North Carolina just took a major step by passing House Bill 5, known as the “Constitutional Carry Act.” The bill would allow adults 18 and up to carry a concealed handgun without a permit starting December 1, 2025. On the surface, this looks like a clear win for Second Amendment supporters. As Julie Barrett, founder of Conservative Ladies of America, explained in her recent video, “Your right to self-defense in North Carolina no longer requires a permission slip from the state.”
But as Barrett quickly pointed out, this legislation is more complicated than it seems. The fine print includes language that some fear could actually restrict gun rights rather than expand them, depending on how it’s enforced down the line.
A Bipartisan Surprise – and a Potential Veto
Barrett noted that the bill passed the North Carolina legislature with near-unanimous Republican support, except for two GOP members who broke ranks and voted against it. That alone raised eyebrows, as it’s rare to see Republican opposition to pro-Second Amendment bills. Their hesitation, Barrett suggests, may be rooted in the controversial sections buried in the bill’s text.
Now the bill awaits the signature of Democratic Governor Josh Stein, who is not known for backing gun rights. As Barrett warned, a veto is possible, and even likely, unless major pressure is applied by constituents.
The Alcohol Clause: Zero Tolerance, Zero Clarity
One of the most troubling parts of HB 5, according to Barrett, is a clause that makes it illegal for any person consuming alcohol or with any alcohol remaining in their body to carry a firearm. “Not drunk. Not impaired,” she emphasized. “Just if there’s any alcohol in your system.”
This language creates a dangerous gray area. Could a glass of wine at dinner hours earlier result in a criminal charge? Barrett expressed concern that this zero-tolerance standard isn’t about safety but about government control. “It could be selectively enforced,” she warned, “and that should concern every freedom-loving American.”
A Chilling Precedent for Mental Health Disqualifications
Another key red flag in the bill is the mental health disqualification clause. HB 5 prohibits concealed carry for anyone who has been “adjudicated by a court to be lacking mental capacity or mentally ill.” While it does include a caveat that outpatient treatment alone doesn’t disqualify someone, Barrett said this part of the bill is still vague – and potentially dangerous.
“Who defines adjudicated?” she asked. “And how do we know that outpatient services won’t be used down the road to disarm citizens?” In an age when mental health is heavily promoted in schools and workplaces, Barrett cautioned that this could be a backdoor method to limit gun rights for law-abiding citizens who seek help.
Past Abuse of Mental Health Laws Is a Warning Sign
Barrett didn’t stop at hypotheticals. She cited real-world examples of how mental health classifications have been used to disarm veterans and trauma survivors, without due process. The language in HB 5, she argued, could easily be manipulated in similar ways if put in the wrong hands.
“It’s a vague issue, and vague language is always a problem,” she explained. This clause opens the door to bureaucratic decisions with no clear boundaries, potentially violating constitutional protections.
Is This Actually “Constitutional Carry”?
This leads to an important question: Does House Bill 5 truly establish Constitutional Carry? Barrett suggests it’s more accurate to call it permitless carry, with conditions. While it does allow for carry without a permit, it also includes new restrictions that could limit lawful gun ownership more than existing permit laws.
True Constitutional Carry, Barrett argues, would protect the right to keep and bear arms without exceptions that punish responsible adults for things like light alcohol consumption or routine mental health treatment.
Public Safety or Legal Trap?
Barrett acknowledged that some may view the alcohol and mental health clauses as reasonable safety measures, but she urged viewers to think deeper. “Is it about safety? Or is it about creating legal tripwires that can be used selectively?” In her view, the language of the bill gives too much leeway to enforcement agencies.
That could mean otherwise law-abiding gun owners find themselves criminalized for technical violations, like having a trace amount of alcohol in their system hours after dinner.
A Wake-Up Call for Gun Rights Activists
While Barrett praised the broader intent of HB 5, she made it clear that gun rights supporters can’t afford to get complacent. “There are aspects of this bill that I absolutely support,” she said, “but in the wrong hands, these clauses are ripe for abuse.”
Her message to viewers was simple: Read the fine print. A bill that looks like a win for the Second Amendment may contain language that undermines the very rights it claims to protect.
Progress, But at What Price?
From my perspective, House Bill 5 is a classic example of two steps forward, one step back. Permitless carry for adults is a meaningful victory – but only if the government doesn’t sneak in new tools to criminalize otherwise lawful behavior. The alcohol clause is especially problematic. Laws should target actual recklessness or impairment, not the presence of legally consumed substances.
Similarly, the mental health clause reflects a growing trend of using subjective or bureaucratic standards to strip people of their rights. We’ve already seen this play out with veterans, red flag laws, and overly broad federal databases.
The Bigger Fight May Be Just Beginning
Barrett concluded her analysis by encouraging viewers to stay engaged. Whether Governor Stein signs or vetoes the bill, the public debate around HB 5 will continue. If it becomes law, North Carolinians must keep pressure on lawmakers to amend or clarify the controversial sections.
And if it’s vetoed? The next fight is getting it back on the table – with cleaner, more constitutionally sound language.
Celebrate Carefully
House Bill 5 marks a turning point for North Carolina – but it’s not the unqualified victory that headlines might suggest. As Julie Barrett of Conservative Ladies of America warned, it’s a law with strings attached – some of which may tangle lawful gun owners in unnecessary legal trouble.
Her advice is wise: “Go read the bill. Understand what it says. Think about how it could be used – not just today, but five years from now.” In the realm of Second Amendment rights, what’s written in the margins often matters more than the title at the top.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.