Proposed Enhanced Concealed Carry Permit Would Come With A Badge; Allow Unrestricted Concealed Carry

Rob - April 14, 2015


Senate gun bill allows unrestricted concealed carry


John Boyle @ Citizens Time


If Sen. Jeff Tarte gets his way this year in the General Assembly, North Carolina could have a new class of concealed carry gun permit holders who could take their firearms anywhere police officers do.


Senate Bill 708, which would create the “Homeland Security Unrestricted Concealed Handgun Permit,” is among several gun bills filed in the state legislature this year aimed at easing restrictions on gun owners and streamlining the permitting process.


Tarte, R-Mecklenburg, said the only place those holding an unrestricted concealed carry permit would not be able to bring a gun would be a courtroom.


“Theoretically, you’d be able to carry in a facility that has ‘no guns allowed’ signs,” Tarte said. “We have to clarify (the bill) on individual property owner rights — if someone wanted to preclude you from carrying a gun on their private property.”


He sees several benefits to the proposed law, which he stressed is “not a marshals program, per se.”


“First, while police do a great job, in most of the situations where you have mass murders, it happens in a instant and there’s no time for police to respond,” Tarte said.


Also, as the law stands now, a concealed carry permit holder who brings a concealed gun into a building with posted signs prohibiting concealed weapons could lose his permit. This law would eliminate that scenario.


“It would be nice to have good people who are prepared to take care of the defenseless,” he said. “That’s why police, I think, are very supportive.”


Tarte’s bill would require extensive training, including simulated active shooter scenarios, called “simmunition” training, as well as an extensive mental health exam and a background check similar to what police officers go through. The permit holder would bear the cost, which could run upward of $1,000, he said.

Not sure exactly how we feel about this. There are lots of reasons to love this idea, and a few reasons to be weary of it.

It is fantastic because it allows those with this permit to carry anywhere (as it should be) regardless of “gun free zone” signs or other silly restrictions.

It allows for armed citizens to be on the scene in places where mass shootings often take place. With armed citizens the threat can be neutralized much more quickly than waiting for police.

By requiring extensive training, we know that anyone serious enough to want this permit will have to work for it and pay for it.

The price tag and the training are deterrents for everyday folks who wouldn’t otherwise work hard at perfecting their marksmanship or to train themselves for real life situations.

The bad part of this bill is that it starts to blur the lines between law enforcement and concealed carriers.

Simply carrying a gun should not equate having a badge, or the responsibilities that come with having a badge.

Although this permit is far more than just carrying a gun, what responsibility will one have if they do have this permit and witness a crime? Will they be expected to act?

Also, what happens the first time someone with this kind of permit shoots and kills someone during the act of a crime? Will they be afforded the same exceptions of a police officer?

What happens if they shoot an innocent person? What kind of backlash will something like this have on the standard CCW permit?

There is certainly a lot to think about when creating a higher tier license.



  • Hack

    No way…pay a $1000 bucks to have this? To protect the defenseless, not my job….that is why there are police. I’ll just stay away from stores that don’t want my money due to carrying concealed.

    • Justin

      How will they survive without the incredible economic stimulus your frequent PBR and beef jerky purchases provide?!?

  • Lawrence Moran

    Huge, huge, HUGE problems with this proposed bill. First, it is utterly unable to impact Federal gun free zones…so, you would still be unable to carry your concealed weapon into a post office or federal courthouse or building in a national park, etc. If the law applies specifically to State imposed gun free zones, then why the heck would you need to pay $1000 or more for enormously intrusive background checks? More to the point, it sets a very dangerous precedent in that it makes the exercise of a Federal right (the individual right to keep and bear arms recognized in McDonald v. Chicago) dependent upon the largesse of the State, largesse purchased at great cost. In short, it takes a right and treats it as a privilege. Once that precedent is established, how long before you need those same sorts of checks to get a normal concealed carry permit?

  • Chris West

    Instead of allowing concealed carriers to carry in state specified “gun free” zones for the low low price of $1000 why don’t we just get rid of the “gun free” zones? seems like it would be a lot simpler to me… Plus, as someone already said, this would have no effect on federal property, so it’s almost pointless as is.

  • Roy Hernandez

    The constitution says that my right to bear arms shall not be infringed .
    Why would we pay for a right when our 2nd amendment already gives it . Our lawmakers need to understand this and just allow us to do what our founders said was our God Givin right.

    • Robert Jenkins

      that only counts if it isn’t infringing on someone else. if a business does not allow guns it doesn’t allow guns. You don’t have to shop there. I have a constitutional right to walk around in my underwear under the first amendment. but most businesses say no shoes no shirt no service.

      • Cotton LC

        exactly!! it says “shall not be infringed unless it doesn’t infringe on someone’s rights”…. wait… it doesn’t. Read the federalist papers and the constitution.

