 and again in 2019 when constitutional carry went into effect. I was in the first group of CCW instructors and after working 4 law enforcement agencies, local, state, federal and military, I too was concerned.
But as a practical matter what you have is zero data to show that there is a risk or additional risk. There is no data suggesting otherwise.
Gangs in Chicago and other places start to carry stolen guns at age 12 or 14, it is common this last few decades. Your fear is missing facts and logic and suggests you own fears are based upon events within your limited experience, such as you, your own kids of others in your area of influence. And all bad guys are going to carry anyway, they already to at every age, your comment about scraping up the cash to buy a gun makes no sense, the steal them every night in every city.
Personally, I would prefer safety course with firing included like those I performed before I could certify a person to get his CCE permit.
However, if you believe in the Constitution at all, on any level you must agree that there is no permit required for religion, if you want to become a Muslim, Jihadist, Mormon or Catholic, and there is no permit required before you can engage in free speech such as an internet forum.
That said, there is no basis, in logic or law for you to urge the Governor to impose additional limitations on the Constitutional rights of people in your state, none.
That said, I do not like the idea, but I am certainly not going to try and destroy the Constitutional rights of other citizens.
Keep in mind that we are the only nation on this planet that has as much freedom as we have now, it is taken away little by little, your letter is another attempt to take away another of those rights. Seems to me, that when a person has no evidence of any harm from that age group, to try and destroy a right given to them via a democracy, the state election process, that puts you in the place of some king or tyrant, because that is exactly how they rule with respect to "guns".
In Feudal England for example, only landowners could own and bear arms, and they were obligated to perform some form of military or armed service for the king, from castle guard so many days per year, to Knighthood and so on. We fought a war to gain the right to be like landowners and free men.
But keeping people from being able to defend themselves when attacked in public, is not new. Attempt to keep the peons and common people under control was a part of the history of the world, by Kings, Queens, and Tyrants.
"""""Even after the Middle Ages, regulations against certain weapons persisted. One example: In 1566, Elizabeth I proclaimed that:
no person shall wear any sword, rapier, or suchlike weapon that shall pass the length of one yard and half-a-quarter of the blade at the uttermost, nor any dagger above the length of 12 inches in blade at the most, nor any buckler with any point or pike above two inches in length."""""
-------
Of course that is a pretty big sword, but you get the idea. It would not be any more effective than any derringer today. And why should people ages 18, 19 and 20 be denied a right when they are conferred majority rights in every state in the nation. They even let them drive 5,000 pound cars with nothing more than a simple highway test. But a driver's license is not a right to drive, it is a permit that lets you drive on designated streets and highways, like a gun permit might be for carry into certain places.
Just saying, asking the Governor to take away a democratically approved right codified into state law, is a pretty dramatic thing to do to all of those other people. What is your personal risk? Any?
I have been teaching CCW since 1996. The permit is about the smartest thing you can buy to ensure smooth carry while travel in other states. Also, an active permit gives you certain protections in the event of a self defense shooting. You simply testify that you have a permit and followed the instructions given by your instructor. That is a defense creating reasonable doubt. Any prosecutor has a high burden to convict a person when at that stage of an investigation or later trial.
Wow. Gotcha
That is not the experience of the nation. Just check the FBI database of crimes. In states where kids carry there is on evidence of a problem. Perhaps it is kids where your live or maybe in your own family DNA or whatever.
Having spent 23 years as a NC CCH Safety Instructor I can assure you that if you can pass the NICS background check to purchase a handgun or long gun you can certainly pass the background check for a NC Concealed Handgun Permit. What is removed with "universal concealed carry" is the local sheriff imposing his personal prejudices and whims to the issuance of a CCH Permit. With a NC CCH Permit a citizen is allowed to purchase firearms without a background check and they are allowed to carry concealed in states that recognize the NC CCH Permit. The NC CCH Permit does not allow the carrying of a firearm in all locations or under all circumstances.
Depends on the state, purchase from a FFL in every state is federally mandated, many states have the same background check written into state law. And there is still a requirement to go through an FFL when either the buyer or seller reside in different states and that is a big one. You cannot live in Oklahoma and sell your model 10 to a guy in Texas, without going through an FFL in the home state of the buyer. Simple law. Read the ATF site, it explains it very well, sometimes they do not.
So, if you sell ANY gun across a state line, there is a federal background check. If you sneak around it an get caught, send me a retainer for $10,000 and I will work the best deal I can for you.
First and foremost the CCH Safety Class teaches firearms safety and awareness. Second my class taught students how the different types function, how ammunition functions and the components. You would be gobstopped to learn there are people who own guns that really don't understand how they work or how to maintain them. The third thing the class taught was where and when a firearm maybe carried concealed. The fourth thing is the conditions required before lethal force maybe used. (Threat of death/great bodily harm, sexual assault, you are not the instigator of the confrontation, and that you do not use excessive force.) Other points are "standing your ground" and defense of habitation which includes your vehicle.
bbqsauce
Helper
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2024
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 187
I’m based in NC and unfortunately let my ccw lapse.
That said, the class was more about where I could and can’t take a handgun. It didn’t necessarily teach safety or all the things yours did. Now I’m looking to take a new course with my wife - who needs an extra few courses like yours.
That said, the class was more about where I could and can’t take a handgun. It didn’t necessarily teach safety or all the things yours did. Now I’m looking to take a new course with my wife - who needs an extra few courses like yours.
bbqsauce
Helper
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2024
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 187
folks are allowed to express an opinion, we don’t allow politics outside of 2A related stuff. Is it possible you might just be seeing what you want to see?
bbqsauce
Helper
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2024
- Messages
- 160
- Reaction score
- 187
I was not aware of this.
The pistol permit thing was redundant and I’m glad to see it removed. It was limiting and in some counties sheriffs would have a year sheet asking for make and model serial to be sent in to them. This was a long time ago in Durham county, until it was removed.
- Status
Similar threads
