Governor Vetoes Bill Protecting Students With Armed Staff

On July 9, 2025, North Carolina Governor Josh Stein vetoed House Bill 193, a proposal that would have allowed trained and permitted staff or volunteers at private schools to carry concealed handguns or stun guns on school grounds. As reported by Avi Bajpai of The News & Observer, the bill aimed to offer private institutions the option, not the obligation, to arm vetted personnel to increase school safety. Stein, a Democrat, stated the bill would “make our children less safe,” emphasizing that only law enforcement officers should carry firearms in schools.

What the Bill Would Have Done

According to both The News & Observer and gun rights journalist Cam Edwards from Bearing Arms, House Bill 193 required participants to hold a valid concealed handgun permit, undergo an approved training course, and get written permission from school leadership. The bill also demanded that schools adopting this policy draft clear operational guidelines and provide them to parents. Republicans said the goal was to give private schools, especially in rural areas where police response times are longer, a viable way to protect students from potential attackers.

Motivated by Real Tragedies

During a committee meeting in April, Rep. Jake Johnson, a Republican from Polk County, highlighted that several private schools pushed for the measure after the 2023 school shooting in Nashville, Tennessee. He told legislators, “Something is better than nothing,” arguing that qualified staff could be critical in an emergency. Cam Edwards echoed that sentiment, pointing out how private schools often lack the dedicated law enforcement presence found in public schools, especially in smaller or more isolated communities.

Governor Stein’s Reasoning for the Veto

Governor Stein’s statement, as quoted by Bajpai and Edwards, stressed that law enforcement officers and school resource officers (SROs) go through over 800 hours of public safety training. He said teachers and volunteers shouldn’t be expected to take on this responsibility. Stein added that even one mistake could be disastrous, citing an incident in Goldsboro, North Carolina, where a school employee accidentally left a gun in a bathroom and it was discovered by a student. He concluded, “Just as we should not allow guns in the General Assembly, we should keep them out of our schools unless they are in the possession of law enforcement.”

Cam Edwards Fires Back

Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms criticized Stein’s remarks, pointing out that the training for law enforcement includes a wide range of skills irrelevant to teachers or school staff, such as arrest procedures and traffic stops. Edwards said that the bill didn’t authorize school employees to act as police – it simply allowed them to be a line of defense in the event of an active shooter. “That’s what the bill did,” Edwards emphasized. “And that’s not good enough for Josh Stein.”

Some Democrats Broke Party Lines

Interestingly, the bill was not supported solely along party lines. Three Senate Democrats, Dan Blue, Gladys Robinson, and Paul Lowe, voted in favor of HB 193. And in the House, Democrat Rep. Shelly Willingham, a retired police officer, reversed his initial opposition and supported the bill after private schools in his district voiced their concerns. Willingham admitted he didn’t “necessarily want guns on campus,” but said schools deserved the option. He also pledged to vote in favor of overriding the veto if it came back for a vote.

Veto Override Uncertain But Possible

As reported by Cam Edwards, Republicans hold a supermajority in the Senate, so overriding Stein’s veto there appears likely. The House is more uncertain. One Republican, Rep. Mark Pless, voted against the bill. Willingham’s flipped vote could balance the scales, but it still leaves the override one vote short unless Pless changes his stance. Edwards urged constituents to contact Pless and advocate for a reconsideration, arguing that waiting for police during an active attack could cost lives.

Why This Is About More Than Guns

What makes this issue stand out isn’t just the gun debate – it’s the question of local control. Supporters argue that private schools should be allowed to decide how to keep their students safe. This wasn’t a blanket mandate to arm teachers. It was a permission-based policy requiring training, board approval, and full transparency with parents. In essence, it offered flexibility – something Stein’s veto takes away.

Governor Stein’s Broader Veto Pattern

Stein vetoed two additional bills the same day. One blocked agencies from disclosing personal data about nonprofit donors, which Stein claimed would increase “dark money” in politics. The other would’ve sped up the process of evicting squatters but included an unrelated ban on local pet store regulation, which Stein said would “facilitate inhumane puppy mills.” His statements show a clear pattern: he supports many goals in principle but objects to specific provisions he finds troubling.

Public Safety vs. Political Optics

Cam Edwards questioned whether Stein’s veto was about public safety or political posturing. As attorney general, Stein had supported multiple gun control measures and was seen as aligned with anti-gun groups. Edwards pointed out that public school students often benefit from state-funded school resource officers, while private schools are left to fend for themselves. Stein’s decision, in Edwards’ view, maintains a two-tiered system where some kids get protection and others are left waiting for police.

A Flawed Comparison

One of Stein’s key arguments, that teachers are not law enforcement, is logically sound but practically flawed. No one is suggesting that teachers take on full police duties. What HB 193 proposed was simple: if a school chooses, a trained adult on site could defend against an armed threat. This doesn’t replace law enforcement; it bridges a dangerous gap between threat and response.

What’s the Real Risk?

Here’s the hard question: are we more afraid of a trained staff member misusing a firearm, or an attacker walking into a defenseless school? Incidents where armed school staff mishandle firearms are rare. On the other hand, mass shootings, though statistically infrequent, have devastating consequences. Denying schools the ability to prepare for the worst may feel safer on paper, but it doesn’t guarantee protection when minutes matter most.

Letting Schools Decide Isn’t Radical

What stands out most is how measured this bill was. It didn’t force guns into classrooms. It didn’t cut corners on training. And it didn’t leave parents in the dark. It gave schools the right to choose, based on their needs and resources. That’s not extremism, that’s local control. And removing that option in the name of safety might sound good in a speech, but it could leave schools powerless in a real emergency.

Safety or Politics?

House Bill 193 sparked a real debate over school safety, responsibility, and the role of firearms in education. With input from journalists like Avi Bajpai and activists like Cam Edwards, it’s clear the issue goes beyond left or right. At its core, it’s about whether private schools deserve the same right to defend their students as public ones. Governor Stein believes law enforcement is the only answer. But many lawmakers, educators, and parents aren’t so sure – and the final vote may come down to one lawmaker changing his mind.