        • Robert Jenkins

          a business has the right to deny a customer who is carrying a firearm. a business has that right.

          • Cotton LC

            “that only counts if it isn’t infringing on someone else.” this statement is false. however a private business is a different situation since it is their private property.

          • Robert Jenkins

            even wal-mart has a right to say no firearms inside if they want to.

  • Michael Precht

    On the other hand this law starts getting at the “well regulated militia” part of the 2nd Ammendment.

    • Brian G Schrier

      Yeah, that’s not what “well regulated” meant back in the late 1700’s…

  • AmericanPatriot4

    For the low cost of 1,000+, you can enjoy your constitutional rights with a little less infringement.

    I like the sentiment, but the execution isn’t all there. Maybe this is the baby steps to restoring the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment that expressly forbids any and all infringements.

  • xxkingxx

    It’s time to cut all this BS and make a national reciprosity the law of the land. $1000 my butt… charge me for defending myself and my family? Signs? Sometimes I might miss them because I don’t have my reader-cheaters on.

  • Cotton LC

    Awesome!!! this sounds great, even higher extortion fees for unconstitutional carry… you even get to have a badge!! who knows maybe we will be required to wear the patch, i mean badge… is it star shaped?

    let me get this strait… you get to pay extortion fees (extortion is :the act or practice of extorting especially money or other property; especially : the offense committed by an official engaging in such practice) for rights you already have. once you have this permit, you need to make sure no one finds out that you possess the tools to defend yours and your loved ones lives. if someone were to find out and report it, then you may face the same penalty (also unconstitutional) as though you had no unconstitutional carry license and hadn’t payed the extortion fees… in this case 1k.

    now you have to pay court fees. Last I checked, extortion is illegal… so is breaking the constitution.

    lastly… anyone who agrees with this crap and says they support the second amendment and the constitution…. you don’t. please remove any Gadsden flags, three percenter, and any gun rights paraphernalia. It will help alleviate any confusion.

  • AK

    I have mixed feelings on this one. I’m actually ok with the “$1000 price tag.” If you train regularly, (as you should), then you’re already spending upwards of a $1,000+ a year on classes, ammo, and proper equipment. Another thing I like is that it at least makes an effort to address the disparity of Rights between Law Enforcement and civilians. But as others point out, it doesn’t address “Federal law.” Which means you still can’t carry on Federal property including into Post Offices. This does not, however, address the differences in the ROE for LEOs and civilians, which is another problem. Many might look at this law and think that it is a precursor to supplementing Law Enforcement with a civilian variant. As far as I’m concerned, I think Law Enforcement could be better served from a private entity. But that’s not what this bill aims to achieve nor does it come close to it. At the end of the day, keep in mind that because of SCOTUS cases Castle Rock vs. Gonzales and Warren vs. District of Columbia, Law Enforcement does not have a duty to protect the individual, but only provide safety for the “public at large.”

    Another thing is “gun free” signage posted by business owners. They should still have the Right to refuse firearms on their property (it is private property after all). However, an easy solution to this is to strip those signs of any legal weight they otherwise would have. In other words, you cannot be prosecuted for a crime if you carry onto private property with such a sign; however, if the property owner asks you to leave and you refuse, then you are trespassing and the law can take its due course in this case. Many states have adopted this format of dealing with gun-owner’s Rights to carry, and private business owners’ Rights to have a “gun free zone” on their property.

    However, at the end of the day, this law is still an affront to the 2nd Amendment. You don’t need a “permit” to exercise your natural, inalienable, human Right to Self-Preservation which is codified in the 2nd Amendment.

    • Douglas Winston

      I have an issue in that, while I agree more training is better, the left uses training as an obstacle to free exercise of our rights, just as they used the bogeyman of “urban crime” to disarm the poor under GCA’68’s ban on cheap imported pistols – the so-called “Saturday night specials” (with full support of Colt, Smith and Wesson and other domestic manufacturers). Consider Illinois’ current CCW law: 16 hours classroom (the longest in the country) as well as $150 initial and $150 renewal fees (the highest in the country). Funny that the Democrats – the self-appointed “party of the poor and working class” – insisted on establishing time constraints that would be onerous for most that hold regular jobs, and fees that would exclude those on assistance or fixed incomes.
      While the antis are more than eager to use a debunked study claim a gun in your house makes you 87 times more likely to kill a family member, they can offer no independently verifiable proof that states with more training to obtain a CCW permit are any safer than states with less or even no training. I’m certain that if Illinois could have found such data, they would have presented it in their fight against CCW in arguing Moore v Madigan, but they did not, because they could not.
      As for posting, I agree that a property owner should be able to post if he or she wishes. That said, given that there are a myriad number of other public safety concerns that any business owner cannot avoid (building codes, fire codes, health codes) when they are open for public business, the should be held liable – even if only sharing the blame with the criminal themselves – if they require law abiding citizens to be disarmed in their place of business, fail to provide active security measures and injury or death occurs as a result of their being unable to provide for their own defense.

