House Bill 9 would expand state preemption over local firearm regulation by limiting counties and cities from regulating the discharge of firearms on or within private property when the owner or possessor gives permission and reasonable care is taken to keep projectiles on the property. The bill also clarifies that local governments are preempted from regulating the location and construction of sport shooting ranges, reinforcing statewide control over these issues.
The measure amends existing statutes governing county and city authority over firearms, specifically G.S. 153A-129 and G.S. 160A-189, to carve out an express exception for lawful firearm discharge on private property. It preserves local authority over certain other firearm-related matters, such as regulating the display of firearms on public streets and sidewalks, and it does not limit emergency powers under Chapter 166A. Any local ordinance inconsistent with the act would be void and unenforceable once the bill becomes law.
HB9 would narrow the ability of counties and municipalities to regulate firearm discharge and shooting-range-related land use, shifting authority to the state and invalidating conflicting local ordinances. It would directly affect local governments, property owners, shooting ranges, and firearm users by creating a statewide rule protecting permitted discharge on private property and reinforcing preemption over range location and construction.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to reflect a pro-firearm-rights, pro-preemption approach. The framing suggests support for protecting lawful shooting on private property and reducing local regulatory variation, with no documented opposition or amendment activity in the supplied record.
The main point of contention is the balance between local control and statewide preemption. Supporters are likely to favor uniform rules and protection for lawful shooting on private property and shooting ranges, while local governments may object to losing authority to address noise, safety, zoning, and nuisance concerns through ordinances. The bill preserves some municipal authority over firearm display in public spaces and emergency powers, but it still substantially limits local regulation of firearm discharge.