The debate over national handgun reciprocity has reignited, fueled by Donald Trump’s recent statement that he would sign such handgun carry reciprocity legislation into law.
The Armed Attorneys, Richard Hayes, and Emily Taylor unpack the topic in their latest YouTube video, exploring its potential impact, legal foundations, and the challenges ahead. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and why this topic is a hot button for gun owners and anti-gun advocates alike.
What Is National Reciprocity?
At its core, national reciprocity would ensure that concealed carry permits issued by one state are recognized across all states—much like a driver’s license. Currently, states have varying agreements on recognizing other states’ carry permits, with some (AKA Maryland, New Jersey, and New York) outright refusing to honor permits issued elsewhere. National reciprocity aims to standardize this patchwork system, providing permit holders with clarity and protection.
For example, a Texan traveling to Maryland—a state with strict (some say unconstitutional) gun laws—could legally carry their firearm under a national reciprocity law, provided they follow Maryland’s rules.
However, the specifics of each state’s firearm laws would still apply.
Why Is This Issue Contentious?
National reciprocity is polarizing for those that are scared of too much freedom for several reasons:
- State Sovereignty: Critics argue it infringes on states’ rights, forcing them to adopt policies their citizens may disagree with.
- Public Safety Concerns: Opponents claim it could undermine their efforts to regulate firearms within their borders. The Sky is falling.
- Constitutional Debate: Supporters point to the Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution), which requires states to honor each other’s laws and judgments. They argue this should apply to concealed carry permits, especially since the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.
The Legal and Political Landscape
President Trump’s promise to sign a national reciprocity bill could be an “easy win” politically, especially with a Republican majority in the House. However, it would face immediate legal challenges. States like California and New York, known for their strict gun control laws, would likely sue the federal government, arguing that such legislation violates states’ rights and public policy.
The courts would then need to address complex questions:
- Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause mandate recognition of carry permits across state lines?
- How does the Second Amendment intersect with states’ rights to regulate firearms?
Potential Pitfalls & Minefields of Laws
While national reciprocity could simplify travel for gun owners, there are important caveats:
- State-Specific Laws: Even with reciprocity, gun owners must follow the laws of the state they are visiting. For example, a Texan carrying in Florida cannot open carry, as Florida prohibits it.
- Feature Bans and Magazine Limits: Restrictions on certain firearm features or magazine capacities would still apply unless successfully challenged in court.
- Legal Risks: Until these issues are litigated and resolved, gun owners could find themselves in legal trouble if they mistakenly believe their home state’s laws apply everywhere.
What’s Next?
If national reciprocity passes, expect immediate lawsuits and a drawn-out court battle. The outcome could set a precedent for how the Second Amendment is applied across state lines. In the meantime, gun owners should stay informed and cautious when traveling.
Live Inventory Price Checker
|
Kydex Holsters Iwb - Kydex Iwb Holster 1911 Black Rh | Brownells.com | $ 62.00 |
|
|
575 IWB Holster GLS(TM) Pro-Fit Holster | Safariland | $ 77.50 |
|
|
Sticky Holsters Taser Bolt IWB Holster | GrabAGun | $ 21.69 |
|
|
|
1791 Gunleather Right Hand Glock IWB Holster, Black - TAC-IWB-GLOCK-BLK-R | Palmetto State Armory | $ 62.99 |
|
Join the Conversation; let us know what you think below.
The road to national reciprocity is fraught with legal and political hurdles, but it represents a significant step forward for Second Amendment advocates. What do you think? Should concealed carry permits work like driver’s licenses, or does this infringe on states’ rights? Share your thoughts below and help us keep the conversation alive.
Stay tuned to the Armed Attorneys for updates on this and other key Second Amendment issues. Together, we can fight the anti-2A narrative and protect our rights.
President Trump Promises Concealed Carry Reciprocity When Reelected
I don’t think we should have concealed carry permits. Ban gun laws period.
Murder, robbery, rape, etc, it’s all illegal. Make all guns, and the carrying of all guns legal, without a government permission slip.
The devil is in the details.
