National Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity - What Is It?

A few days before press time, several 2A personalities on X reposted a video from last year where President-Elect Donald J Trump, expressed his desire and support for a national carry permit reciprocity law. As most of us Second Amendment Radicals and armed citizens know, this basically means carry permits will be treated like driver’s licenses, which is to say a permit issued in one state will be good in the other 49, and hopefully DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the other far-flung possessions of the United States.

With the second term of Donald Trump on the horizon, this has been cited as one of the more lofty goals for the Second Amendment community with regards to the mercurial and controversial 47th President of the United States. Provided a reciprocity bill can get through Congress, it’s to be expected that Trump would hold true to his promise and sign it. It’s his second term after all, and a hard pro-2A victory would shore up the base in time for the 2028 federal electoral season.

However, as nice as it sounds, the devil would be in the details.

What would the pros and cons of a national concealed carry permit reciprocity law be?

To be fair, the goal should be national Constitutional carry, which would align perfectly with the tenets set by the Bruen decision. Carry permits were not a thing at the founding of our nation, and were only established for racial and classist reasons as to freeze out minorities and poor people in general from the lawful ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

Thankfully, as of this writing, 29 states actually have some form of permitless carry, ranging from Florida’s “concealed only” permitless carry scheme up to full-bore Constitutional open and concealed carry of handguns and long guns.

However, as some on X have put it, a Hail Mary toss of trying to get a national Constitutional Carry bill through even a red Congress, where not every Republican is a fully-realized 2A supporter, would be a good way to waste political capital and burn any chance of getting at least one major pro-2A bill through to the President. Sadly, we’ll have to be incremental, and logically a national reciprocity scheme is a seemingly good waypoint on the way to the full national restoration of carry rights.

A carry permit reciprocity law presents some advantages and challenges. We’ll break them down in nifty random order below.

Note: A lot of this is speculation, as no current version of a national carry permit bill exists.

OK, onward!

The Pros Of A National Carry Permit Reciprocity Law

On paper, and to the casual pro-2A observer, a national carry permit reciprocity bill sounds great. And compared to the status quo, it probably is. There’s some notable upsides, such as:

You Can Be Lawfully Armed Nationwide, Pretty Much

Right now, 29 states in our nation have some form of permitless carry. What that means is that as long as you aren’t legally prohibited from owning a firearm, you can carry a gun outside of your home for any lawful reason. This doesn’t obviate the need for training, but it also takes a cost burden and legal hurdle out of the way for doing the whole “bear arms” part. So basically in 29 states, you have a semi-national de jure carry reciprocity scheme. For the most part, those states are the safest in the Union (gee, I wonder why?) and you could actually get away with being unarmed in those states. The remainder of the states in the US are, in theory, shall-issue states due to the Bruen decision. Which is to say you can get a permit as long as you meet the published benchmarks for issuance and pay the appropriate fees. Constitutional Carry states still issue permits (except for Vermont - more on that later) by the way, specifically for purposes of reciprocity with the few shall-issue only states that have reciprocity agreements in place. Now, by the letter of the proposed law, national reciprocity would require the person exercising their carry rights to have a permit on hand, which could be useful in places that normally are loath to permit carry. Ironically, those places tend to be a touch dangerous, especially in their urban areas. Now, with a national reciprocity scheme in place, a person from say, Florida, could visit New York City, and be lawfully armed with a GLOCK 19 handgun and be “legal” because of their Florida permit. This would free them of the need for going through the byzantine process by which a non-resident (link) would normally have to acquire a carry permit for NYC.

