House Bill 964 would expand North Carolina’s concealed carry rules to allow a person with a valid concealed handgun permit, a permit recognized as valid under state law, or a person otherwise exempt from needing a permit to also carry concealed certain other weapons. The bill specifically amends the state’s concealed weapons statute to create exceptions for concealed carry of weapons such as bowie knives, dirks, daggers, slung shots, loaded canes, metallic knuckles, razors, shuriken, stun guns, and other deadly weapons of like kind, so long as the person is not carrying in a place or manner where concealed handguns are already prohibited by law.
The bill also adds a new subsection to the concealed handgun permitting statute stating that a person who has a concealed handgun permit may carry concealed any weapon listed in the concealed weapons statute, subject to the same location-based restrictions that apply to concealed handguns. In effect, the measure ties the authority to conceal other weapons to existing concealed handgun permit status rather than creating a separate permit system. The bill is set to take effect December 1, 2025, and would apply only to offenses committed on or after that date.
Its impact on state law would be to narrow the reach of G.S. 14-269(a) by carving out a new permit-based exception and to broaden the practical scope of concealed handgun permits under G.S. 14-415.11. It would not erase prior prosecutions, and it preserves liability for conduct occurring before the effective date. Affected parties would include concealed handgun permit holders, military permittees, law enforcement, and individuals charged under North Carolina’s concealed weapons laws.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from discussion transcripts. Based on the bill’s structure, it appears to be a pro-permit expansion of carry rights, but the absence of committee testimony or roll-call votes means there is no documented public support or opposition in the supplied record.
The main point of contention likely concerns public safety and the scope of concealed carry rights. Supporters would likely view the bill as a logical extension of existing concealed handgun permits and a reduction in technical criminal liability for permit holders carrying other defensive tools. Opponents would likely worry that extending concealed carry authority to knives, knuckles, stun guns, and similar weapons could increase the number of concealed deadly weapons in public and complicate enforcement of weapons restrictions in sensitive locations.
HB964 would amend G.S. 14-269(a) and G.S. 14-415.11 to allow concealed handgun permit holders, recognized permit holders, and certain permit-exempt persons to carry concealed weapons other than handguns, including several specifically listed weapons and other deadly weapons of like kind, subject to existing location-based prohibitions. It would effectively expand the legal protection associated with concealed handgun permits and limit prosecutions under the concealed weapons statute for covered individuals after the bill’s effective date.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no documented debate record to gauge sentiment. The bill’s text suggests a generally permissive, pro-carry approach that would likely be supported by gun-rights advocates and permit holders, while likely drawing concern from public-safety advocates or those favoring tighter weapons restrictions.
The likely point of contention is whether concealed handgun permit status should authorize concealed carry of other deadly weapons, not just handguns. Supporters would argue this is a straightforward extension of existing permit authority and a practical benefit for lawful carriers; opponents would likely argue it broadens concealed weapons access too far, potentially increasing risks associated with knives, knuckles, stun guns, and similar weapons in public spaces. The bill also preserves existing location restrictions, so disputes may focus on whether those restrictions are sufficient.