N.C. Bill Would Protect Medical Privacy of Concealed Carry Applicants, But Does It Go Far Enough?

While permitless carry legislation has been getting a lot of attention in North Carolina in recent days as SB 50/HB 5 have started moving through their respective chambers, there’s another bill brewing in the House that is of critical importance to gun owners who live in the state’s most populous county. 

As we’ve previously detailed here at Bearing Arms, Charlotte TV station WCNC has done a great job of reporting on the permitting abuses by Mecklenberg County Sheriff Garry McFadden’s office, which includes the collection of sensitive medical records while running background checks on concealed carry applicants. Now Rep. Keith Kidwell (who’s also the primary sponsor of the House permitless carry bill) has authored legislation that would put a halt to these abuses and erect a firewall between the medical history of an applicant and the prying eyes of the sheriff. 

His legislation, House Bill 427, would “replace the required disclosure of records concerning the mental health or capacity of an applicant for a concealed handgun permit with a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ statement indicating whether the person or entity has information that the applicant has been diagnosed by a medical professional with a mental illness.” Kidwell believes sheriff’s office employees don’t need to know specifics about gun owners’ medical history when deciding if they are capable of safely handling a gun.

If passed, the bill would explicitly make it clear, health providers are not required to disclose those kind of records to the sheriff. However, if a health provider notes an applicant has been diagnosed with a mental illness, they would be required “to provide the applicant with the grounds for responding ‘Yes'” in writing.

This is a good step in the right direction, but arguably Kidwell and his Republican colleagues can and should go even further in reforming the permitting process. 

Under existing law, sheriffs “shall” issue concealed carry licenses if applicants meet certain criteria, including not “suffer[ing] from a physical or mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun.” 

On the other hand, sheriffs’ shall not issue permits to those “currently, or… previously adjudicated by a court or administratively determined by a governmental agency whose decisions are subject to judicial review to be, lacking mental capacity or mentally ill”, with an explicit notation that “previous consultative services or outpatient treatment alone shall not disqualify an applicant under this subdivision.”

North Carolina’s law goes beyond the federal prohibition on gun ownership for those adjudicated as a “mental defective”, which has been interpreted to mean someone who’s been involuntarily committed to a mental heath facility for care, and not just an evaluation. 

The state doesn’t define what a “mental infirmity that prevents the safe handling of a handgun” actually means, which gives sheriffs like McFadden the subjective authority to decide for themselves whether someone should get a carry license, even in what’s ostensibly a “shall-issue” system. Kidwell’s bill may protect the privacy of applicants by keeping details of their mental health history from licensing authorities, but it would still allow gun control fans like McFadden to deny someone a carry license based on nothing more than a diagnosis of depression or prolonged grief disorder, even if they’ve never been institutionalized or received inpatient treatment. 

The simplest fix would be to simply bring the concealed carry language in line with buying a gun: if you can pass a NICS check and purchase a firearm, you should be able to carry it as well. It may be that revision is a bridge too far for some members of the North Carolina legislature, but while Kidwell’s bill would definitely be an improvement, it won’t be enough to completely curtail the subjective authority of anti-gun officials to deprive people of their right to carry.