"CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY"
SHOULD CARRY PERMITS/LICENSES BE ABOLISHED?
In a permitless or "constitutional carry" state, it is legal to pack a
defensive sidearm without having a license to do so. Twenty-nine
states have it now, and North Carolina could join them.
By Dave Workman. Mar 31, 2025
Article Source
At this writing, the North Carolina legislature was moving forward in an effort to make the Tar Heel State the 30th jurisdiction to do away with the carry permit requirement for citizens who want to carry defensive sidearms.
It's an interesting topic for conversation because not all gun owners agree about carry permits, just as they don't always concur about open carry, mandatory training or any number of other things, including background checks and waiting periods.
Let's digress for a moment. I was in the room more than 30 years ago when the National Instant Check System was being discussed by members of the National Rifle Association's Board of Directors and its officers. The NICS check was being offered as an alternative to what the gun control lobby and Capitol Hill anti-gunners were pushing, which was a national waiting period.
For the record, I dislike waiting periods for various reasons, the main one being — despite claims by gun prohibitionists to the contrary — based on some experience, I simply do not believe they prevent tragedies. More importantly, they delay the exercise of a constitutionally-enumerated fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment and specific amendments in more than 40 state constitutions.
Here's what the NRA has said about waiting periods: "Waiting periods are arbitrary impositions with no effect on crime or suicide, introduce no additional investigative avenues, and only burden law-abiding gun owners without changing how or when criminals obtain firearms …There is no evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides, or mass shootings. No studies that identify causal effects have been identified by any of the independent literature reviews conducted since 2004."
Here are some cases in point:
Elliot Rodger, the notorious "Isla Vista killer," who acquired three handguns in California over the course of several months, enduring the state's 10-day waiting period and mandatory background check three times. His "manifesto" proved he was planning his rampage for quite a while, certainly longer than ten days.
Stephen Paddock, the infamous Las Vegas mass murderer. This monster accumulated firearms over the course of years, not days.
Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army major, is known to have brooded for a very long time prior to his attack at Fort Hood, Texas on Nov. 5, 2009. That he bought the murder weapon, a 5.7 FN Herstal pistol only three months (July 31) before the shooting seems almost irrelevant to the full saga of this man's descent into terror.
They all cleared background checks, too! Here's what veteran journalist Jacob Sullum wrote in Reason back in mid-2022: "According to a recent National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report on public mass shootings from 1966 through 2019, 77 percent of the perpetrators bought guns legally. In some cases, teenagers or young adults obtained guns from their families. Just 13 percent of mass shooters obtained firearms through illegal transactions. In other words, background checks would have been no obstacle in 87 percent of the cases."
What's wrong with a law-abiding private citizen slipping a J-Frame Smith && Wesson
or some other small handgun in a pocket as part of their daily routine?
Some anti-gunners are so fearful of the idea they literally become ill.
Fear Phobia
So, what about carrying a sidearm for personal protection? The late Col. Jeff Cooper, considered by loyal fans and the folks who knew him to have been the father of the "Modern Technique" of the pistol, is credited with inventing the term "hoplophobia," which is defined as the irrational fear of firearms.
Cooper knew what he was talking about. In my career as a journalist, I have encountered many such people. There is absolutely no rational explanation for their visceral fear of guns. More than once, I've walked such people through their fears right to the firing line, and when the smoke cleared and the noise subsided, most of them were absolutely hooked. A couple of them asked about buying their own guns.
vHowever, for those who hate and fear guns right to the marrow of their bones, the thought of other people walking around with legally concealed sidearms frightens them almost to the point of nausea. Once when I mentioned to one of these folks that in Washington state, where I live, about one-in-nine or ten qualified adults is licensed to carry — meaning that on average, if you walk down the street and pass 100 people, nine or ten of them might be legally packin' — the reaction was almost like they had a big spider crawling on their arm.
