Rep. Thomas Massie is easily one of the most pro-gun lawmakers in Congress. I don't think anyone surpasses him, I'm just not sure how many equally him in his support for the Second Amendment. I only know that it's not nearly enough.

As it stands, I figure he'll definitely vote for national reciprocity if that comes up for a vote. 

However, there's one reason he might not. You see, he's got a better idea, and it would be an absolute game-changer.

From our sister site, Townhall:

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced on Thursday that he is introducing the National Constitutional Carry Act, which would protect the right to keep and bear arms in all areas of the country.

If passed, this legislation would be a tremendous win for the Second Amendment.

"I’m fortunate to live in a state where people are free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms without begging the government or paying a fee," said Rep. Thomas Massie. "Unfortunately, not every American enjoys the same right to carry firearms in public because some states and localities infringe upon this right through a variety of criminal, civil, and regulatory penalties. By prohibiting state or local restrictions on the right to bear arms, H.R. 645 upholds the original purpose of the Second Amendment—to ensure the security of a free state—while safeguarding individual liberties against government infringement."

The bill would allow Americans to carry firearms in all states without possessing a license. More than half of state legislature have already passed similar legislation. This bill would prevent state governments dominated by anti-gunner officials from impeding on the Second Amendment.

“Recognizing the preexisting right to self-defense, the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees individually to American citizens the right ‘to keep and bear arms,’ including the right to bear arms in public,” the bill reads.

There's nothing in the Second Amendment that even implies that our Founding Fathers would have supported permitting schemes, especially as they're applied in states like New York or California.

This would put an end to any attempt at restricting the ability to carry a gun to only "approved" parties--something that both of those mentioned states, as well as others, have tried in various ways.

So yeah, this would actually be a game-changer, and I'd argue that as things currently stand, this is the pro-gun bill out there. There is nothing that would yield us a higher return. Even abolishing the ATF wouldn't do as much, in part because those duties would just switch to another federal agency that would likely act pretty much the same way and shoot just as many dogs.

This is one that should happen.

Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that it will. National reciprocity is an easier sell to an American public that has been told over and over again that guns are bad. With reciprocity, you can argue that everyone with a permit is vetted by the government. With constitutional carry, you're hinging everything on people understanding that the people who are a problem are carrying without permits right now.

We haven't seen a lot of evidence that those who don't already understand that will listen.

But this is a case where I'm praying I'm wrong.