Exercising your right to keep and bear arms shouldn't require a government-issued permission slip to begin with. It's a fundamental civil right, after all, so why should you have to prove your worthiness to keep or carry a gun before doing so?
Beyond the constitutional problems with gun licensing laws, an investigation in North Carolina has uncovered another concern with the state's "shall issue" carry law: background checks on gun owners that are giving sheriffs access to "invasive" personal information, including whether an applicant has had an abortion or has a sexually transmitted disease.
WCNC in Charlotte recently discovered that the background checks run by sheriffs sometimes result in personal details being sent to law enforcement, and now one lawmaker says it's time to put that to a halt.
"We've got to do everything we can to control that," Rep. Keith Kidwell, a Republican from District 90 in eastern North Carolina, said. "What I'm going to do is get with the drafting folks and we're going to look at legislation and see how we curtail this so that only the information that's necessary for law enforcement to make decisions on concealed carry is the only thing that they're provided with."
When someone applies for a gun permit in North Carolina, they sign an Administrative Office of the Courts form, that gives the sheriff's office the right to review their history, so the agency can make sure the person is capable of safely handling a gun. However, attorney Ron Shook said the agency occasionally receives what he considers irrelevant information.
"They're also releasing information such as, 'Has a person had an abortion? Do they have any sexually transmitted diseases?'" Shook said. "Really invasive personal information that the sheriff doesn't need in order to make a decision about whether or not they should be able to carry a firearm."
Shook settled a lawsuit with the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office in 2024 after the agency failed to issue concealed carry permits in a timely matter. During depositions for that case, an MCSO employee detailed a wide range of records the agency has received from health providers during background checks, like whether a woman's had a cesarean section or how many children someone has had and more. The employee admitted providers have sometimes handed over records the sheriff's office didn't even request.
"It's entirely too much," Shook said. "It's invasive."
While Mecklenburg County Sheriff Garry McFadden has been sued on a number of occasions for allegedly violating the rights of gun owners, in this case it seems that the issue lies with health providers and state statute, and not solely the sheriff's office. It's the providers who are releasing details of an applicant's health, but according to WCNC, the providers may be trying to comply with state law.
Two existing state laws seem to muddy this even more. One only allows for the release of "records concerning the mental health or capacity of the applicant" when considering a person's qualifications. The other requires the sheriff to consider any "physical or mental infirmity" when determining whether a person's CHP permit should be approved or denied.
Rep. Kidwell hopes his legislation will make this crystal clear.
"Anything that goes beyond the necessity that the sheriff or sheriff's deputies would need to make that decision is invasive in my mind," Rep. Kidwell said. "It's inappropriate for them to be provided that information because it's not necessary to make the decision they need to make. That's blatantly none of their business and should not be provided."
At the very least those laws need to be amended so that the sheriffs are only informed of a record that would disqualify an applicant from obtaining a carry license like an adjudication of mental effectiveness or an involuntary commitment. But it also sounds like there's an underlying issue with sheriffs having too much discretion in approving or denying permits, and if that is the case, then that needs to be addressed as well.
North Carolina would be better off with a permitless carry law on the books, but thanks to the reluctance by Senate leadership last year, the window of opportunity has closed for the time being. Last session Republicans had a veto-proof majority, but they lost that advantage last November, and there's no chance that newly-elected Gov. Josh Stein would allow permitless carry to take effect if the legislature adopts the measure this session.
Stein may very well veto any and all legislation improving the state's concealed carry licensing laws, but the odds of attracting one or more Democrats to sign onto more modest reforms are also far better than them co-signing a Constitutional Carry bill. A veto-proof majority for permitless carry is off the table, but Kidwell and his colleagues will hopefully have better luck with legislation designed to protect the privacy of those North Carolinians trying to exercise their right to bear arms.
