hy Joseph P. Tartaro | Executive Editor
On August 1, North Dakota will become the 13th state where concealed firearm carry without a permit, also known as constitutional carry, will be in effect.
After the State Senate passed the measure on March 21 in a 34-13 vote, Gov. Doug Burgum signed the bill into law on March 23—making it official that the state will join the small but growing club of states that allow law-abiding gun owners to carry their firearms without a permit. You still have to undergo a background check to lawfully own firearms and if you’re carrying, you need to inform law enforcement if approached.
The “constitutional carry” authority provided under House Bill 1169 applies only within North Dakota’s borders. Those wanting concealed carry reciprocity with other states still must apply for a Class 1 or Class 2 North Dakota concealed weapon license, for which the requirements remain unchanged, Townhall.com reported.
Current law only requires an applicant for a Class 2 license to complete an open-book test, at a cost of up to $50, and undergo a criminal history records check. Class 1 licenses require firearms training and additional requirements. Both licenses carry a $60 application fee.
When the law takes effect, North Dakota will be the 13th state to allow open or concealed carry without a license, edging the current “constitutional carry” movement to slightly more than one-quarter of the nation’s states. The other states where permitless carry is legal are: Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming. In a couple of those states, notably Montana, there are still some areas where the permitless carry law does not apply.
All of the 13 states, except Vermont, still have a system of licensing in place, which facilitates carry to some reciprocal states, applications for licenses in some other states, and eliminates a background check for new firearm purchases in other states.
Vermont has never had a license to carry system, a fact which gave rise to the name ‘Vermont Carry” among gun rights activists in other states.
In many ways, the state-by-state push for permitless carry laws parallels the drive for “shall issue” carry licensing which began in the late 1980s and gained strength and numbers until the last states without a permitting system of any sort were Wisconsin and Illinois. Passage in Wisconsin came about because of political action, but it was court action that finally forced Illinois to adopt a licensing system.
Don’t be surprised if permitless carry is adopted in other states this year. The issue is hot in some 16 to 20 other state legislatures this year, but there is often resistance, particularly from some law enforcement officials, or governors. An example of the latter can be found in South Dakota, where the permitless carry measure, HB-1072, passed the House 37-30 and the Senate 23-11 just a few weeks ago, but was vetoed by Gov. Dennis Daugaard (R). Daugaard’s veto was no surprise; he had made it clear that he would oppose any permitless carry bill that the legislature might pass.
The same fate befell similar measures in New Hampshire in recent years. In the Granite State, the legislature had passed such legislation two years in a row, only to have the previous governor veto it both times. A new governor, Chris Sununu, signed it earlier this year in a third try.
Permitless, or “Constitutional” or “Vermont style” carry is not an easy sell, even among some veteran gunowners, and the “Constitutional” name is a question of interpretation, not legal precedent.
The main reason some gunowners are not supporters of permitless carry hangs on the training issue, or at least that is the often stated concern. They argue that while training is a requirement for concealed carry licensing, especially in “shall issue” states, there is no such requirement for qualification to carry concealed whenever a non-prohibited person chooses.
Part of the police community’s opposition also hangs on the training question. While sworn police officers and sheriffs’ deputies may carry concealed or openly—often 24/7—they get to do so only after successfully completing qualifying training programs, that not only involve safe handling, wearing, storage and uses of handguns, but of the laws involving discharge of a firearm in defense of themselves and others.
Opposition from gunowners also centers on training, which is a very broad term. Many states require training before the average law-abiding citizen can or shall be issued a license to carry concealed, not all of those laws meet the same standard.
One of the worst training standards of all involves the training requirement by most counties issuing CCWs in New York State: where training is currently required for every applicant, but no applicant is allowed under any conditions to handle and fire a handgun until after the license has been issued. This means no hands-on training, no actual handling of a revolver or pistol.
While New York has an arbitrary discretionary licensing system, it is not alone in having an unrealistic approach to real training. Needless to say, most experienced 24/7 handgun carriers realize that training is not just a once-in-a-lifetime experience, but practice and train as often as possible, advancing from beginner, through intermediate, to expert qualification.
The other main reason for the opposition to permitless carry comes from anti-gunners and legalists who say the Supreme Court has never ruled on a case involving carry outside the home. And they are right.
While the constitutional language says “keep and bear,” the high court has only ruled in the Heller and MacDonald decisions on the “keep” part, even though the general “keep and bear” language has been cited. “Constitutional carry” is based on how the average citizen, and some lawyers or judges, might read the Second Amendment.
Fact is, as things now stand, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in one case that there is no constitutional right to bear arms outside the home. If the Supreme Court decides to review that decision on a pending appeal, then we may have a real basis for believing that the “bear” language is as important as the “keep.”
Until then, we may have to continue to believe what the Vermont courts said over 100 years ago. Meanwhile, the drive toward permitless carry, openly or concealed, will continue in many states.
