It's Time For National Carry Reciprocity, Says the NRA

[IJ1981]

The April Issue of American Rifleman in their opinion blog makes the point with the GOP controling all 3 branches and Trump POTUS, that now is the time.

A controversial issue even among the GOP and the Republicans mainstream.

Your thoughts THR?

 

[243winxb]

Yes.
And Pennsylvainia needs this also-

As of April 5, 2025, 29 states allow permitless concealed carry, also known as constitutional carry, meaning you don't need a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

 

[GEM]

1. Can they get it from a filibuster?

2. What is the plan when the anti states slap on expanded locale bans that make carry useless in almost every public place? That's happened with Bruen, with a little bit of roll back but major draconian restrictions in place? Will the legislation include a roll back of locale bans? We know now that waiting for Scotus to deal with locale bans is a lost cost in a real time scenario.

3. This idea is introduced every few years and it didn't happen the last time, so why is this time different?

 

[LiveLife]

This idea is introduced every few years and it didn't happen the last time ...

While many of these bills have been introduced in past years with no real legislative support and traction towards passing votes to become signed into law, THIS TIME AROUND, various pro 2A organizations are openly voicing their support with encouragement for grassroots support to urge/pressure lawmakers to pass them so President Trump, who campaigned on Second Amendment rights, could sign them into law.

With trifecta single party control of House, Senate and White House (And to greater extent the Supreme Court as seen by many 5-4/6-3 split decisions), it's high time to enact "Permanent Enforcement" for Second Amendment just as lawmakers have for First Amendment over the decades because Second Amendment is not a "second class right" as expressed by justice Thomas and minority gun owners are not "second class citizens".

... so why is this time different?

Because real possibility exists some of these bills can actually become laws.

To me, there is no better time than now to pass these bills into laws as efforts by anti-2A state lawmakers are greater than ever so passage of these bills into federal laws would put a significant stop to their efforts.

BTW, HR 38 - Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act just passed Judiciary Committee - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1470114#msg1470114

And HR 645 - National Constitutional Carry Act (Which is more expansive than HR 38) is next for "We the People" to pressure speaker Mike Johnson - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1470746#msg1470746

It's our time to act.

"We the People" can do this as spoken by justice Gorsuch ... "We the People" can self govern this Constitutional Republic - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-on-the-second-amendment.856201/post-11324026

Long live the Republic. Godspeed.

 

[AlexanderA]

Your thoughts THR?

Yes, it's worth pursuing this, if for no other reason than to measure the influence the "gun lobby" has within this administration.

We may be disappointed to find out that the administration doesn't give a hoot about the "gun lobby." It has much bigger things on its plate.

But here's my greatest fear: the NRA seems to have a lot of political capital invested in this, just as they had a lot of political capital invested in the McClure-Volkmer bill (that later became the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986). Suppose national carry reciprocity gains traction, and then at the last moment some congressperson attaches a "poison pill," in the same way that the Hughes Amendment was attached to FOPA. History repeating itself! And then suppose Trump asks the NRA if he should sign it, with the poison pill, in the same way that Reagan asked the NRA if he should sign FOPA. Frankly, I don't trust the NRA to do the right thing and back away from it. After all, in its current condition the NRA has to register some wins to keep the money flowing in.

1. Can they get it from a filibuster?

The filibuster hurdle is the reason why the other low-hanging fruit, silencer deregulation, stands a better chance than national reciprocity. The NFA regulation of silencers is a tax, and therefore can be folded into a reconciliation bill, which is not subject to filibuster.

 

[luv2safari]

The filibuster hurdle is the reason why the other low-hanging fruit, silencer deregulation, stands a better chance than national reciprocity. The NFA regulation of silencers is a tax, and therefore can be folded into a reconciliation bill, which is not subject to filibuster.

Excellent Points!

Repealing the Tax on Noise Suppressors is far more realistic than an affirmation and enforcement of our Constitutional right to bear an arm. It's just the way the population has been conditioned.

 

[Old Dog]

2. What is the plan when the anti states slap on expanded locale bans that make carry useless in almost every public place?

Ay, there be the rub.

New York, California did it. Washington is trying to do it.