      • AK

        I agree on your counts of “the left us[ing] training as an obstacle to free exercise of our rights…” It is why I’m generally opposed to this piece of legislation, and also why I ended my comment pointing out that the bill is still an affront to the 2nd Amend.

        I will always advocate for further training, regardless of your profession. It is true, that training doesn’t guarantee your safety (or the safety of those around you), but neither does having a gun. Both simply (substantially) increase your odds of successfully surviving a life-threatening scenario that calls for such action.

        As for business owners and what level of responsibility they have to their patrons, I’m opposed to the arbitrary, invasive, and often erroneous laws forced upon business owners under the pretext of “building codes,” “fire codes,” and “health codes.” The business owner’s responsibility to the patron only goes so far as to supply satisfactory service and completion of whatever transaction they are transpiring. If something happens to the patron outside the context of this transaction, even if it is within the property of the owner, then I don’t see where the owner is at fault (unless it is a result of negligence on the part of the proprietor). A business owner has no more responsibility to supply adequate security for their patrons than the police do for the individual citizen (hence why case law concerning this matter is sparse, at best). At the end of the day, the only person responsible for your safety is you. Anyone who seeks to off-set their inadequacies in this regard (often at the fault of ignorance and naiviete) by shifting the blame to someone else is someone who is wholly irresponsible. Leaving us to wonder how natural selection failed in this regard.

        But a discussion of small business regulations is adversely outside the scope of this article, so I apologize for the deviation.

  • SoCalCop

    There’s nothing magical about the law and places where people can carry firearms, and you don’t need a badge to go into those places and exercise your rights.

    Politicians created the restrictions, and politicians can remove them.

    Badges are a necessary part of a policemans uniform to identify him as an authority figure that people can go to. Giving a badge to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wants one makes no sense.

  • PavePusher

    The Constitution is my ‘badge’, you Blue Waffle fuck-tarts.

  • Patrick

    Regardless of the price I would take advantage of this if it were available in my home state.

  • wildman

    did you fuking turds forget the 2nd Amendment??

  • Lee MacDonald

    WHAT? A LAW “ALLOWING”? LOL READ OUR CONSTITUTION! We don’t need no stinkin’ laws. Americans follow the law of God! It’s all spelled out in our Constitution. Read it!

  • Lee MacDonald

    Are all of you proponents of this BS CRAZY? IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY NOT YOUR RIGHTS! Get out of the leftie minion mindset. We’re Americans NOT followers!

  • whytoldbear

    As if the police are REQUIRED to respond to crime!

    • BD

      but remember they aren’t required to respond quickly. On top of SCOTUS saying the Police have no duty to protect.

  • Douglas Winston

    It’s not “be weary of it” unless it makes you tired. I believe you intended to say “be wary” 😉

  • Pingback: N.C. Senate gun bil wouldl allow unrestricted concealed carry......()

  • Talking_Monkey

    “Although this permit is far more than just carrying a gun, what responsibility will one have if they do have this permit and witness a crime? Will they be expected to act?”

    Why would you ask this? Multiple courts have ruled that sworn officers have no duty to protect an individual, why would this be an expectation of someone with an enhanced license?


  • TS Atomic

    If it is private property (privately owned business, home, land, etc) then I don’t think the state or the Fed should have any say so in whether I allow folks to carry open or concealed on my private property. I should be able to make the rules on my private property. If I say it’s ok, then you are fine. If I say no, then you leave or get charged with trespass after warning. And I should be able to pick and choose who I allow to carry.

    If it is public property, then state or federal law dictates. I do believe that the 2nd Amendment already addresses govt infringement and as such no state or federal law is needed. But we allowed the Govt to start dictating our gun rights extra-constitutionally at least as early as the GCA. Shame on us. As long as the GCA/NFA stand, then the Fed and the States will enjoy a fairly broad spectrum, (right up to and just a hair shy of an outright ban), of ways to mess with our 2nd Amendment rights.

    Not a damn thing you or me can do about it.

    And as for the NRA? They enjoy making that money. They have as much interest in ending all gun control as Jesse and Al have in eliminating all racism. They don’t want it all to end. Ask them about work on repealing GCA/NFA and see how quickly you get horse-laughed as a nut. They are making too much money off of keeping us rubes on the hook while they “make it look good”… So shut up, quit your bitching and pony up those donations and membership fees.

  • Kenneth Zapen

    “Also, as the law stands now, a concealed carry permit holder who brings a concealed gun into a building with posted signs prohibiting concealed weapons could lose his permit. This law would eliminate that scenario.”

    Citation needed