24 State Attorneys General Urge Congress to Pass National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
A coalition of 24 state attorneys general have signed a letter urging Congress to pass H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. The letter, dated May 21, 2025, addresses key concerns voiced by critics of national reciprocity and offers a detailed defense of the legislation.
The bill would require states to recognize concealed carry permits issued by other states, much like driver's licenses. The attorneys general argue that this is a necessary and constitutional measure to protect law-abiding gun owners from becoming accidental criminals when crossing state lines.
What Concerns Does the Letter Address?
The letter responds directly to five of the most common objections raised against national concealed carry reciprocity:
1. Public Safety Concerns
Criticism: National reciprocity will make it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms across the country.
Response: The bill applies only to law-abiding citizens—those who are not prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms. That includes people with felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, adjudicated mental illness, and other disqualifiers. The letter points out that concealed carry permit holders are statistically more law-abiding than the general population, often even more than law enforcement officers.
2. States’ Rights and Federal Overreach
Criticism: H.R. 38 violates states' rights by imposing federal gun laws.
Response: The bill does not mandate how states issue permits or regulate firearms. States would retain authority over their own permit systems and gun-free zones. The legislation merely requires that permits issued by one state be recognized in another—just as states recognize each other’s driver’s licenses.
To suggest it violates state rights seems silly to me on the surface.
3. Burden on Law Enforcement
Criticism: National reciprocity will make it harder for police to determine who is lawfully armed.
Response: The letter emphasizes that H.R. 38 respects law enforcement's role. Officers would still be able to stop and question individuals carrying firearms, especially under reasonable suspicion per Terry v. Ohio. Nothing in the bill limits officers’ authority to verify a person’s eligibility to carry.
4. Variability in Permit Standards
Criticism: States with stricter permitting processes shouldn’t have to accept permits from states with more lenient ones.
Response: The attorneys general argue that some states intentionally make it burdensome and costly to obtain a permit, not for safety reasons, but to discourage carry altogether. They also note that there is no compelling evidence that stricter permitting equals safer outcomes—and in some cases, overly restrictive systems have led to corruption.
5. Legal Jeopardy for Travelers
Criticism: Under current law, otherwise law-abiding citizens risk arrest and prosecution when they cross into states with different carry laws.
Response: The letter frames this as a constitutional injustice. Gun owners shouldn’t have to risk criminal charges simply for traveling between states with a legally carried firearm. The attorneys general argue that Congress has both the authority and obligation to correct this by passing national reciprocity.
Which States Signed the Letter?
The letter was signed by the attorneys general of the following states: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.
Final Thoughts
This letter is the latest in a series of efforts by pro-Second Amendment officials to push Congress toward enacting a nationwide framework that protects gun owners while traveling. While opponents will continue to raise objections grounded in public safety and states’ rights, the attorneys general make a strong case that national reciprocity can preserve constitutional freedoms without overriding state sovereignty or endangering the public.
As of now, H.R. 38 remains under consideration in the House. Whether Congress acts on the call remains to be seen—but momentum is building.
