House Bill 366 would reenact North Carolina’s former pistol purchase permit system and expand it to cover long guns as well as pistols. Under the bill, a person could not sell, give away, transfer, purchase, or receive a pistol or long gun in North Carolina unless the buyer first obtained a permit from the sheriff of the county of residence or held a valid North Carolina concealed handgun permit. The bill also requires sheriffs to use a standardized statewide permit form created by the State Bureau of Investigation, with security features to reduce counterfeiting, and keeps the permit valid for five years.
The bill reinstates and updates several related statutes governing sheriff-issued permits, background checks, permit form requirements, and disqualifications. It also reenacts provisions tied to firearm possession restrictions and clarifies that certain felony convictions remain disqualifying, while allowing some people with pardons or restored firearms rights to obtain a permit if doing so would not violate those conditions. The bill would take effect December 1, 2025, and apply to firearm transactions on or after that date.
HB366 would change North Carolina firearms law by restoring a permit-based purchase requirement for pistols and extending that requirement to long guns, reversing the prior repeal of the pistol purchase permit framework. It would increase the role of county sheriffs in firearm transfers by requiring background checks and permit issuance for eligible applicants, while also creating a statewide standardized permit process through the SBI. The bill would affect gun buyers, sellers, sheriffs, and individuals with felony records or restored rights, and would likely add an additional legal step before lawful firearm purchases and transfers in the state.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be introduced in a straightforward policy posture with no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. The sponsors’ framing suggests support for reinstating local permitting and expanding screening to long guns, while the absence of transcripts or votes means there is no documented public sentiment in the supplied record. Overall, the bill’s direction indicates a more restrictive firearms policy approach.
The main point of contention is likely the expansion of permit requirements from pistols to long guns, which would be viewed by supporters as a public-safety and background-check measure and by opponents as an added burden on lawful gun owners and a restriction on firearm access. Another likely issue is the restoration of sheriff discretion and the use of local permitting for all counties, which could raise concerns about administrative burden, uneven implementation, and delays. The bill also implicates questions about how felony disqualifications, pardons, and restored firearms rights interact with permit eligibility.