Note to The Trace: National Reciprocity Wouldn’t Mean Anything for Anti-Gun States

National reciprocity is on the table. While I think it’s a long shot for passage, the death of the filibuster during the shutdown means there’s a better chance than there used to be. 

To that end, The Trace is beginning their “reporting” about what it would mean. In particular, what it would mean for states with strict gun control laws.

Over the last three decades, carrying concealed guns in public in the United States has become easier and easier. First, in the 1990s, states began to guarantee permits to anyone who can legally own a firearm. Then, beginning in the mid-2000s, states started removing permit requirements altogether.

Now, a majority of states — 29 as of 2025 — require no license to carry a loaded gun in public, a policy known as permitless carry. But what happens when a resident of one of those states wants to carry their handgun in one of the 21 states that does require a permit?

That led a reader to send us a question concerning concealed carry reciprocity, or when one state recognizes the concealed carry permits of another. The reader asked:

“If your state has decent laws, which Michigan where I live has (ok) gun laws, the constituents of my state still have to follow our state’s laws. But could someone from Louisiana come here and have the very lax laws of their state apply to them while visiting Michigan? Is it a race to the bottom?”

It’s a timely question. Congress may vote as soon as this month on a bill that would require national concealed carry reciprocity, effectively allowing the residents of those 29 permitless carry states to carry guns nationwide without a license. So let’s dive into the specifics of concealed carry reciprocity, and what a nationwide law — a longtime gun rights goal — would look like.

I’m going to spoil it for you. It wouldn’t really look any different.

The bill that is currently under consideration would allow people from constitutional carry states to carry somewhere like California without a permit, sure, but that’s the extent of what the laws will actually do. Of course, that might change, and a permit become required, so that becomes even less of an issue for more anti-gun states.

Wherever you go, though, you’ll have to follow the carry laws for that state. If the law says you can’t carry on public transportation, then it doesn’t matter if you can back home. If the state you’re visiting has magazine capacity limits, and you’re caught with a magazine with a higher capacity, you’re cooked.

In other words, in almost every single way, nothing will change except that a state like California can’t keep others from exercising their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms while visiting.

And that’s a good thing, because when you look at how constitutional carry has expanded over the last handful of years, all as violent crime has dropped across the nation, it’s pretty clear that permitless carry isn’t the horrible thing it was made out to be. Having more good people with guns helps put a stop to bad people trying to do bad things. They don’t want to get shot any more than anyone else, so they don’t pull stuff that will get them shot when armed citizens might be around.

The greater the odds of a good guy with a gun, the less chance of someone getting squirrely and trying something.

National reciprocity would be doing anti-gun states a favor, though I doubt they’ll ever see it that way.

For what it’s worth, though, the Trace was really a lot more reasonable than one might expect. It was kind of a Christmas miracle, I suppose.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment. 

Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.