S-65-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by John Cornyn (R-TX)
What it does
This bill would add a new federal statute requiring every state to recognize concealed handgun carry permits or licenses issued by any other state, as long as the permit holder is not prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law and carries a government-issued photo ID. It would also cover residents of states that allow permitless concealed carry (so-called "constitutional carry" states), provided they are legally entitled to carry in their home state. The bill would subject out-of-state carriers to the same local rules — such as where firearms are prohibited — that apply to in-state permit holders, but would not allow states to impose their own eligibility requirements on visiting carriers.
Who benefits
Concealed carry permit holders who travel across state lines and currently must research and comply with a patchwork of state reciprocity agreements. Residents of "constitutional carry" states (currently 29 states) who carry without a permit and would gain the ability to carry in other qualifying states. Firearms retailers in states with permissive carry laws who may see increased demand. Interstate travelers, truckers, and others who regularly cross state lines and wish to carry for personal protection. Rural residents who travel long distances and may feel they need personal protection.
Who is hurt
States with stricter permitting standards — such as California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, and Massachusetts — which require extensive background checks, training, or demonstrated need, and would be required to accept permits issued under less stringent standards from other states. Local law enforcement in those states who would face a more complex enforcement environment. Residents of high-density urban areas whose state legislatures have chosen more restrictive carry policies. Victims' advocacy groups that support state-level carry restrictions. States that have invested in training and vetting infrastructure, whose standards would effectively be bypassed for out-of-state visitors.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the current system — a fragmented web of bilateral reciprocity agreements — creates a trap for law-abiding gun owners who unknowingly violate state law while traveling. They contend that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should not disappear at a state border, and point to the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022), which affirmed a constitutional right to carry firearms in public. They further argue the bill mirrors how driver's licenses work: a license issued by one state is honored nationwide, and the same principle should apply to a constitutional right.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill would effectively nullify the carry permitting standards of states that have democratically chosen stricter requirements — such as mandatory safety training, live-fire testing, or thorough background checks — by forcing them to accept permits issued under far weaker standards elsewhere. They contend this is a federal override of state police powers that have historically governed public safety, and that post-Bruen litigation has not resolved whether Congress can compel interstate recognition of carry permits under the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment. They also argue that a driver's license analogy is flawed because driving is not a constitutional right, and states retain authority to set their own public safety standards.
Constitutional context
The bill invokes the Commerce Clause (the firearm must have traveled in interstate commerce) and implicitly the Fourteenth Amendment as bases for federal preemption of state carry laws. Under Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court affirmed a right to carry firearms in public under the Second Amendment, but left open questions about what permitting conditions states may impose — questions that are actively being litigated in multiple federal circuits under the new text-history-tradition framework.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain authority to set a national floor for concealed carry recognition, overriding state legislatures; states retain authority over where firearms may be carried and other local conditions, but lose the ability to set their own eligibility standards for visiting carriers. Courts would serve as the primary check through Second Amendment and Commerce Clause review.
Historical precedent
A nearly identical bill, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38), passed the House in December 2017 but was never brought to a Senate floor vote; it has been reintroduced in multiple subsequent Congresses without enactment.