Technical corrections only. The only change in the operative text is the addition of "of 2025" to the short title in Section 1. No substantive policy changes were made between v1 and v2.
Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Hudson, Richard [R-NC-9]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Oct 3, 2025
Bottom line
The bill creates a federal standard for concealed firearm reciprocity, significantly expanding where individuals can legally carry concealed handguns across state lines and on federal lands, while providing strong legal protections for permit holders.
What it actually does
This bill establishes national reciprocity for concealed carry permits, allowing individuals authorized to carry a concealed handgun in their home state to do so in any other state that permits concealed carry. It preempts state laws that would otherwise restrict such carry, while preserving the rights of private entities and state/local governments to prohibit firearms on their property. The bill also provides legal protections for individuals carrying under this authority, including shifting the burden of proof in criminal proceedings and allowing civil actions against states for rights deprivation. Furthermore, it explicitly permits concealed carry in various federal public lands and exempts individuals from the federal school zone gun ban.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill upholds the Second Amendment right to bear arms by ensuring that law-abiding citizens can exercise their right to self-defense regardless of state borders. They contend it eliminates a patchwork of confusing state laws, allowing individuals to travel without fear of inadvertently violating local concealed carry regulations. Supporters also emphasize that it empowers individuals to protect themselves and their families in more locations, including federal lands, and provides necessary legal recourse against potential overreach by state or local authorities.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that this bill undermines states' rights to regulate firearms within their borders, forcing states with strong gun safety laws to accept the standards of states with weaker ones. They argue it would lead to an increase in gun violence by allowing individuals who may not meet a state's higher permit standards to carry concealed weapons there. Critics also raise concerns about the bill's provisions allowing concealed carry in school zones and on federal lands, asserting these changes could create dangerous environments and complicate law enforcement efforts.
The bill is concise and relatively easy to read, allowing an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a short timeframe.
Section 2(a), inserting 18 U.S.C. 926D(a)
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity
This provision allows any person who is legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun in their home state (either by permit or by state law) to carry that concealed handgun in any other state that also allows its residents to carry concealed firearms. The individual must not be prohibited by federal law from possessing a firearm and must carry a valid photo identification document along with their permit or proof of eligibility.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is essential for upholding the Second Amendment, ensuring that the right to self-defense does not end at state lines. They highlight that it provides clarity and consistency for law-abiding citizens who travel, preventing them from becoming unwitting criminals due to differing state laws.
Critics contend
Critics contend that this provision undermines states' rights to set their own public safety standards, forcing states with robust permitting requirements to accept permits from states with weaker ones. They argue it could lead to a 'race to the bottom' in gun safety standards and increase gun violence.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances individual Second Amendment rights with the principle of state sovereignty and the ability of states to regulate public safety. It creates a tension between a uniform national standard for concealed carry and the diverse regulatory preferences of individual states.
Section 2(a), inserting 18 U.S.C. 926D(b)
Preservation of Private and Government Property Restrictions
This subsection clarifies that the national concealed carry reciprocity does not override existing state laws that allow private persons or entities to prohibit firearms on their property. It also does not supersede state laws that prohibit or restrict firearms on state or local government property, installations, buildings, or bases.
Section 2(a), inserting 18 U.S.C. 926D(c) and (d)
Legal Protections and Civil Remedies for Permit Holders
This section provides significant legal protections for individuals carrying concealed handguns under this Act. It states that a person cannot be arrested or detained for a firearms violation unless there is probable cause that they are not complying with the Act. It shifts the burden of proof to the prosecution in criminal proceedings to show non-compliance beyond a reasonable doubt and mandates that courts award reasonable attorney's fees to prevailing defendants. Furthermore, it allows individuals whose rights under this section are violated to bring a civil action for damages and other relief against any person, including a state or political subdivision, and mandates attorney's fees for prevailing plaintiffs.
Section 2(a), inserting 18 U.S.C. 926D(f)
Exemption from School Zone Gun Ban and Carry on Federal Lands
This subsection explicitly exempts individuals carrying a concealed handgun under this Act from the federal prohibition on firearms in school zones (18 U.S.C. 922(q)). It further specifies that such individuals may carry concealed handguns in various federal public lands that are open to the public, including units of the National Park System, National Wildlife Refuge System, lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Forest Service.
These clauses shift the burden of proof in criminal proceedings to the prosecution, requiring them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a person carrying a concealed handgun under this Act did not satisfy its conditions. Additionally, they mandate that courts award reasonable attorney's fees to any prevailing defendant in such a criminal proceeding.
Section 2(a), inserting 18 U.S.C. 926D(c)(2) and (3)
Why it matters:While these are standard elements of legal remedy provisions, their placement and technical language can obscure their significant impact on the legal landscape for both individuals and state authorities. They are crucial for the enforcement and practical application of the reciprocity right.
Case for: Supporters argue these provisions are vital to protect individuals from frivolous or wrongful arrests and prosecutions, ensuring that the federal right to carry is not undermined by state-level enforcement. The attorney's fee provision acts as a strong deterrent against overzealous prosecution and compensates individuals for defending their constitutional rights.
Case against: Opponents contend that shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution and mandating attorney's fees could create significant disincentives for law enforcement to act, even when they have legitimate public safety concerns. They argue it places an undue financial burden on state and local governments and could complicate criminal justice processes.
Estimated impact: These provisions could significantly increase legal costs for state and local governments defending against charges related to concealed carry, and could alter law enforcement's approach to such incidents.
This subsection creates a private right of action, allowing any person deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by this Act, under color of state law, to bring an action in court for damages or other appropriate relief against any person, including a state or political subdivision. It also mandates that the court award damages and reasonable attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff.
Section 2(a), inserting 18 U.S.C. 926D(d)
Why it matters:Establishing a private right of action with mandatory attorney's fees is a powerful enforcement mechanism that can significantly impact state and local governments. Its placement may be standard for such provisions but its implications are far-reaching for state liability.
Case for: Proponents argue that this provision is essential for ensuring accountability and providing a robust mechanism for individuals to seek redress if their federally protected concealed carry rights are infringed upon by state or local authorities. It acts as a strong deterrent against unconstitutional actions.
Case against: Opponents contend that this provision opens states and localities to potentially massive financial liabilities and litigation, diverting taxpayer money from essential public services. They argue it could lead to an increase in lawsuits, regardless of merit, simply to recover attorney's fees, and could unduly punish states for attempting to enforce their own public safety laws.
Estimated impact: This provision could lead to significant legal and financial burdens on state and local governments, depending on the frequency and outcome of civil actions brought under this section.
This clause states that a person who possesses or carries a concealed handgun under this Act shall not be subject to the prohibitions of section 922(q) of title 18, United States Code. Section 922(q) generally prohibits the possession of firearms in a school zone.
Section 2(a), inserting 18 U.S.C. 926D(f)(1)
Why it matters:The exemption from the federal school zone gun ban is a highly contentious policy change. Placing it within a later subsection of a broader reciprocity bill, rather than as a headline provision, could be seen as an attempt to minimize immediate scrutiny of this specific expansion of gun rights.
Case for: Proponents argue that law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits should not be disarmed in areas near schools, as they may need to defend themselves or others. They contend that this aligns with the principle of self-defense and removes an arbitrary restriction on permit holders.
Case against: Opponents strongly argue that removing the federal prohibition on firearms in school zones significantly increases the risk of gun violence, accidental shootings, and creates a more dangerous environment for students and educators. They contend that school zones should remain gun-free to protect children.
Estimated impact: This provision would effectively eliminate federal gun-free school zones for individuals carrying under this Act, potentially increasing the presence of firearms in and around schools nationwide.