Giffords Makes Nonsensical Argument Against National Right to Carry Reciprocity

Now that the federal shutdown is over and Congress is back to its normal level of dysfunction, we could see a vote on a national right-to-carry-reciprocity bill in the House in a matter of days or weeks. H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025 has been on the House's union calendar since early October, though the shutdown prevented the chamber from conducting normal business. 

With a vote looming, the gun control lobby is pulling out all the stops to convince non-gun owners that adoption of the bill would create a hellscape of crime and violence across the country. Take this post on X by Giffords, for example. 

If Congress passes a national concealed carry mandate, anyone you see could have a gun on them—and the police would be powerless to protect you.

Leaders must stand up for public safety and put a stop to the gun lobby’s dangerous agenda.https://t.co/DFzyFR5Im7

— GIFFORDS (@GIFFORDS_org) November 17, 2025

I have bad news for Giffords. Even without H.R. 38, anyone you see could have a gun on them; legally or illegally, and no matter where you live. It's not like restrictive carry laws actually prevent criminal from walking around with a gun. As we saw in New York this past weekend, draconian restrictions on the right to carry have no impact on those intent on using a firearm in a violent crime. They do, however, have a substantial impact on those folks who want to stay on the right side of the law. 

At best, a state's carry laws provide prosecutors with a tool to punish people after the fact. They don't, however, serve any kind of proactive purpose. 

I don't have a D.C. carry permit because I try to avoid the District of Columbia as much as possible. So, when I was up there for a couple of days earlier this month, I had to leave my carry gun behind in Virginia since D.C. doesn't recognize any permits from outside jurisdictions. That law prevents the vast majority of visitors from being able to legally carry for self-defense in our nation's capital, while virtually none of the individuals arrested or charged with committing a violent crime involving a firearm have a valid D.C. permit. 

Now, I could have carried in D.C. if I didn't mind the risk of getting arrested and charged with a crime, but getting cuffed and going to jail would have put a real crimp in my travel plans. Someone intent on committing an armed robbery or a carjacking though, isn't going to worry much about catching a charge for possessing a firearm without a license.  

The vast majority of permit holders (and the vast majority of people legally carrying in permitless states) are never going to commit a violent crime of any kind, but without a national right-to-carry reciprocity law or decision from the Supreme Court, anti-gun jurisdictions like California, New York, Massachusetts, and D.C. will continue to make it nearly impossible for non-residents to exercise a fundamental civil right. 

If a non-resident wants to legally carry in Boston, for instance, they have to schedule a separate trip to Chelsea so they can sit for an in-person appointment with the Firearms Records Bureau. Applicants also have to fork over a non-refundable $100 application fee, and they can expect to wait for months on end to be approved or denied, with a permit good only for a single year.  

That's difficult enough for residents of neighboring states like New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, but it's virtually impossible for those visitors who live hundreds or thousands of miles away. 

Additionally, the state's firearms licensing regime grants the head of the state police the discretionary authority to to deny any non-resident who applies fro a temporary firearms license based on a subjective determination of “unsuitability.” That policy is being challenged in a case called Marquis v. Massachusetts, with the state of Massachusetts set to respond to the plaintiff's Supreme Court cert petition later this month. Still, the lawsuit isn't directly challenging some of the other nonsensical provisions of the non-resident carry scheme. 

There are many reasons to support H.R. 38 and its recognition that the right to bear arms exists beyond the borders of our home state. Giffords' reason for opposing the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, on the other hand, is one of the lamest arguments against right-to-carry reciprocity that I've run across in more than two decades of reporting on Second Amendment issues.