North Dakota to Allow Constitutional Carry

Godfather of Politics – by Keely Sharp

Another state is adding themselves to the growing list of constitutional carry states, meaning that citizens can carry without a permit, and secure themselves as the 12th state to do so.

North Dakota just passed a new bill, House Bill 1169, and it will go into effect on August 1. Governor Doug Bargum signed the bill back in March.  

NRA reports:

HB 1169 eliminates the requirement of North Dakota residents to obtain a permit in order to lawfully carry, and makes the current permitting system optional, which will still allow citizens to obtain permits to take advantage of reciprocity agreements with other states. Those wishing to utilize the permitless carry system starting on August 1, 2017, should ensure they are familiar with the new law.

This bill recognizes a law-abiding adult’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense in the manner he or she chooses.  Self-defense situations are difficult, if not impossible, to anticipate.  Accordingly, a law-abiding adult’s right to defend himself or herself in such situations should not be conditioned by government-mandated time delays and taxes.

It’s strange to me that we have some states that have moved forward with permit less carry and allow so much freedom, and then there are states like New York who do not allow anyone to carry, regardless of permit.

Godfather of Politics


6 thoughts on “North Dakota to Allow Constitutional Carry

  1. Omg, the governments gonna allow me to have my inalienable rights…oh thank you masters..

    . unfrknreal and I’m sure the NRA will come out and say, what a great victory for gun rights and the 2nd amendment…assholes…..

  2. It’s a shame that states need to pass these “constitutional carry” laws. The 2nd Amendment was clearly meant to apply to the whole country, so there should be no need for further gun rights protection at the state level.

    Even so, the more states that do this, the better. Like pot legalization, it can have a snowball effect. As more states enact these measures without any negative consequences, politicians in other states will find it harder to argue that doing the same in their own states will lead to catastrophe.

    1. You’ll see more and more states start to do this, because if they don’t, they won’t be able to target gun owners.

      They want to see who registers so they can have a fema camp database.

      1. If that’s their plan, I think it will backfire. They don’t have nearly enough manpower to round up all guns and gun owners, even if they had the political consensus. I just don’t see it happening, at least in the near future.

        What’s more likely IMO would be an attempt to round up political dissidents. So far the Supreme Court, in spite of its typical uselessness, seems to be protective of even “hate speech.” However, if any particular faction among the enemies of free speech (Zionists, many LGBTs, flag-waving patriotards, etc.) manages to gain enough political clout to override the Supreme Court, dissidents could be targeted.

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.