People In Bruen-Defiant Areas May Have A Workaround For Legal Carry

This little tidbit is subject to the detailed text of whatever bill happens to make it to the President’s desk for ratification. Right now, the usual suspect jurisdictions are being dragged kicking and screaming into compliance with the Bruen decision. You know the places. New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, California, Illinois, and so on. States that really can’t make a valid claim at being American, if the truth were known. But anyways. In New York City for example, getting a carry permit is still a convoluted affair. In theory they can’t deny you anymore just because they don’t like you, but they are throwing roadblocks galore in front of residents and visitors alike who wish to acquire a carry permit. Hundreds of dollars in fees, practical tests where you are paying top dollar for an instructor to sign off on things, and in-person interviews jam up the process for months on end.

However, quite a few “free-er” states issue nonresident carry permits. For example, Florida issues a nonresident permit for people who are visiting or maintain a winter home here, that sort of thing. Though with permitless carry the nonresident permit is kind of pointless as anyone who can lawfully own a gun in Florida (regardless of residency) can carry that gun. You could be a resident of New York State and come down here for vacation, borrow a friend’s pistol, and be good to go. Anyways, a Florida nonresident permit would be an interesting workaround of New York City’s convoluted process. You could apply for a nonresident Florida permit, go through the hoops of qualifying for it with an instructor (there are instructors in New York who teach for the Florida permit), send in your documents, get your Florida nonresident permit, and in theory be good to go in New York City.

Now this could be a bone of contention in Congress, but if nonresident permits “count” for reciprocity, expect the permit business in restrictive states to dry up overnight.

The Intrinsic Value Of Sticking It To The Anti-2A States

Even post-Bruen, the usual anti-2A suspects of New York, California, Massachusetts, and so on love to lord over the fact that they claim to manage to comply with Bruen, while still retaining their draconian and sociopathic gun control schemes. In some cases they outright boast of being in defiance of Bruen. Regardless, the ability to lawfully carry in those states, without having to ask the permission of those states, would be a giant middle finger to the established political machine therein. Imagine being a resident of Florida who visits Boston, and strolls down Boylston Street while armed, and the local police really can’t do anything about it. Even better, imagine being a Boston resident, getting a Florida nonresident permit, and doing the same. The seething and dilation coming from the Maura Healey-types would be outrageously fun to observe.

The Cons (The Risks) Of A National Carry Permit Reciprocity Law

You may be asking yourself, “How can a pro-2A bill have risks?” Well, the devil would be in the details, and there is the danger of unintended consequences. We could have a carry permit reciprocity law, only to find down the road, we’ve taken a step back into dark territory. This is why the final bill needs to be evaluated thoroughly and “wargamed” against all use cases.

Some risks would be:

A National Pseudo-Registry Of Gun Owners

By the letter of the proposals, a national carry permit reciprocity law would require permits. Which means each holder has their data recorded somewhere. Generally, law enforcement, when presented with someone’s carry permit, will check the validity of the permit. Each state that issues permits has their own system and scheme to store that data. A cop might be very frustrated indeed if he has to call an office in another state (or have HQ do it) in order to check the validity of a carry permit. A phone call would almost be required because carry permit databases are privileged information, and thus logins are generally only issued to select state employees, or if there’s a programmatic connection, the tokens and keys are only issued to in-state entities.

It’s conceivable that the federal government would require a harmonization of carry permit data nationwide, and perhaps establish a central “nexus” where the Feds themselves don’t maintain the data, but provide programmatic access to carry permit systems in 49 states plus DC and maybe Puerto Rico, etc.

This wouldn’t be the Feds themselve maintaining a registry of gun owners, but it would come pretty darn close to it, and skirt the provisions of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, which prohibits a central federal registry of firearm data.

This system could and would be abused by the federal government, and most certainly compromised by bad actors.

A reciprocity law would have to prohibit such a centralized access point. It would make the job of law enforcement harder, but those are the breaks. We aren’t here to make the government’s job easy, after all.

Vermont May See This As An Excuse To Set Up A Permit System

For decades, Constitutional Carry was known as ‘Vermont Carry’ since Vermont was pretty much the only state in the Union that never placed restrictions on firearms carry for the longest time.