If it (national reciprocity) could come with a clause stating federal preemption and states could not restrict carry any more than than the federal currently government does (e.g., federal buildings) and that the states already do (e.g., courthouses, jails, prisons, psych wards and hospitals), and make no new laws restricting concealed carry in anticipation of the law becoming effective, I'd become a believer.

 

[Lo-Profile]

Double post

 

[Lo-Profile]

Only if it's Constitutional Carry
29 States already have this .... Why penalize them with additional infringement just to have National Reciprocity

If the Federal god'vernment is involved they'll screw it up with excessive fees, testing and oppressive requirements

 

[AlexanderA]

I think that carry reciprocity is not the hill to die on. As I've said many times, you can't carry what you can't own. Therefore, fighting against possession restrictions, such as AWBs and mag limits, should be our #1 priority.

Another serious problem is in how national carry reciprocity intersects with permitless "constitutional" carry. For a carry license to be recognized in other states, it's implied that the carrier has a license in his home state to begin with. So, at least, national reciprocity would require permitless states to issue pro-forma permits so that their residents could take advantage of the reciprocity. This kind of defeats the purpose of going to a permitless system.

More likely, today's permitless states would have to revert to full permit systems, with stringent national training requirements.

As an aside, there is some confusion as to the meaning of the words "to bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment. This was a term of art in the 18th century, and it did not mean carrying weapons for any purpose whatsoever. "Bearing arms" meant using weapons in some sort of military formation, and under some sort of military discipline. Originalist judges would have a tough time extending this so as to confer a universal right to carry.

 

[buck460XVR]

Most of us have been saying the same for years. It's always "been time". I too would prefer Constitutional Carry, but.....since I already have a permit for CWC, and permits are quite easy to get for most, I would settle for National Reciprocity.

 

[CDW4ME]

My drivers license is valid in all other states, carry permit should be too; its common sense, logical, consistent.

 

[tarosean]

My 2 cents..

NRA hasnt done jack **** in decades
POTUS is not fan of the 2nd.

SCOTUS left it up to the states.. So while its BS for me to research every state I have to drive through with my RV. It wont ever happen.

 

[GEM]

Once again, as folks have pointed out, unless the states are prevented from jacking up the locale bans - this may have very bad unintended consequences. I fail to see why the bill proposers don't see this. I also don't see why a supposed pro-gun Scotus doesn't act - yeah, I get it - they don't really have the votes for real clear decisions on the major gun issues and enforcing Bruen.
Don't think this is a WOO HOO - WE WIN idea.
The anti states and mixed states probably have fierce restrictions ready to go if this came to pass.

 

[Ks5shooter]

1. Can they get it from a filibuster?

2. What is the plan when the anti states slap on expanded locale bans that make carry useless in almost every public place? That's happened with Bruen, with a little bit of roll back but major draconian restrictions in place? Will the legislation include a roll back of locale bans? We know now that waiting for Scotus to deal with locale bans is a lost cost in a real time scenario.

3. This idea is introduced every few years and it didn't happen the last time, so why is this time different?

THIS ^^^^^^^^my CCW is very limited here in NJ I see most states making it very hard to carry as well .

 

[CapnMac]

Your thoughts THR?

My initial consideration remains the same--that what the federal government allows, the federal government can deny. So, I prefer devolving this to the individual States.

The States all vary, even as 26 now no longer require permits/licenses. The remainder are all over the place as to what the minima are for getting permits, where they deign allowing citizens to carry.

So, the very real barrier is that NYS and CA set standards that are utterly different from AZ, OH, or MT. There's likely no "average" (let alone a mean) between those. Resolving those differences is not a mere political compromise. You cannot simply sweep aside the restrictive nature of NYC, Chicago, Boston or the like, where their preferred condition is no carry at all, versus those places that allow their citizens to be responsible to themselves.

Were it merely the difference in training between, say, Florida, and NC, or AZ, or the like--then, yes, that could be resolved through political compromise. Even the differences in open & concealed carry could be worked out. But, Permissible versus Impermissible is a much higher hurdle.

 

[jdc1244]

I voted ‘no’ as a member of the dwindling number of advocates of states’ rights.

