Listed To This Article: Play in new window | Download | Embed
You can also subscribe via Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | RSS | More
ELIZABETH CITY, NC — A tragic shooting at Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) during the school’s annual Viking Fest left one person dead and several others injured. The incident occurred early Sunday near the center of campus, prompting a lockdown and emergency response from multiple law enforcement agencies. The investigation remains active, and authorities have not yet released details about the suspect.
Shortly after the shooting, The Chronicle published an article titled “Shooting at HBCU as lawmakers consider ending concealed carry permits”, attempting to tie the criminal act to North Carolina’s pending constitutional carry legislation. This framing is deeply flawed. The article uses the incident to criticize House Bill 5 and Senate Bill 50—two proposals that would allow law-abiding adults who are legally permitted to own firearms to carry concealed without a government-issued permit. But these proposed changes have absolutely nothing to do with the kind of criminal violence that occurred at ECSU.
The article claims that these bills would “eliminate all safeguards currently in place” and “ease access to firearms.” That is incorrect. The proposed laws do not change who can buy or own a firearm. Federal and state laws still prohibit felons, domestic abusers, and other restricted individuals from possessing guns. Constitutional carry simply removes the requirement for a concealed handgun permit for those already legally eligible to carry. It does not eliminate background checks for firearm purchases, nor does it give criminals new access to weapons.
Calling the current permit system a “safeguard” is also misleading. North Carolina already allows open carry without a permit, meaning anyone legally allowed to possess a firearm can carry it visibly. The only difference with constitutional carry is that those same legal gun owners wouldn’t need an additional permit to carry concealed. If the law doesn’t stop someone from carrying openly, why require a separate process to conceal the same firearm?
Linking a violent act committed by a yet-unidentified individual—whose legal eligibility to possess a firearm is unknown—to legislation that applies only to lawful gun owners is both irresponsible and misleading. It confuses the public conversation about gun rights and distracts from the real issue: enforcing laws that already prohibit criminals from accessing firearms in the first place.
More than half the states in the country have adopted some form of permitless carry without seeing spikes in violence attributable to those laws. North Carolina’s bills follow this national trend, aiming to affirm the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.