No! The devil and his son are in the White House NOW!
Fortunately, we’re getting a factory reset on that issue.
It’s a right that’s covered under the constitution and should not require permission from any low life government officials. Why should I require permission from scumbag beurocrat to protect myself from the criminals they let loose on society .
shouldnot require permission. Does not require permission.HLB
I pray that the bill being sent forward for constitutional carry across the land will pass. This will end our being required to have a carry permit which is unconstitutional in the first place and in the second place, if we have met an unconstitutional requirement in order to carry concealed in our own state, we shouldn’t be required to have a permit for any other state and it should automatically be valid everywhere. It’s bad enough that our own states turn a right into a privilege much less that other states have control of our privilege too. Constitutional carry… Read more »
You know, I have had others on this board make the same argument and some citing law saying that states have the right to make their own laws. I was taught in school that Fed law trumps State law and last week on Levin I watched him and a constitutional law professor both agree with what I was taught as being true and these states are actually breaking the law like Gavin Newsome and Houchel making laws to circumvent what the supreme court says under Bruen and other laws in place. My understanding though it has brought major argument on… Read more »
Hmmmm… You must have gone to school when they still taught facts and not feelings. And, apparently, they also taught reason and logic. You, kind sir, are a dangerous man.
Why thankyou, I always love a little chuckle in the morning to start my day.
Thanks.
What we are all talking about is the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, sect 2) of the Constitution. Here is how it works: The Federal government can only make law in its limited subject matter areas. When Congress makes law in the subject matter area granted by the Constitution, and a state has passed a statute on the same subject (presumably the Congress and State legislature seek to solve the same problem.), then the Congressional Act is supreme and courts must abide by Congress’s Act. I think the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution and the Second Amendment itself… Read more »
Well stated. I saw the same show……Twice!! I am not surprised, though…….there are a lot of folks frequenting this site that hate Levin cuz he is such a whiner and yells while doing it.
If state law is below federal law then explain the marijuana to me
The system is out of control because of democrap rule. You know what the requirements are to come to America and there should be no sanctuary states but the leftists think they can do what ever they want and the reason why is because the feds are not enforcing the Fed law. These governors that allow it and proclaim they are sanctuary states are aiding and abetting criminals because they are criminals the minute they cross our border without permission. Trump, says he will change that and I hope he does along with DACA and the law where if someone… Read more »
Federal statutes controlling substances are based upon Congress’s authority to regulate commerce. States statutes controlling substances are based upon the general law enforcement authority guaranteed to the states by the 10th Amendment.
How is the weather up in the OK northland?
Well, since I saw Mark Levin and the Constitutional law professor/Attorney acknowledge what I am saying I say your argument is with the professionals like them. As far as where I went to school it was in Sacramento Kommiefornia. As far as dumb asses voting for leftists, I can’t control the majority of the population which is Portland, and I am sure you know how they are, Eugene, Corvallis and Medford/Ashland oregoneistan. If I could, this wouldn’t even be an issue. As for me asking the feds to bail me out the answer really is that I am asking for… Read more »
The states ceded certain power to the Federal Government when they joined the Union. Some of those powers they would rather have kept, but when they joined they became subservient to the Union as per the agreement specified by the Constitution. You can not have it both ways. If the majority of the people in a state choose to operate outside of the Constitution, then it is the duty of the minority to enforce the Constitituion against their will. It seems likely that it is the duty of the other states to force that end. Thus, we have the purpose… Read more »
The 14th Amendments Due Process Clause applies the Constitution to the States, according to SCOTUS. Therefore the 2nd Amendment applies to the States.
Yes, the S. Ct. has been incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. But the S. Ct has been doing it one Right at a time. This is called the selective incorporation doctrine. For instance none of the Third Amendment has been incorporated against the states.
Until McDonald v Chicago none of the Second Amendment had been incorporated against the states.
There is no reason that the Equal Protection of the Laws clause does not apply. The Constitution is the foundation of the law. The Citizens are equally protected across the sate boundaries. When the 2nd Amendment prohibits infringement laws, it appies to all people in all states (and territories).
