State boards clash in court over concealed handgun training rules

North Carolina’s second-highest court will decide in the coming months whether a state agency had authority to mandate rules for training courses linked to local concealed handgun permits.

The state Rules Review Commission argues that the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission, CJETS, never had authority to adopt government rules affecting private groups like the National Rifle Association and United States Constitutional Carry Association.

The state Appeals Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit pitting CJETS against the RRC.

CJETS first established rules related to the local concealed handgun training courses in 1995. The commission tried to amend those rules in 2023. At that point, the RRC objected to the existing rules. The RRC had the rules removed from the North Carolina Administrative Code in 2024.

The criminal justice standards group filed suit against both the RRC and Brian Liebman, the codifier of rules. A Superior Court judge ruled in favor of RRC and Liebman in July 2025.

CJETS was following the law, state Assistant Attorney General Meghan Lock argued Tuesday. “For nearly three decades, we were successfully able to do this until the Rules Review Commission erroneously removed from the code the rules that outlined the process that we were going through.”

“We’re not trying to meddle in every detail of each and every course and regulate the private entities to that degree,” Lock said. “It was simply meant as a mechanism to make sure that the law was being complied with, that the General Assembly put in place, ensuring that people are in fact competent with a handgun and understand the laws of self-defense.”

“I think they were getting away with it for 30 years,” responded Phil Strach, the RRC’s lawyer. “Nobody called them on it.”

The law calls on CJETS to be a “facilitator,” not a regulator, Strach argued.

Chief Judge Chris Dillon raised concerns about the impact of allowing the NRA or other groups to create their own training course rules.

“With no state oversight, why wouldn’t that be unconstitutional?” Dillon asked. “Isn’t that a delegation to some private organization that would run afoul of our constitution?”

“The NRA could hire my 2-year-old grandson to be an instructor,” Dillon added. “There’s nothing here that says they can’t do that.”

Judge Jefferson Griffin mentioned the importance of minimizing government interference with Second Amendment rights.

“Is it meaningful that this is involving a constitutional right?” Griffin asked. “This is impacting someone’s constitutional right to be able to defend themselves in the manner that they see fit.”

“I think there’s a reasonable argument to be made that because of the constitutional right to bear arms, that the General Assembly when they wrote Chapter 14 was careful not to tread on that right.”

Judge Allegra Collins pushed back on Strach’s argument that CJETS got away with unauthorized rulemaking for 30 years.

“Isn’t a different way of looking at it that the fact they’ve done it for 30 years without question means that actually they have to authority to do it as everybody understood it?” Collins asked. “We are talking about the meaning of a word here.”

Collins and her colleagues must decide whether the word “guideline” in state law means that CJETS has authority to make a state rule.

“I think that we all agree that the syntax that was used in this statute was perhaps not the best that could have been used,” Lock said. “But that doesn’t mean that it didn’t get us where we need to go. It doesn’t mean that ‘guideline’ can’t sometimes be a rule. And that sometimes is when it needs to be enforced. That’s exactly what we have here.”

CJETS “asks this Court to reverse the Superior Court by mischaracterizing an allowance to issue advisory guidelines as a broad delegation of rulemaking power,” RRC’s lawyers wrote in April brief. “That interpretation conflicts with the plain text of the governing statutes, settled principles of administrative law, and the General Assembly’s demonstrated intent behind the statutes at issue.”

“As the Superior Court held, CJETS lacks statutory authority to promulgate binding rules governing concealed handgun training courses and instructors, and Defendant-Appellee North Carolina Rules Review Commission (the ‘RRC’) acted squarely within its authority in objecting to and returning” the disputed rules, RRC lawyers added.

“The statutes direct CJETS to prepare and publish general guidelines; they do not authorize CJETS to impose mandatory, enforceable standards on other entities through rulemaking,” according to the brief. “When the General Assembly intends to grant rulemaking authority in this arena, it does so expressly. The General Assembly did not do so here.

“CJETS’s rulemaking authority derives solely from Chapter 17C of the North Carolina General Statutes,” wrote lawyers representing the rules commission in April. “That Chapter charges CJETS with the education, training, and certification of criminal justice officers and employees, not private citizens seeking concealed handgun permits.”

“Under North Carolina law, to qualify for issuance of a concealed handgun permit, an applicant must have ‘successfully completed an approved firearms safety and training course which involves the actual firing of handguns and instruction in the laws of this State governing the carrying of a concealed handgun and the use of deadly force,’” the RRC brief explained. “CJETS argues that because the statute does not spell out with granular specificity the particulars of course content, testing, or live-fire proficiency, that silence itself supplies CJETS with authority to promulgate binding rules governing those matters. It does not.”

“Section 14-415.12(a)(4) is explicit as to what makes a course ‘approved,’” RRC lawyers explained. “An approved course is one that satisfies the substantive content requirements — live-fire handgun training and instruction in North Carolina law — and is ‘certified or sponsored’ by one of several enumerated entities. By its plain language, the statute establishes a decentralized certification framework.”

“CJETS is one of many instructive bodies, including the National Rifle Association and the United States Concealed Carry Association, identified by the General Assembly; it is not vested with exclusive regulatory or approval authority over courses or instructors led by other organizations,” the rules group argued.

State Justice Department lawyers representing CJETS offered a different take in their February brief.

“The crux of this case is whether CJETS has the statutory authority to create rules setting minimum qualifications for instructors and establish course content guidelines for the firearms safety and training course that an applicant for a concealed handgun permit must successfully complete to be issued a certificate by CJETS certifying same,” the CJETS brief explained. “The General Statutes require that an approved course contain instruction on the state law involving concealed carry and deadly force and the live firing of a handgun.”

“The statutes also direct CJETS – and no other entity – to prepare and publish general guidelines for courses and qualification of instructors,” the brief continued. “The General Statutes require an applicant submit an original certificate distributed by CJETS, signed by the certified instructor, that verifies the applicant is competent with a handgun and is knowledgeable about the laws regarding concealed carry and deadly force.”

“CJETS adopted rules to meet their statutory authority to prepare and publish guidelines for courses and qualifications of instructors,” Justice Department lawyers wrote. “The adoption of these rules to set forth the guidelines provides assurance that a person attending an approved course gains instruction and knowledge in the legal topics specified in the statute and demonstrates — with live firing — competence in the handling of a firearm to a uniform minimum standard across the state.”

“If, as the RRC contends, the guidelines cannot be rules, then they cannot be enforced,” the brief continued. “Without enforcement authority by CJETS, there will be no uniform standard and no mechanism to ensure that the CJETS issued certificate indicates successful completion of a course demonstrating knowledge in the law and competence with the handgun.”

“Under this interpretation, the General Assembly’s stated requirements regarding instruction and student knowledge of legal topics and live fire and competence with a handgun would have no enforceable definitions, turning the statutory requirements into mere vague suggestions or aspirational advice to those instructing students in the prescribed safety course,” CJETS’ lawyers added.

Liebman “argued that he should be dismissed as a party because CJETS failed to state a claim against him,” his Justice Department lawyer wrote in an April brief.

“The Codifier has consistently maintained that, if CJETS succeeds in its claim against the Commission, the Codifier will comply with his statutory obligation to publish the rules that are at issue in this case. CJETS proffered no evidence to the contrary,” Liebman’s lawyers added.

“State boards clash in court over concealed handgun training rules” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.