House Bill 5, the “NC Constitutional Carry Act,” would allow most adults who are U.S. citizens and at least 18 years old to carry a concealed handgun in North Carolina without first obtaining a concealed handgun permit. The bill creates a new Article 54C in Chapter 14 establishing that permitless concealed carry is lawful unless another law prohibits it, while also listing disqualifying conditions such as felony status, certain misdemeanor violence convictions, domestic violence firearm prohibitions, substance abuse, mental incapacity adjudications, dishonorable military discharge, and pending charges or bond status for disqualifying offenses. It also requires a person carrying concealed to have valid identification and disclose that they are armed when approached by law enforcement.
The bill preserves the state concealed handgun permit system for people who want permits for reciprocity with other states, firearm purchase efficiency, or other reasons. It revises permit-eligibility rules, updates concealed-carry-related statutes, and amends multiple laws governing where weapons may be carried, including restrictions in courthouses, the State Capitol, the Executive Mansion, certain assemblies and alcohol-serving establishments, and other prohibited locations. It also clarifies that local governments retain some authority over firearms in public buildings, parks, and emergency situations, and it repeals G.S. 14-415.22.
In practical terms, the bill would significantly change North Carolina firearms law by removing the permit requirement for concealed handgun carry for eligible adults, while leaving in place a range of location-based restrictions and criminal penalties for prohibited persons or unlawful carry. It would also affect sheriffs’ permit-processing duties, law enforcement interactions, and the rules governing company police, campus police, wildlife inspectors, and other officers authorized to carry concealed weapons. The bill takes effect December 1, 2025, and applies prospectively to offenses committed on or after that date.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-gun-rights and supportive of “constitutional carry,” with the stated purpose of protecting the right to carry concealed handguns without a permit. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented public debate in the supplied materials, but the structure of the bill suggests an effort to balance expanded carry rights with continued public-safety restrictions and permit availability for reciprocity. The main points of contention likely involve the elimination of the permit requirement, the scope of disqualifying offenses, and the continued authority of local governments and property owners to restrict carry in certain places.
The bill would add a new statutory framework authorizing permitless concealed handgun carry for eligible adults and would amend numerous existing firearms statutes in Chapter 14 to conform to that change. It would also preserve and revise the concealed handgun permit system, update disqualifying criteria for permits, and modify related provisions on prohibited places, law enforcement disclosure, confiscation, and the authority of certain public safety officers. The bill would not eliminate all restrictions on concealed carry, but it would substantially broaden lawful carry rights and change how concealed carry is regulated statewide.
The bill’s stated purpose and title indicate a clear pro-Second Amendment, pro-permitless-carry sentiment. No committee testimony or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from legislators in the supplied context. Based on the text alone, the bill is framed as a rights-expansion measure that still preserves public-safety exceptions and permit reciprocity options.
The likely areas of contention are the removal of the concealed handgun permit requirement, the age and citizenship eligibility threshold, and the list of disqualifying offenses and conditions that still bar carry. Another likely point of debate is the bill’s treatment of local control and private-property restrictions, since it preserves some authority for governments and property owners to prohibit firearms in certain places. The bill also raises enforcement questions by requiring armed persons to disclose to law enforcement when approached and by expanding the circumstances under which concealed carry violations remain criminally punishable.