HLB
Won’t be such a thing especially with that AG pick advising.
Can’t say as I need anything from any of them other states where I can’t carry anyway. We travel and stay in free America much as possible. Free America is preferred
I live in Wyoming which has open and constitutional carry, the fact that I need a ccw permit to travel to other states around me is ridiculous. My drivers license allows me to drive anywhere in the country but I need a special licence protect myself, especially traveling into Colorado where their patchwork of restrictions are insane
I get it and kolorado is definitely dangerous. It’s even worse with knives than guns. I visit my dad there and hate it. I just don’t believe the national thing will happen especially with what I’m seeing
Yes, the Full Faith and Credit clause should provide us the protection that we need to drive in other state. We have to legally recognize their homosexual marriage acts of their state, they should have to recognize by law our open carry, license to carry, Constitutional carry, etc!
Bill, what governs a State’s acceptance of other State’s driver’s licenses? Mere convention and cooperation? A federal law? State law? Some federal agency rule-making? A SCOTUS ruling based on FF&C? How about international driver licenses or those from other countries? I’ve rented a car overseas and foreigners can do the same here.
Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. The the Full Faith and Credit Clause, addresses the duty that states within the United States have to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.
>”How does the Second Amendment intersect with states’ rights to regulate firearms?”<
There is no intersection. There is no constitutional state law. The Full Faith and Credit clause has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, as the Constitution is supreme and does not allow any infringement.
HLB
Why are we even talking about national reciprocity? The 2nd Amendment is our carry permit. We just need to have SCOTUS slap down all these unconstitutional laws, including carry permits, and make sure everybody knows that the 2nd Amendment is not a 2nd class right. I know the 2nd doesn’t grant rights, but the Left seems to believe it does.
We are talking about national reciprocity because many of the states, captured by libtards, have passed statutes infringing on our Rights, and national reciprocity can redress those infringements. The S. Ct is doing just that. I just wrote about that to another commenter. Please see: DC v Heller, McDonald v Chicago, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen , Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, SEC v. Jarkes-US v. Rahimi, NRA v. Vullo and Saenz v Roe, which bans cross-border discrimination in any area of law or public policy. Nguyen v. Bonta challenging California’s “1-IN-30” law in the United States District Court… Read more »
I think nationwide Constitutional Carry is a much better option with the ability to open carry or concealed carry. Too many states, like Colorado are making it more difficult than ever to obtain a concealed handgun permit.
Reciprocity is infringement because permits are infringement. We need to be pushing Trump and Republicans to pass the constitutional carry legislation Thomas Massie has introduced.
Yes, the repub party owes the gun owning and voting public, big time! We have a little juice, just now, let us use it!! I have that 1600 Pennsylvania address, that Trump will be at, around here somewhere. I’ll post it when I find it. All those new repub Senators and Congressmen owe us, too.
They owe us more than a pound of flesh considering, more often than not, they’ve proven they’re more likely to support and enact infringement than repeal it.
Some rinos, yes.
Many RINOs and far too many not on other subjects RINOs, yes.
The only wayI can see that this passes is with a large hook, inserted by opponents, requiring some form of personal liability insurance if you intend to carry.
Our opponents are in the minority.
Our opponents being in the minority has never stopped us from getting infringement. In fact, the last time Trump was in the White House Republicans controlled all of DC for the first two years and we got anti-2A legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018. We can only hope there are better people advising him this time around. Vivek is very pro-2A so that gives me hope.
Fear not brother, Trump is hip to the ways that they fooled him before and we are winning in the courts. We are winning. Please see: Heller, McDonald,New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen , Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, SEC v. Jarkes-US v. Rahimi, NRA v. Vullo and Saenz v Roe, which bans cross-border discrimination in any area of law or public policy. Nguyen v. Bonta challenging California’s “1-IN-30” law in the United States District Court for The Southern District of California. The “1-IN-30” law restricted the number of handguns or center-fired semiautomatic rifles a person could buy to one… Read more »
Insurance will NOT cover an intentional act.
The editor scrambles longer posts here so it’s not worth even talking about.