On May 21, two dozen state attorneys general sent a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives, urging that body to pass H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
The effort, led by Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma and John B. McCuskey of West Virginia, is the largest show of law enforcement support for H.R. 38 in this Congress. It reflects the “perspective [of] the chief law officers of … states … which either recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns without a permit or grant full recognition to concealed carry credentials issued by other states.” That experience led the signatories to state: “we know firsthand that recognizing a broad right of concealed carry among law-abiding Americans promotes public safety and respects the fundamental liberties of our constituents.”
Responding to news reports and other critics of the legislation, the letter debunked various fallacies about what the bill would do and whom it would benefit.
It first noted the bill only protects those who are federally eligible to possess firearms, which excludes individuals with a serious criminal history, those subject to certain restraining orders, and persons illegally present in the U.S. Also excluded would be those with dangerous mental health conditions, as established by court commitments or adjudications.
The letter also pushed back against the idea the bill would be an infringement of “states rights,” noting nothing would change about the laws of the states themselves and outlining how state laws and property rights would remain broadly enforceable. It also hinted that these objections were not necessarily offered sincerely or in good faith, observing that such concerns “would have been completely unfamiliar, if not repugnant, to some of these same pundits in any other context.”
The missive further asserted that concerns about the ability of police to keep the peace were obviously overblown, “as permitless carry is now the majority rule in the United States, and police departments … continue to protect and serve the public as before.” It emphasized the continued “authority of a police officer encountering an individual with a concealed firearm to conduct an appropriate investigative stop, consistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), to determine the lawfulness of the behavior and whether the person meets the thresholds for protection under the Act.”
Finally, the letter took on the false premise that the legislation would “force states with strict permitting standards to accommodate carriers from jurisdictions with more lax requirements.” It argued anti-gun states made this claim not because their permitting standards were better at screening out high-risk applicants, but simply because they prevented as many people from carrying as possible. “But failure to acknowledge the right is not the same thing as permitting only the ‘safest’ people to carry,” the AGs noted.
The letter concluded:
our constituents are threatened with arrest, prosecution, and mandatory prison time for technical violations of licensing or possession laws involving conduct that is perfectly legal in all but a handful of states, most of which have well-established history and practice of suppressing the right to keep and bear arms. This is unacceptable, and Congress has the authority and the duty to protect these rights.
While suppressors have lately been in the spotlight because of Congress moving legislation to remove them from the NFA, the NRA remains committed to achieving the goal of interstate reciprocity for concealed carry. The AGs’ letter represents an important milestone illustrating the broad support and success concealed carry has achieved in the states. Hopefully Congress is paying attention and will finally catch up to the states in recognizing this fundamental aspect of Second Amendment rights and, indeed, of the American experience.
In the meantime, the NRA thanks Attorneys General Drummond and McCuskey as well as the rest of the signatories for their leadership in this important effort.