If President-elect Donald Trump gets his way, then those fighting for gun rights will have scored a tremendous victory.
In a post on Instagram, Donald Trump Jr. posted a 2023 video showing the president-elect announcing his plan to push for a law that would allow those licensed to carry a firearm in one state to carry in another state.
As it stands currently, several states already have reciprocity agreements with other states. For instance, I am licensed in Texas. This also means I can carry my firearm in Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Florida, and several other states that have this type of accord with Texas. However, I would not be able to carry in states like California and New York because they are run by anti-gunner commies who do not have a similar agreement with Texas.
With federal legislation, folks like myself could carry in any state in the union as long as we have a current license – similar to driving privileges. Passing such a law would be a great boon for gun owners and provide more protection for our Second Amendment rights.
For starters, this legislation would make it easier for gun owners to avoid getting caught up in legal trouble due to the complex landscape surrounding this issue. National reciprocity would streamline these regulations, which would reduce confusion that could lead to potential criminal charges.
Reciprocity would also affirm the right to keep and bear arms beyond one’s home state. It would protect our ability to defend ourselves if we find ourselves in danger in a different area of the country.
Under the current system, gun owners might have to obtain multiple permits to legally carry their firearms, depending on where they live. This can be difficult for those who might not have the financial resources and time to obtain multiple licenses. It would also reduce administrative costs for states because they would no longer need to process as many out-of-state permit applications.
It would also make it harder for the anti-gunners to argue against it. Trump’s proposal would still require someone to obtain a permit before being able to carry in other states. While I personally believe that such licenses are unconstitutional, it would still provide a challenge for anti-gunners who don’t want law-abiding citizens to carry firearms. The best argument they could make would be a flimsy one: What if one gets licensed in a state with lenient requirements than the one to which they are traveling?
The only other argument against this that I can think of is the state’s rights issue. Shouldn’t such a decision be left to the state instead of the federal government mandating it? In most cases, this would be my argument.
But gun rights are different.
The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, unlike drug policy or other measures. The role of the federal government is to protect our rights while preventing local and state governments from violating them. It is why federal authorities can get involved if a police officer violates the civil rights of a citizen.
The bottom line is that states should not be allowed to infringe on Second Amendment rights. We have a natural right to possess the means by which we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government or violent criminal. Unfortunately, many states are intent on impeding Americans from exercising this right, which means a federal solution is warranted in this case.
It is also worth noting that, as I alluded to earlier, licenses should not even be required to use our Second Amendment rights. After all, we do not require licenses to practice our religion or express our views, right?
Ultimately, I would like to see a federal permitless carry law that prevents states from making it more difficult for people to carry firearms. This proposed legislation could be a step in that direction, which means those who advocate for gun rights should be actively supporting it.
