The old system was enacted in 1919, partly as a response to the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan under the presidency of Woodrow Wilson. Many critics pointed towards racist motivations for enacting the Jim Crow-era law. Whatever the purpose of the legislation was, the effect was clear.
In practice, it dramatically limited the constitutional rights of state residents to keep and bear arms.
For proof, simply note the number of NICS background checks in April, the first month the old law was repealed, compared to April of 2022. Last month, there were 46,040 mandatory background checks for handgun purchases.
Just one year ago, that tally was 1,655.
It is worth noting that the astronomical surge in firearm sales did not extend to long guns. There were 12,435 checks run by the NICS system last year and 11,984 a month ago — so statistically almost the same result.
The numbers bear the evidence that the previous state statute carried with it a quite chilling effect on the Second Amendment rights of those who otherwise would have been free to purchase a handgun after clearing the normal federal background screening.
One thing is clear. If the government wants to work around pesky laws or even constitutional amendments, there are ways to do so. A great example came from the 1965 Supreme Court case of Lamont v. Postmaster General.
The U.S. Post Office during the height of the Cold War enacted a regulation with the intent of stopping the distribution of communist literature. The law specifically required citizens who wanted to receive such mailings to sign up at the post office.
As any gun rights supporter clearly recognizes, what this does is create a registry for the government to use against those who hold views it disagrees with.
In Lamont, the high court ruled that even though there were no punishments listed for those who received communist mailings, the regulation’s effect would be to distinctly chill the rights of individuals who sought to receive the materials but did not want to appear on a government list.
There was a remarkably similar dynamic at play in North Carolina.
North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore (R) celebrated the override of Cooper’s veto. He declared the bill that immediately became law “preserves the Second Amendment rights of North Carolinians by repealing the outdated pistol permit system. It also allows all churches and other place[s] of religious worship to protect their parishioners and launches a statewide firearm safe storage awareness initiative.”
Cooper was clearly not overjoyed that state lawmakers saw fit to overturn his veto. He claimed that gun rights advocates did not allow debate “because the arguments were too compelling for them to hear…the House voted to override my veto and eliminate strong background checks for handguns in NC.”
Cooper also tweeted that “known domestic abusers and mentally ill people” would be able to purchase handguns and place citizens at risk. This, of course, conveniently ignores that background checks remain in place with the new North Carolina law.
The anti-gun crowd is persistent in its efforts to chip away at constitutional liberties. While the Second Amendment stands squarely in the way of an outright ban, their goal is the proverbial “death by paper cut.” North Carolina legislators just took a positive step in the direction of preserving freedoms that all law-abiding citizens should enjoy.