Instead of freaking out, of course, most people, and certainly most gun owners, will just stroll along minding their own business and not worry about it. After all, those armed folks are discreetly concealing their sidearms. Nobody is being molested, much less being shot, and it boils down to a great big "Who cares?"
Reciprocity
Days ago, the House Judiciary Committee passed on a party-line 18-9 vote, H.R. 38, the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
The next step for this legislation will be the House floor, where it will hopefully be debated and voted upon. Republicans control the House by a thin margin, 218-213. The legislation now has 178 co-sponsors and was introduced by North Carolina Congressman Richard Hudson. The House passed a similar measure during the first Trump administration, but it was allowed to languish in the Senate without a vote.
When it gets to the Senate, H.R. 38 will again face resistance from anti-gun Democrats, but they are outnumbered by Republicans, 53-45.
Judiciary Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) opened the hearing with this observation: "Our First Amendment rights do not change from one state to another, and our Second Amendment rights should not either. Law-abiding citizens should be able to carry a concealed firearm between states without worrying about conflicting state criminal laws or onerous civil suits."
CA are mulling a new restrictive bill dealing with self-defense, which includes a duty to retreat.
In Sacramento, they apparently don't trust people who own handguns, such as this vintage
Model 19 S&W, for personal protection. Before you shoot, you gotta scoot, they say.
California Dreamin'
Somebody in the Golden State obviously didn't have enough to do a couple of weeks ago when they came up with Assembly Bill 1333, which would create a "duty to retreat" while apparently tightening down on the use of force in self-defense.
Under AB 1333, "Homicide is
not justifiable when committed by a person in all of the following cases:
(1) When the person was outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating. (Emphasis added)
(2) When the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger.
(3) When the person was the assailant, engaged in mutual combat, or knowingly engaged in conduct reasonably likely to provoke a person to commit a felony or do some great bodily injury, except if either of the following circumstances apply:
(A) The person reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
(B) In good faith, the person withdrew from the encounter with the other assailant or assailants and indicated clearly to the other assailant or assailants that the person desired to withdraw and terminated the use of any force, but the other assailant or assailants continued or resumed the use of force."
So, who decides what level of force is reasonably necessary, and what crosses the line? Hint: It's not going to be you.
If the bill passes as introduced, homicide would be justifiable "when committed by any person in all of the following cases:
(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.
(2) When committed in defense of a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.
(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished."
Now, if anyone outside of Sacramento thinks this legislation will prevent a single murder, they're dreaming.
Golden State gun owners should keep their eyes peeled for any movement on AB 1333.
In California, and anywhere else, nobody in your presence should know
you're armed. Drawing a sidearm should come as a complete surprise
to everyone, especially an attacking, threatening criminal!
Peacefully Packin'
So, don't expect California and a few other states to allow constitutional carry without a blistering political fight. They already use the existence of those laws in other states to offer all kinds of arguments against national reciprocity, including the lie that it would require strict states to allow permitless carry, and water down their laws to reflect the laws of other states.
And, of course, opponents will scream about allowing unlicensed persons from "constitutional carry" states to pack without licenses everywhere. It's nonsense, and they will know it even while spewing it.
The dirty little not-much-of-a-secret is that they all know criminals carry without licenses already. They just don't want to admit they know, because they'd have to explain why they haven't done anything about it.
Every permitless carry state continues issuing licenses so their citizens can lawfully carry in all other states where permits are honored, if they have reciprocal agreements. New York, Oregon, California, New Jersey and a handful of other regressive states stubbornly refuse to honor non-resident concealed carry permits. Sure, it's childish.
If North Carolina comes "on line" with permitless carry, it will simply make it tougher for the remaining holdout states. When concealed carry was the hot thing more than a decade ago, Illinois was the last state to come on board, and the legislature — and especially then-Governor Pat Quinn — had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century, thanks to lawsuits filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association. Expect the same, or even more aggressive, resistance to "constitutional carry."
In the meantime, carry with confidence and do it discreetly. Nobody in your presence should know you are armed, unless and until an emergency arises.
