![\"Meghan](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/meghan-lock-081126-1425x747.jpeg\")
Assistant Attorney General Meghan Lock argues at the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Image from the North Carolina Court of Appeals YouTube channel.<\/p>\nNorth Carolina\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The state Appeals Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit pitting CJETS against the RRC.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
CJETS was following the law, state Assistant Attorney General Meghan Lock argued Tuesday. \u201cFor 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Assistant Attorney General Meghan Lock argues at the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Image from the North Carolina Court of Appeals YouTube channel.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe\u2019re not trying to meddle in every detail of each and every course and regulate the private entities to that degree,\u201d Lock said. \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI think they were getting away with it for 30 years,\u201d responded Phil Strach, the RRC\u2019s lawyer. \u201cNobody called them on it.\u201d<\/p>\n
The law calls on CJETS to be a \u201cfacilitator,\u201d not a regulator, Strach argued.<\/p>\n
![\"Phil](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/08\/phil-strach-081126-1425x745.jpeg\")
Attorney Phil Strach argues at the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Image from the North Carolina Court of Appeals YouTube channel.<\/p>\n
Chief Judge Chris Dillon raised concerns about the impact of allowing the NRA or other groups to create their own training course rules.<\/p>\n
\u201cWith no state oversight, why wouldn\u2019t that be unconstitutional?\u201d Dillon asked. \u201cIsn\u2019t that a delegation to some private organization that would run afoul of our constitution?\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThe NRA could hire my 2-year-old grandson to be an instructor,\u201d Dillon added. \u201cThere\u2019s nothing here that says they can\u2019t do that.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Jefferson Griffin mentioned the importance of minimizing government interference with Second Amendment rights.<\/p>\n
\u201cIs it meaningful that this is involving a constitutional right?\u201d Griffin asked. \u201cThis is impacting someone\u2019s constitutional right to be able to defend themselves in the manner that they see fit.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI think there\u2019s 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
Judge Allegra Collins pushed back on Strach\u2019s argument that CJETS got away with unauthorized rulemaking for 30 years.<\/p>\n
\u201cIsn\u2019t a different way of looking at it that the fact they\u2019ve done it for 30 years without question means that actually they have to authority to do it as everybody understood it?\u201d Collins asked. \u201cWe are talking about the meaning of a word here.\u201d<\/p>\n
Collins and her colleagues must decide whether the word \u201cguideline\u201d in state law means that CJETS has authority to make a state rule.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think that we all agree that the syntax that was used in this statute was perhaps not the best that could have been used,\u201d Lock said. \u201cBut that doesn\u2019t mean that it didn\u2019t get us where we need to go. It doesn\u2019t mean that \u2018guideline\u2019 can\u2019t sometimes be a rule. And that sometimes is when it needs to be enforced. That\u2019s exactly what we have here.\u201d<\/p>\n
CJETS \u201casks this Court to reverse the Superior Court by mischaracterizing an allowance to issue advisory guidelines as a broad delegation of rulemaking power,\u201d RRC\u2019s lawyers wrote in April brief<\/a>. \u201cThat interpretation conflicts with the plain text of the governing statutes, settled principles of administrative law, and the General Assembly\u2019s demonstrated intent behind the statutes at issue.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cAs 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 \u2018RRC\u2019) acted squarely within its authority in objecting to and returning\u201d the disputed rules, RRC lawyers added.<\/p>\n \u201cThe statutes direct CJETS to prepare and publish general guidelines; they do not authorize CJETS to impose mandatory, enforceable standards on other entities through rulemaking,\u201d according to the brief. \u201cWhen the General Assembly intends to grant rulemaking authority in this arena, it does so expressly. The General Assembly did not do so here.<\/p>\n \u201cCJETS\u2019s rulemaking authority derives solely from Chapter 17C of the North Carolina General Statutes,\u201d wrote lawyers representing the rules commission in April. \u201cThat Chapter charges CJETS with the education, training, and certification of criminal justice officers and employees, not private citizens seeking concealed handgun permits.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cUnder North Carolina law, to qualify for issuance of a concealed handgun permit, an applicant must have \u2018successfully 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,\u2019\u201d the RRC brief explained. \u201cCJETS 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.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSection 14-415.12(a)(4) is explicit as to what makes a course \u2018approved,\u2019\u201d RRC lawyers explained. \u201cAn approved course is one that satisfies the substantive content requirements \u2014 live-fire handgun training and instruction in North Carolina law \u2014 and is \u2018certified or sponsored\u2019 by one of several enumerated entities. By its plain language, the statute establishes a decentralized certification framework.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cCJETS 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,\u201d the rules group argued.<\/p>\n