SAF’s Lawsuit Challenges North Carolina Barring CCW for Legal Residents

Veasey et al v. Wilkins, Jr.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

UPDATE: A Preliminary Injunction has been granted in this case. SAF wins another case that expands the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit in federal district court in North Carolina on behalf of an Australian citizen who legally resides in the state, but cannot obtain a concealed carry permit under a state law that only allows citizens to get such permits.

The plaintiff, Felicity M. Todd Veasey, lives with her family in Butner, where she has resided since 2004. Prior to that, she lived in neighboring Durham County. She has a permanent resident visa and once worked at the Australian Embassy in Washington, D.C.

“Felicity is a long-time resident of the community,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “and she can legally possess a concealed firearm in North Carolina, but only on her own property as the law now stands. We’re challenging that, just as we have challenged similar laws in New Mexico, Washington, Arkansas and elsewhere.”

Named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Granville County Sheriff Brindell B. Wilkins, Jr. The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division.

“Although we’ve won similar cases in other states,” Gottlieb said, “we seem keep finding such laws on the books and we have to challenge them. Felicity has set down roots in North Carolina, where she lives with her husband and stepson. Her rights under the Second Amendment are being violated.”

SAF’s lawsuit seeks to establish that the recognition and incorporation of the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, renders North Carolina’s ban on non-citizens obtaining a concealed carry license, unconstitutional. As the plaintiffs only seek to be treated the same as law-abiding citizens, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments render a ban such as that challenged in this action, impermissible.

See the Court’s docket here.