National Concealed Carry Reciprocity – Trump Promises
Earlier this month in a statement given by President-Elect Donald Trump he restated his commitment to push for and ultimately sign into law national concealed carry reciprocity.
This video clip shows this most recent statement and also clips from previous speeches in past years in which he has made the same promise:
Trump Has Consistently Promised National Reciprocity
Since his first campaign in 2015, he has argued that if a driver's license is valid nationwide, a concealed carry permit should be also. Now right now you might be thinking; if he promised to make this happen last time, and clearly failed to do so, why might we expect it to happen this time?
Requiring An Act of Congress
Ultimately what Trump has really promised is to sign such a bill into law if Congress puts it on his desk. As President, he actually has limited influence in getting such a thing passed into law. Congress is really the one that has to act. During Trump's 1st term the Republican party did have narrow control of The Senate and The House and despite that were unable to get the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act to pass.
Will they make it happen this time around? I don't pretend to have any idea.
What Would the National Reciprocity Act do?
The most recent version of this law to be proposed was introduced in the House in January 2023 by Rep. Hudson from NC.
In short, that proposal (H.R. 38) essentially extended to anyone able to carry concealed in their home state the authority to carry concealed in any state in accordance with the laws that govern concealed carry in that state. H.R. 38 did not remove the authority for a local governing body to designate places as off limits and did not remove the authority of property owners to restrict firearms on their property.
It also extended the rights of concealed carry to any unit of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, land under the jurisdiction of the BLM, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service.
How To Secure This Right?
For me I think the reality of being able to carry a concealed gun in public is a constitutionally protected right already that shouldn't require a law or an act of congress. However, our current reality doesn't support my belief.
If you are interested in making a law like this come to pass I recommend contacting your U.S. Senators and Representatives to encourage them to support and vote for such a bill if/when it is introduced in the next session.
It is about time.
We, the legal ccw permit holders, are left defenseless when traveling outside our home area, while the lawless are out there to prey upon the lawful innocent.
Contrary to the stupid argument that we would revert to “old west style justice ” nefarious persons of I’ll intent would think twice if they knew that they would/could be in danger if they tried one of these “mass shootings” that we have gotten so used to.
At worst, their escapades would be far less deadly if honest, well trained, lawful citizens had the right to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.
Outstanding and well-reasoned. This could fall under the Constitutional Clause of Full Faith and Credit of the laws of one state applying in another.
This law is way overdue! I hope it’s successful this time.
How Do Secure This Right??? What does that mean?
Steve, that was a typo. Thanks for the catch. Fixed and updated.
This would be awesome if it happens!! Currently it’s a pain in the *#s if you are planning on traveling and having to check if it’s legal in the states you will be going to!!
MAGA!!
I agree with “responsible” carry laws. As a firearms instructor with over 60 years experience with all types of firearms, I have found 90% of my students are far to casual in their training responsibilities. They universally believe that once they have obtained a CCL, they don’t need any further education. Most states issue concealed licenses with little or no training. Rhode Island is one state where everyone has to qualify yearly to keep their license current. This includes law enforcement officers. There has to be a minimum standard requirement for national reciprocity. Our president is a huge believer in states’ rights. Unfortunately, each state has vastly different laws surrounding concealed carry. Conceal Carry insurance should be mandatory for everyone. You can’t drive a car without it. Is carrying concealed any less of a responsibility? There is no such thing as too much practice with your firearm. Learning about the laws surrounding concealed carry should be mandatory for obtaining a CCL. Until we have minimum national standards (like driving and “Rules of the road,” a national reciprocity for concealed carry is not a great idea. One of the corner stones of concealed carry is common sense. What would reasonable people do? Unfortunately, that’s not something most folks have. Just one gun lover’s opinion.
While I mostly agree with your assessment of ccw reciprocity, I totally disagree with your opinion that every person should have mandatory concealed carry insurance!!! But as an American citizen I believe “YOU” should get ccw insurance “only” if you are concerned about the outcomes of a self defense shooting, but not mandatory!!!! Just as you shouldn’t have to get any license for your constitutional rights! Shall not be infringed!!
Just my 2cents worth 😎
To John Gross…
Apparently you didn’t pass the “English Essay Drill” on punctuation and paragraph structure required to be a “responsible” practitioner under your 1A “Internet Influencer” as equivalently guided by the 2A “responsible” and “common sense” requirements you describe. Let’s continue that analysis: Have you had your “Journalistic Influencer Annual Permit” updated with your most recent “Personal Bias Assessment” and listed all relevant and required continuing education classes and also renewed annually? Have you been vetted by at least a dozen “correct-thinking” peers who are willing to vouch for your integrity to not incite ignorant thought with “mis-information” (defined by some other nebulous group with overreaching powers to squash whatever the “In-Power-Party” think is “inappropriate thought”)? Have you purchased your “Do-Gooder Community Protection Insurance” to ensure reparations to anyone injured by actions, conversations, or legislation you may have encouraged even if those “incitements” were not received from you but were heard second- or third-hand and then *traced* back to you?
After all, speaking in public carries with it huge responsibility. Its influence on others could cause them to make stupid decisions and harm innocent third parties. Using your standard above, all of this should be considered “responsible” First Amendment Free Speech curbs. I’m sure you’ll find that 90% of internet influencers, politicians, media commentators, and keyboard commandos are “far to (sic … oh, that was YOUR typo above — you failed the “Editing Drill” prerequisite to Influencer Permit, too?) casual in their training … and don’t believe they need any further education.” It would seem you aren’t passing the “minimum standard” for “National Reciprocity Legislative Guidelines Advocate”.
