Permit Self-Defense Devices on College Campus
Senate Bill 955 would change North Carolina law to allow adults age 18 and older to carry certain nonlethal self-defense devices on property owned, used, or operated by colleges, universities, and community colleges. The bill specifically exempts pepper spray, pepper gel, mace, tasers, ordinary pocket knives, and similar nonlethal devices from the state’s campus weapons restrictions, and it also bars higher education institutions from prohibiting those devices for self-defense by staff, students, employees, or other lawful visitors.
The bill also amends the state’s concealed weapons law to make clear that the general prohibition does not apply to adults carrying these permitted self-defense devices on higher education property. In addition, it appropriates $10,000 in nonrecurring General Fund money to the UNC Board of Governors to publicize the change to students, staff, and the public at public and private institutions of higher education in North Carolina. The effective date for the substantive campus-carry changes is December 1, 2026, while the appropriation becomes effective July 1, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would narrow the scope of North Carolina’s campus weapons restrictions in G.S. 14-269.2 and related concealed weapons provisions in G.S. 14-269 by creating a new exception for specified self-defense devices on higher education property. It would affect community colleges, colleges, and universities, as well as adults 18 and older who are lawfully on campus, including students, employees, staff, and visitors. The bill would also require state-level outreach through the UNC Board of Governors to inform campuses and the public about the new rules.
Based on the bill’s title and text, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety and personal-defense bill, with an emphasis on allowing nonlethal protective tools on campus rather than firearms or other more dangerous weapons. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. The absence of recorded legislative discussion means the overall sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s protective framing and its targeted, limited exception.
The likely points of contention are whether colleges and universities should be required to permit self-defense devices on campus and whether such a change could affect campus safety, enforcement, and institutional autonomy. Supporters would likely emphasize personal protection and the limited, nonlethal nature of the devices covered, while opponents may argue that even these devices complicate campus security policies or create enforcement challenges. Another possible issue is the age threshold of 18 and older, which would allow some students but not younger individuals who may be present in dual-enrollment or other higher education settings.