December is an exciting time of year. Some people are focused on the upcoming holidays, others on the chance of snow flurries. Here at the School of Government, we’re paying close attention to new legislation, much of which takes effect on December 1 of each year. This post focuses on 2025 changes to North Carolina laws concerning firearms. The legislature has already enacted several significant provisions, with one more still awaiting a possible veto override.
Creation of new aggravated felon-in-possession offenses and new sentencing enhancements for burglary and breaking or entering offenses. S.L. 2025-71.
Under G.S. 14-415.1, a person who has been convicted of a felony and subsequently possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony. This year, the General Assembly created several aggravated variants of the offense. Possession of a firearm by a felon becomes a Class F felony if committed “during the commission or attempted commission of” most felonies; a Class D felony if the person “brandishes a firearm or a weapon of mass death and destruction during the commission or attempted commission of” most felonies; and a Class C felony if the person “discharges a firearm or a weapon of mass death and destruction during the commission or attempted commission of” most felonies. The revised statute bears some resemblance to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), a federal provision that imposes progressively more severe penalties for a defendant who possesses, brandishes, or discharges a firearm in connection with a crime of violence or a drug trafficking offense.
The same session law creates sentencing enhancements for burglary and breaking or entering offenses when committed by a person in possession of a firearm:
- Changes to G.S. 14-52 increase the penalty for first- and second-degree burglary by one offense class when the defendant “possessed a firearm about his or her person during the commission of [the burglary] offense.” Therefore, enhanced first-degree burglary is a Class C felony (up from Class D) and enhanced second-degree burglary is a Class F felony (up from Class G).
- Changes to G.S. 14-53 increase the penalty for “breaking out of dwelling house burglary” from Class D to Class C when the defendant possessed a firearm.
- Changes to G.S. 14-54, concerning breaking or entering buildings generally, also provide for a one offense class increase when the defendant possesses a firearm. Thus, breaking or entering with the intent to commit a felony would increase from a Class H felony to a Class G when committed with a gun, and misdemeanor breaking or entering would increase from a Class 1 misdemeanor to a Class A1.
Changes to provisions regarding the return of firearms surrendered pursuant to a DVPO. S.L. 2025-70.
Under G.S. 50B-3.1, a judge who issues an emergency or ex parte domestic violence protective order (DVPO) and who finds that the defendant engaged in certain especially concerning conduct (such as using or threatening to use a deadly weapon, or threatening to seriously injure or kill the aggrieved party or a minor child) must order the defendant to surrender any firearms in his or her possession to the sheriff. Sometimes the emergency or ex parte order expires and no permanent order is sought, or a permanent order is sought but denied. Subsection (e) of the statute addresses this circumstance. There has been some confusion about the prior language in that subsection. On its face, it could be read to allow the defendant to retrieve his or her firearms from the sheriff without a court order. But in practice, sheriffs and district court judges generally have concluded that a court order is required prior to return. They have relied in part on language located in a different subsection of the statute,G.S. 50B-3.1(d)(2), which provides that “[t]he sheriff shall not release firearms, ammunition, or permits without a court order granting the release.”
The new law makes clear that when an emergency or ex parte DVPO is not followed by a permanent DVPO, the defendant “may retrieve any weapons surrendered to the sheriff without additional order of the court.” Prior to returning the weapons, the sheriff must run a NICS check to confirm that the defendant is not prohibited from possessing firearms for other reasons, and that the defendant “does not have any pending criminal charges committed against the person that is the subject of the current protective order or pending charges that, if convicted, would prohibit the defendant from possessing a firearm.”
A defendant seeking the return of his or her firearms after a permanent DVPO concludes must still seek a court order. The new law also makes some changes to the procedure for addressing third-party owners’ requests to recover firearms that a person subject to a DVPO has surrendered to the sheriff.
New provision allowing certain private school employees and volunteers to carry firearms on campus. S.L. 2025-81.
G.S. 14-269.2 generally prohibits the possession of firearms and other weapons on school grounds. Subsection (g) of the statute creates exceptions to the general rule, including for certain public safety personnel and for weapons used solely for school-sanctioned ceremonial purposes. This session, the General Assembly added a new exception for “an employee or volunteer of a nonpublic school” who has permission from the school, has a concealed carry permit, completes eight hours of annual training, and meets certain other requirements.
Concealed carry without a permit has not (yet?) become law due to the Governor’s veto. SB 50.
The legislature passed a bill this session that would allow “[a]ny person who is a citizen of the United States and is at least 18 years old [to] carry a concealed handgun in this State unless provided otherwise by law.” Therefore, most adults would not need a concealed carry permit in order to carry a concealed handgun. The bill would not repeal the concealed carry permit statutes, recognizing that “it is often convenient to have a concealed handgun permit for the purpose of reciprocity when traveling in another state, to make the purchase of a firearm more efficient, or for various other reasons.”
The bill passed both chambers and was ratified on June 12. It was then vetoed by Governor Stein on June 20; his veto statement explains his reasoning. On July 29, the Senate voted along party lines to override the veto. The House has delayed voting on the veto override, with a vote currently scheduled for December 15. The bill’s prospects are unclear, at least to me. It may be worth noting that two House Republicans voted against the bill originally, along with all House Democrats. But it is also true that a number of members were absent for the original vote, and the same or different members may be absent for the December 15 vote, and votes can change over time. So as exciting as December 1 is each year, this year December 15 is worth watching as well.