The States’ Rights (yes, I’m choosing to capitalize that in spite of the AP Stylebook not doing so ~ but I don’t think AP is particularly pro-US or patriotic anyway) does bring in “vastly different laws” ~~ and that is ok ~~ *but each state must honor the Constitutional right of the 2nd Amendment (which is the supreme law of our country) within that state’s laws and recognize the permit issued by other states exercised by visitors from other states. Otherwise, states could also restrict any other of the Bill of Rights and Amendments and the Constitution itself (examples: speech, search and seizure, self-incrimination, freed slaves, trial rights, voting, etc. ~ hardly an exhaustive list).
Car insurance is mandatory in all states (I’m guessing here, but I’ll accept your inference that it is), but I’m betting that coverage requirements vary state-by-state. It is also not addressing a Fundamental Right recognized by the Constitution. Freedom of travel is protected, but not the means by which it is to be performed. And does any other right require insurance to exercise? Perhaps we *should* have “voter insurance” for reparations after electing a politician that helps to pass laws that are proven illegal.
“Learning about the laws surrounding …” ANY rights as a citizen is NOT required. It behooves one to know the laws to exercise them to their fullest and to avoid infractions that result in criminal or civil prosecution, but everyone is free to exercise any rights ignorantly at the peril of violations and suffering the consequences thereof. (Consequences. Now THAT is a topic to explore…!)
The “minimum national standards” are already established. It is spelled out in the Second Amendment. It’s purpose is also spelled out there. And it does not *give us this right* but instead it puts a fence up around our rights that the government is not supposed to cross.
But if you insist on “minimum national standards” then I’ll go along … as long as I get to be the one creating them. In that case, I’m not especially concerned about it. BUT when I consider the standards that an appointee by Kamala Harris or Gov. Hochul, or Beto O’Rourke might make, I can only imagine that most of the police forces wouldn’t need to be defunded because they would be DISARMED!
Concealed carry does not have a cornerstone (another typo you made, but now I’m being petty to prove a point) of “common sense”. It has a foundation of *tactical defensive self-protection and protection of others*; however an action violating the subjective AND objective reason as seen by one’s peers puts that actor in legal jeopardy … and facing consequences.
Too many people mistakenly think laws *prevent* violations. In reality laws might create some *hesitance* to violate, but it primarily is a punishment *after the fact* for violations. No law *prevents* a murderer from murdering, but murderers are sometimes brought to justice and penalized … sometimes.
I understand your *desire* for people to be better trained. I agree with that concern. Perhaps we should make it a part of our civic education that EVERY person become gun educated ~ in the purpose and law of the 2A; in gun safety; in personal responsibility *and consequences*, in patriotic duty, in protecting the country and the Constitution. But then, who is going to craft and pass THAT legislation?
Just one Freedom Lover’s opinion.
I appreciate your opinion. Discussion of difficult issues is a cornerstone of better governance. When we calmly and rationally debate, solutions to problems can be found.
Here in California, we have to re-up our CCW every 2 years. I have had my permit since 2012. I obtained a permit from Arizona a couple of years later, because we spend time there every year. My CA permit allowed me to get the Arizona permit. I also have concealed carry insurance. Currently, a new CA permit requires 16 hours of class and range time. Renewal requires 8 hours. The current political climate in CA has raised the cost of obtaining a CCW so high that most regular, working people can’t afford it. I’m hoping that a reciprocity bill passes that is worded in such a way that my Arizona permit is good in my home state of California. Probably won’t happen. But over half of the states allow Constitutional Carry. So, maybe. But, no hope for California.
I have a few more years experience with firearms (70) and I’m a retired Fed firearms instructor. Texas has had considerable experience with licensed concealed carry and open carry. And now Texas has “Constitutional Carry”. When each of these types of carry were passed by the legislature, the antis claimed the streets would run with blood. Of course they were wrong and statistics from before Constitutional Carry show that those with a License to Carry had fewer firearms related criminal arrests than did members of Texas law enforcement agencies. While a similar statistical study hasn’t yet been accomplished (to my knowledge), it will eventually be done. I don’t expect a drastic alteration in the numbers. As for comparing insurance requirements to operate a vehicle on public roads to mandatory firearms insurance, you confuse a privilege with a right. We have the privilege of driving on public roadways if we have a license and carry required insurance, the privilege may be revoked for failure to have said insurance. A right can not be conditioned on the purchase of a product like insurance, such a mandatory condition is an infringement of the right.
Total BS why not nation wide Constitutional carry???
How could you distinguish between the good guy and bad guy. I have a CCP and I’m a former Marine .Giuliani in NY had stop and frisk. I’m all for that and you have to produce your permit.
Do you realize what reciprocity means? Think about it. tRumpy Boy is out for revenge. His way! I would never vote for a #POTUS that carries his credentials. I remember Dwight David Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy as Presidents. Different than the felon we will have in there shortly. As Kennedy said, “Presidents have to be held to a higher standard than the rest of the world”. He was right. What a great man. #justsaying
I fully support this endeavor. It will balance the playing field. But we need to know others laws before Crossing state lines.
It would be good to have much of firearm policy part of federal law, I think anyway, which I think would be required for reciprocity. I’d he does some good for the firearms community, that would be good. Just so we can continue to elect people in the same manner as we have 4 years from now that’ll be good.
Research will tell you what you need to know. Simple.
It would be good to have much of firearm policy part of federal law, I think anyway, which I think would be required for reciprocity. I’d he does some good for the firearms community, that would be good. Just so we can continue to elect people in the same manner as we have 4 years from now that’ll be good.
Why is this the only Amendment of our Constitution that does not cross state lines?
Wow Good Old Bill H-38 is here I can’t believe it!!