Since the founding of the nation, a permit has never been required to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, in the Green Mountain State. Much to the chagrin of New Yorkers looking to ruin the state, a permit scheme has never come to fruition in Vermont, regardless of which political party was in charge. Vermonters never saw the need for it, especially since for various reasons, violent crime has never been a problem in the state. Gee, maybe stacking people like rats isn’t conducive to good living?

Anyways, if the provisions of a national carry permit reciprocity bill exclude nonresident permits, Vermont may see it as a stealthy excuse to enact a permit system. After all, Vermonters may wish to travel with their defensive firearms into New York or Massachusetts, for example. And if say, a Vermont resident can’t just snag a Florida permit, they may otherwise be frozen out of true national reciprocity. Vermont has already “cracked” and established a 10-round restricted magazine law, so the Green Mountain denizens might just vote in a permit scheme, especially if the wool can be pulled over the eyes of gun owners.

Carrying Reciprocally Would Certainly Require Compliance With State And Local Laws

To be fair, even in Constitutional and the remaining shall-issue states with existing reciprocity agreements, one has to comply with local laws concerning the carry of firearms, regardless of your state of origin. For example, if you are a Texas resident, where full Constitutional carry is in effect, you’ll have to conceal your firearm when in Florida, where only permitless concealed carry is in effect. Along the same lines if you’re from Texas and wish to carry in North Carolina, you’ll need to get your Texas LTC before lawfully carrying in North Carolina. Additionally anyone carrying a firearm in Texas is lawfully supposed to observe the force-of-law carry prohibition signs on various businesses and facilities. If you see those 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 signs, you’re legally supposed to leave your firearm secured somewhere else.

But anyways, this could be taken to the next level with a national reciprocity law. Say you live in Florida, where maybe you carry a Heckler & Koch VP9 as your everyday carry pistol. You’ve got the newer variant of magazines, with 17 rounds each. However, if you were to go to New York State and carry the same, you may be required to swap out for 10-round magazines, as New York State has laws restricting the transfer and possession of magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds made after a certain date. Or if your gun has a “evil” feature like a threaded barrel, it could run afoul of a state “assault weapons” ban. Or if you got something wild like a Silencerco Maxim 9 integrally-suppressed pistol, you’re flat-out unable to carry it at all in NY.

There’s Other Considerations To National Carry Permit Reciprocity

Of course, there’s concerns that don’t fall neatly into the risk/reward model. A big outlier would be Washington DC. While DC was dragged kicking and screaming into the shall-issue world even before the Bruen decision, the Capital is loath to really acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms. The process is so beset with restrictions that most people looking to lawfully carry do not bother. Even sitting members of Congress, who undoubtedly can expedite their carry permit applications, find themselves subject to massive inconveniences just for daring to carry. A national reciprocity bill may exempt Washington DC. Additionally, it’s debatable whether places like Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa, which are not states, would agree to honor reciprocity. Another issue would be military bases and the like.

National Carry Permit Reciprocity Should Be First Step To True National Constitutional Carry

With careful deliberation, authoring, sufficient guardrails to prevent a sneaky loss of rights, and consideration by firearm-friendly members of Congress, as well as a heap of input from the Second Amendment community, a national carry permit reciprocity bill could be a solid first step in truly restoring armed peaceable journey and carry rights in this nation. It’d also have the fringe benefit of conditioning gun-agnostic and maybe even gun-hostile people into accepting the fact that people carry firearms and often do travel while under arms.

If correctly authored and delivered to President Trump’s desk, preferably before November 2026, this could be a huge public win for Second Amendment Radicals and armed citizens.

Support This Site

Operating Regular Guy Guns and bringing you quality content costs money, money that I am more than happy to spend, even after all these years! I get the occasional sponsor, but bills still have to be paid, ha ha.

FYI: I’m considering reviving the podcast. I may have a method to speed up production somewhat.

You’ll see the articles peppered with affiliate links. I get a few pennies when you make your purchases via my links.