 

[Miami_JBT]

Only if it's Constitutional Carry
29 States already have this .... Why penalize them with additional infringement just to have National Reciprocity

If the Federal god'vernment is involved they'll screw it up with excessive fees, testing and oppressive requirements

Florida does not have Constitutional Carry.

Florida has a restrictive permitless concealed-only carry.

 

[Miami_JBT]

 

[Miami_JBT]

 

[AlexanderA]

this may have very bad unintended consequences. I fail to see why the bill proposers don't see this.

Oh, they see it all right. The dynamic is that the proposers -- in particular the NRA in its current condition -- are desperate to score a "win" for the pro-gun side. Their continued fundraising and even their continued existence depends on it. We're seeing a replay of the 1986 FOPA fiasco.

 

[Basura Blanca]

The April Issue of American Rifleman in their opinion blog makes the point with the GOP controling all 3 branches and Trump POTUS, that now is the time.

If that was the gist of the opinion piece, that's not much of a point and certainly not a good enough one to arrive at that conclusion. Even if the GOP was a reliable partner who frequently/historically took these opportunities to introduce pro-2A bills, the midterms are on their minds and the party is carrying a lot of risk on other matters at the moment.

So is it time to pursue national reciprocity in the rhetorical sense? Sure. Politically? Uh, no. Not going to happen.

 

[Basura Blanca]

I think that carry reciprocity is not the hill to die on. As I've said many times, you can't carry what you can't own. Therefore, fighting against possession restrictions, such as AWBs and mag limits, should be our #1 priority.

No it's not the hill to die on, however carry in general is where we've been getting the most traction with respect to expanding the 2A in recent decades. It's not a bad idea to capitalize on that and ride the momentum when and where we can if it's done smartly.

Priority-wise: The most onerous infringement are red flag-type laws since they effectively create an arbitrary category of prohibited person, with limited due process. And the high court's opinion in Rahimi made it clear that there *is* a level of infringement on whole classes of people that could be acceptable. That combination holds the most potential for trouble, imo.

After that, stamping out a clear definition of "dangerous and unusual/common use" and other things left hanging from Heller would address the bans and limits you're talking about. But that seems to be an impossible hurdle at the moment too.

 

[Miami_JBT]

If that was the gist of the opinion piece, that's not much of a point and certainly not a good enough one to arrive at that conclusion. Even if the GOP was a reliable partner who frequently/historically took these opportunities to introduce pro-2A bills, the midterms are on their minds and the party is carrying a lot of risk on other matters at the moment.

So is it time to pursue national reciprocity in the rhetorical sense? Sure. Politically? Uh, no. Not going to happen.

The difference between Republicans and Democrats is one holds office and the other exercises power.

When Democrats gain votes and get into office, they wield power. They understand that the American voter is fickle, bipolar, and suffers from short-term memory. As such, once they're in office, they go all out with what they can when they can. Even if in the short term, they'll lose officer after their actions. Because in the end, they know they'll get those seats back.

When Republicans gain votes and get into office, they operate as caretakers and simply keep the seat warm for Democrats.

They pushed ObamaCare, knowing they'll lose seats. They didn't care. They did it and now it is entrenched in our society. They eventually gained those seats back and Republicans have yet to repeal it. Time after time, when Republicans were the minority party, they passed bills to repeal it, knowing Obama would veto it. The moment Republicans actually got both chambers of Congress and the White House, no pep in their step to repeal ObamaCare.

Republicans are political cowards. It is why the grassroots base of the GOP is angry across the country at the local, county, state and federal level with 'em. The Republican political machine keeps actual firebrands out form running and winning on the R ticket, but the common voter doesn't know that. All they know is that Republicans talk the talk and Democrats walk the walk.

A number of Republicans are just 1990s era Democrats for the most part these days. I see it daily right now on the state and national level. They simply run with an R next to their names since if they ran with a D, they'd lose.

Democrats never lost power, they just changed jerseys.

Democrats became Republicans and Radical Socialists became Democrats.

Meanwhile, freedom lovers have been pushed to the side.

Gov. DeSantis just ripped into the entire Republican political machine in Florida on March 31.

 

[Elkins45]

The election is over. Trump doesn’t need your votes anymore. No soup for you.